From apeake at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 10:46:24 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:46:24 +0900 Subject: [governance] Amb. Khan "food for thought " document on Internet governance Message-ID: A "food for thought " document prepared by Amb Khan for the Sept. 6 informal consultations on Internet Governance. Mainly in the form of questions. Does anyone have energy to try and answer? (I have deadlines on other things.) The document also confirms the time management plan (9 half day meetings) and (quoting) "* In line with past practice, observers (business entities, civil society and international organizations) would be accorded a certain time (e.g., initially 15 minutes each and later 5 minutes each per session) for making contributions relevant to the topics under discussion during that session. Unless otherwise decided, observers may be present throughout the work of the Sub- Committee * Small drafting groups may be created by the chair, as and when required. * In the compilation document of comments on the WGIG report (DT/7) government comments would be recorded first followed by observer comments (in alphabetical order) on each item." I'd like to understand what "and later 5 minutes each per session" means. Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From pouzin at well.com Thu Sep 1 11:10:07 2005 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:10:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IPv4 allocation (US Gov version) Message-ID: <200509011510.j81FA7gM029453@ares.enst.fr> Hi, The US Gov has produced comments on the WGIG report: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/contributions/co35.pdf An excerpt from this document: >For example, as of June 2005, cumulative IPv4 address allocations had the >following geographical breakdown - 33% to the Asia Pacific Region, 32% to >North America, 31% to Europe, 3% to South America and 1% to Africa. IPv4 allocations are available as a plain text table of 256 entries at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space (last updated 30 June 2005) The allocation breakdown I get is: 71.7% North America (ARIN + USA orgs) 12.7% Europe (RIPE + Eur orgs) 9.8% Asia Pacific (APNIC + Jap org) 2.3% South America (LACNIC) 0.6% Africa (AFRINIC) 2.9% Miscellaneous (international) Anyone to give it a try ? Best _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Sep 1 12:00:49 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:00:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Amb. Khan "food for thought " document on Internet governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7D34C2BE-F720-41BF-B25D-D47B810F2339@psg.com> On 1 sep 2005, at 16.46, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > A "food for thought " document prepared by Amb Khan for the Sept. 6 > informal consultations on Internet Governance. > > thought.pdf> > > interesting. among the things missing was the entire oversight idea. which is fine with me, unless of course, he like so many others is blending it into the forum discussion. but i don't think so since he doesn't mention it. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 12:27:47 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:27:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] IPv4 allocation (US Gov version) In-Reply-To: <200509011510.j81FA7gM029453@ares.enst.fr> References: <200509011510.j81FA7gM029453@ares.enst.fr> Message-ID: Hi Louis, I'll bite. On 9/1/05, Louis Pouzin wrote: > Hi, > > The US Gov has produced comments on the WGIG report: > http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/contributions/co35.pdf > > An excerpt from this document: > > >For example, as of June 2005, cumulative IPv4 address allocations had the > >following geographical breakdown - 33% to the Asia Pacific Region, 32% to > >North America, 31% to Europe, 3% to South America and 1% to Africa. I don't know the methodolgy they used, so I can't say fair or foul. > > IPv4 allocations are available as a plain text table of 256 entries at: > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > (last updated 30 June 2005) Yes, and when the filed next to the specific /8 says "Various Registries" This address space seems to be pre-RIR space (May 93). Did you count those or exclude them? It amounts to 704 Million IP addresses. > > The allocation breakdown I get is: > > 71.7% North America (ARIN + USA orgs) ARIN up until recently allocated and assigned resources to all of Latin/South America/Carib and Africa south of the Equator. > 12.7% Europe (RIPE + Eur orgs) Up until quite recently the RIPE NCC allocated and assigned resources to all of Africa nouth of the Equator. Perhaps this is where your calculations differ. What methodology did you use? > 9.8% Asia Pacific (APNIC + Jap org) > 2.3% South America (LACNIC) > 0.6% Africa (AFRINIC) > 2.9% Miscellaneous (international) > > Anyone to give it a try ? The NRO does a report at each of their meetings about this, http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/presentations/ripe50-plenary-wed-nro-stats.pdf is the latest I am aware of. The first slide has some of the info you seek. Accurate counting of which IPs are used where is very difficult, as (for example) IPs that RIPE NCC gives to a European satellitte provider are used to provide connectivity (or are further assigned) here in Africa. These are then counted in your (and the US) numbers as European addresses when in fact they are used in Africa. -- 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 Thu Sep 1 18:19:45 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:19:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] * APC Tribute to Chris Nicol * Message-ID: <43177E81.1060802@wz-berlin.de> Dear all on plenary, With great sadness and heavy of heart, i have to share news that our dear sweet friend - chris nicol - died on August 29th after battling with cancer for over a year. Many of you will not have met chris, some of you have, and those that have will know that chris was one of the most deeply committed and passionate social activists, who dedicated his life to creating a more just and equitable world - and the WSIS Process was one where he fought some tough battles working towards achieving that goal, with many of us. Our tribute to chris is below in english, and i will post spanish and portuguese versions in the next messages. If you feel it appropriate, please share this tribute with your own caucuses and working groups. regards to all karen banks, on behalf of the APC. ~~~~~ online tribute and other links: http://www.apc.org/english/index.shtml 30 August 2005 To all in the APC community and to our many friends and partners: TRIBUTE TO OUR FRIEND, COUNCIL AND BOARD MEMBER, CHRIS NICOL On Monday 29 August 2005 the APC network lost someone who was a colleague, a leader and a friend. Chris Nicol, member of the APC council and also of the APC executive board, died in Barcelona after more than a year of struggling against cancer. For much of the time during this battle Chris was winning, continuing to work, travel and network when the difficult cycle of surgery and treatment left him with any spare time. Chris was an Australian who had been living in Barcelona for around 25 years. He also spent time in Nicaragua in the period just after the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship. Chris worked in the British Council in Barcelona for many years, he taught English and set down roots in Catalunya in many ways - politically, culturally, socially and through his long relationship with his partner Chenchy. Chris was also active in the Barcelona solidarity movement with the Zapatistas, organising, raising funds, helping out where he could. And he loved music, wine, and nature. Chris was deeply committed to justice, to humanity. He was a real activist who also threw himself into practical and concrete tasks with energy and humour. Chris became part of the APC community in 1995. His organisation, Pangea, was part of an association of Spanish internet activist organisations which together applied for APC membership. In 2000 Pangea (www.pangea.org) became a member of APC in its own right. Chris was part of Pangea from its first days, working sometimes as a volunteer and sometimes as staff, but always giving heart and soul to the organisation. He first attended an APC council meeting in 1997 in South Africa although many APC people had already met him by then. Chris was first elected onto the APC executive board at the APC council meeting in Uruguay in 2001 and at the time of his death he was APC treasurer. He worked tirelessly at a recent executive board meeting in South Africa in April even though he had only just finished another gruelling round of treatment. For all of us in APC it is very hard to express how much Chris meant in the network. His was always an active voice, supportive and sometimes critical. He was deeply committed to APC strengthening its advocacy role, to being more than a provider of member services. He was one of the first people in APC to raise the issue of free software, to start using GNU/Linux on his desktop, and to develop projects to support organisations in migrate their desktop environments to free and open source software. Chris made two contributions to APC's work recently which will live on for a long time. He was the editor and compiler of "ICT policy: a beginner's handbook" (http://www.apc.org/books) which we published in English in late 2003 and in Spanish this year. This book will be updated with a new version going online on a wiki so that it can remain a living and growing testimony to Chris' work. And, earlier this year, he drafted the outline of a free software initiative for the APC network which we have been building on and which will be presented to APC members later this year. Chris was a permanently engaged member of the APC team participating in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process, from its inception in 2002 through to the latest PrepCom in Geneva, February 2005, one of his last work related trips. In many ways, he was a compass ­ always pointing to those actions that were necessary, just and not always easy - whether it was in solidarity around redressing unjust distribution of resources, the fierce battles around intellectual property and free software, or insisting that the APC team met to communicate and strategise regularly in the hustle and bustle of the United Nations conferences. Every moment was precious to Chris, precious in that he felt one should never be wasted - whether the moment was spent drafting, lobbying, meeting, demonstrating, or talking with friends and colleagues. Chris was always there, whenever we needed him, and was a constant reminder of our message and vision - to create "a world in which all people have easy, equal and affordable access to the creative potential of ICTs to improve their lives and create more democratic and egalitarian societies" (the APC vision). All of us in the APC community want to share our love and support of Chris with his family and his friends, with Chenchy and with Chris' mother and sister in Australia, with his colleagues in Pangea. APC will not forget Chris and will be honouring and remembering Chris Nicol through an initiative that will reflect his passion and committment to creating a more socially just world, and inspire others to continue the battle to do so. We will share more news about this initiative shortly, but at this time, we warmly welcome all of those who knew or knew of Chris and his life work, to share messages on the editable website we have created in his honour. http://actionapps.org/tikiwiki/tiki-index.php?page=APC+messages+to+Chris+Nicol Association for Progressive Communications members and staff 30 August 2005 _______________________________________________ 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 avri at psg.com Thu Sep 1 18:36:34 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 00:36:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Amb. Khan "food for thought " document on Internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <7D34C2BE-F720-41BF-B25D-D47B810F2339@psg.com> Message-ID: <0A2FB60D-82AC-45D0-93CD-A7572063B027@psg.com> ah yes, i missed it. oh well. thanks a. On 1 sep 2005, at 18.32, McTim wrote: > Hi, > > On 9/1/05, Avri Doria wrote: > >>> >> thought.pdf> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> interesting. among the things missing was the entire oversight >> idea. >> > > I see it under Part 4 (a) last item. > > Or is this smt else? > > -- > 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 Fri Sep 2 09:43:29 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:43:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] IPv4 allocation (US Gov version) Message-ID: Louis: The USG comment's method of accounting probably does not count the allocations made prior to the creation of the RIRs. In other words it excludes the prior allocation of around 80(? - just a guess, don't have access to the information here) /8's and concentrates only on what has happened since, say 1999 or so. Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> Louis Pouzin 09/01/05 11:10 AM >>> Hi, The US Gov has produced comments on the WGIG report: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/contributions/co35.pdf An excerpt from this document: >For example, as of June 2005, cumulative IPv4 address allocations had the >following geographical breakdown - 33% to the Asia Pacific Region, 32% to >North America, 31% to Europe, 3% to South America and 1% to Africa. IPv4 allocations are available as a plain text table of 256 entries at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space (last updated 30 June 2005) The allocation breakdown I get is: 71.7% North America (ARIN + USA orgs) 12.7% Europe (RIPE + Eur orgs) 9.8% Asia Pacific (APNIC + Jap org) 2.3% South America (LACNIC) 0.6% Africa (AFRINIC) 2.9% Miscellaneous (international) Anyone to give it a try ? Best _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.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 Sat Sep 3 07:31:08 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 13:31:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Paper on collective learning in WSIS Message-ID: <63028.83.76.131.165.1125747068.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, This might be of interest to someone, perhaps in relation to the debate over the utility of a new IG forum etc. “Collective Learning in the World Summit on the Information Society,” www.cpsr.org/pubs/workingpapers/2/Drake Best, Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development www.ictsd.org Geneva, Switzerland http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche ******************************************************* _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From pouzin at well.com Sat Sep 3 14:07:13 2005 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 20:07:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IPv4 allocation (US Gov version) Message-ID: <200509031807.j83I7DHO015522@ares.enst.fr> Hi McTim and Milton, NB. For the non geek it's helpful to explain the terms. IPv4 addresses are 32 bits. The set of addresses having the same upper (leftmost) 8 bits, used to be called a "class A". Now it's called a "/8". In the following I'll just call it a "block". There are 16 777 216 addresses (2**24) in any such block. There are 256 blocks (of addresses) in the total v4 address space (about 4 .3 billion). The table published by IANA shows which blocks have been allocated and, if so, to which institution. On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:43:29 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote: >The USG comment's method of accounting probably does not count the allocations made prior to the creation of the RIRs. In other words it excludes the prior allocation of around 80(? - just a guess, don't have access to the information here) /8's and concentrates only on what has happened since, say 1999 or so. Possible. Actually I am not trying to explain out the US Gov arithmetics, it's their job. Rather I am interested in the factual "cumulative IPv4 address allocations", as they state. On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:27:47 +0300, McTim wrote: >ARIN up until recently allocated and assigned resources to all of Latin/South America/Carib and Africa south of the Equator. >Up until quite recently the RIPE NCC allocated and assigned resources to all of Africa nouth of the Equator. >Perhaps this is where your calculations differ. LACNIC got its first block in Nov 02, and ARIN got one block in Aug 02. ARIN's allocation did not change. LACNIC got a second block in Apr 03. I don't have older tables to see if this block was transferred from ARIN or taken off unallocated space, as seems to be common practice for extensions. AFRINIC got its only block in Apr 05. It came from reserved space without altering RIPE's allocation. Thus, those new RIR's increased by a mere 3% the total amount of allocated blocks, without changing significantly the geographical distribution pattern. This cannot account for the 40% gap with the US Gov figures. >Yes, and when the filed next to the specific /8 says "Various Registries" This address space seems to be pre-RIR space (May 93). >Did you count those or exclude them? It amounts to 704 Million IP addresses. That's the real bone. I counted them as USA allocations, because there is no mention of RIR or any other institutions. They total 50 blocks. That's a huge lot, more than RIPE, APNIC, LACNIC, and AFRINIC lumped together (40 blocks). To me it smacks of a walled garden. I checked a sampling of 340 addresses allocated to Various Registries. They look like a random sampling of site names as found routinely in the internet. See examples further below. Even though the names may be registered under about any gTLD or ccTLD, the addresses do not belong to the RIR's allocations. Who got these addresses and how ? Tracing the routes would reveal more details on their network attachment, but that's for further study. >Accurate counting of which IPs are used where is very difficult, as (for example) IPs that RIPE NCC gives to a European satellitte provider are used to provide connectivity (or are further assigned) here in Africa. These are then counted in your (and the US) numbers as European addresses when in fact they are used in Africa. Yes. Which addresses are used and by whom is a big black hole. But this is an entirely different issue. For the moment I am concerned with allocation, not use, and no deeper visibility than the IANA allocation. Just to play with various stats methodologies I ran a few more accounting methods. x % means x % of the total of allocated blocks. Table 1. This table was in my previous posting. Various Registries are counted as USA allocations. 71.7% North America (ARIN + USA orgs) 12.7% Europe (RIPE + Eur orgs) 9.8% Asia Pacific (APNIC + Jap org) 2.3% South America (LACNIC) 0.6% Africa (AFRINIC) 2.9% Miscellaneous (international) Table 2. Various Registries are not counted. 61.7% North America (ARIN + USA orgs) 17.2% Europe (RIPE + Eur orgs) 13.3% Asia Pacific (APNIC + Jap org) 3.1% South America (LACNIC) 0.8% Africa (AFRINIC) 3.9% Miscellaneous (international) Table 3. Various Registries are distributed to geographical regions, with the ratios observed presently in the RIR's allocations. 54.6% North America (ARIN + USA orgs) 20.8% Europe (RIPE + Eur orgs) 16.7% Asia Pacific (APNIC + Jap org) 4.0% South America (LACNIC) 1.0% Africa (AFRINIC) 2.8% Miscellaneous (international) Table 4. This the US Gov table. http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/contributions/co35.pdf 32% North America 31% Europe 33% Asia Pacific 3% South America 1% Africa Now, anyone can guess what is factual. Cheers. - - - examples of addresses allocated to "Various Registries" 128.113.128.75 #www.alumni.rpi.edu 129.33.51.74 #cadillac.com 130.186.88.2 #sitesolutions.it 131.103.218.111 #mail15b.boca15-verio.com 132.239.240.58 #starfire.ucsd.edu 133.11.96.73 #mtl.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp 134.179.112.15 #gw.dec.state.ny.us 135.209.208.20 #attws.com 136.199.8.220 #uni-trier.de 137.236.223.7 #xmr3.com 138.89.242.16 #pool-138-89-242-16.atc.east.verizon.net 139.175.54.240 #tpts8.seed.net.tw 140.174.9.102 #emailaccount.com 141.150.47.6 #pool-141-150-47-6.nwrk.east.verizon.net 142.217.61.212 #lt-61-212.telebecinternet.net 143.166.83.230 #dell.com 144.135.25.159 #mta05ps.bigpond.com 145.229.156.178 #onlineni.net 146.101.249.107 #jenniofvegas.com 147.102.1.1 #softlab.ntua.gr 148.221.109.234 #dup-148-221-109-234.prodigy.net.mx 149.174.130.216 #aol.com 150.143.103.54 #coolbreeze.ebay.sun.com 151.197.9.217 #pool-151-197-9-217.phil.east.verizon.net 152.104.8.2 #hk.com 154.32.107.132 #seri.co.uk 155.138.1.54 #svsu.edu 156.27.8.202 #ftp.com 157.157.130.52 #erna.is rup.simnet.is 158.169.134.70 #www.europa.eu.int 159.148.95.5 #tvnet.lv 160.79.226.74 #fee.ourdealsgalore.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 00:56:13 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 07:56:13 +0300 Subject: [governance] IPv4 allocation (US Gov version) In-Reply-To: <200509031807.j83I7DHO015522@ares.enst.fr> References: <200509031807.j83I7DHO015522@ares.enst.fr> Message-ID: Hi Loius, Let me try to expalin again: On 9/3/05, Louis Pouzin wrote: > > On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:43:29 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote: > > >The USG comment's method of accounting probably does not count the allocations made prior to the creation of the RIRs. In other words it excludes the prior allocation of around 80(? - just a guess, don't have access to the information here) /8's and concentrates only on what has happened since, say 1999 or so. > > Possible. Actually I am not trying to explain out the US Gov arithmetics, it's their job. Rather I am interested in the factual "cumulative IPv4 address allocations", as they state. I think Milton's point is that you cannot reliably ascertain what you wish to know from this page. > > On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 19:27:47 +0300, McTim wrote: > > >ARIN up until recently allocated and assigned resources to all of > Latin/South America/Carib and Africa south of the Equator. > > >Up until quite recently the RIPE NCC allocated and assigned resources to all of Africa nouth of the Equator. > > >Perhaps this is where your calculations differ. > > LACNIC got its first block in Nov 02, and ARIN got one block in Aug 02. ARIN's allocation did not change. LACNIC got a second block in Apr 03. I don't have older tables to see if this block was transferred from ARIN or taken off unallocated space, as seems to be common practice for extensions. > > AFRINIC got its only block in Apr 05. It came from reserved space without altering RIPE's allocation. > > Thus, those new RIR's increased by a mere 3% the total amount of allocated blocks, without changing significantly the geographical distribution pattern. This cannot account for the 40% gap with the US Gov figures. I think you missed the point. RIR databases hold records for some of these /8s. ARIN Database holds records for much of this pre-RIR space. The RIRs call this "legacy space" or "Early Registration". An Early Registration Transfer project has been ongoing to try and get the space in the Db where the space is actually in use. So EU bodies that got InterNIC space have been transferred tot eh RIPE db, etc. > > > That's the real bone. I counted them as USA allocations, because there is no mention of RIR or any other institutions. They total 50 blocks. That's a huge lot, more than RIPE, APNIC, LACNIC, and AFRINIC lumped together (40 blocks). To me it smacks of a walled garden. It is the early registrations. They should NOT all be counted as USA space. This will account for at least some of the discrepancy. > > I checked a sampling of 340 addresses allocated to Various Registries. They look like a random sampling of site names as found routinely in the internet. See examples further below. Even though the names may be registered under about any gTLD or ccTLD, the addresses do not belong to the RIR's allocations. Who got these addresses and how ? Tracing the routes would reveal more details on their network attachment, but that's for further study. I don't think name tracking will be so helpful here. Looking at the routing table will be more difficult than looking directly into the RIR Dbs. Having said that, you will need to get copies of the RIR databases and do your queries locally if you want to do comprehensive searches for locations of address blocks. You will need to write to each RIR and ask them for a copy of the data, as you will be rate limited tothe number of queries you can do via scripts. You still won't get locatinos for 100% of the blocks. > > Yes. Which addresses are used and by whom is a big black hole. But this is an entirely different issue. For the moment I am concerned with allocation, not use, and no deeper visibility than the IANA allocation. Then perhaps the US numbers are finer grained than yours. If you count the "Various Registries" blocks as USA space, you will get results that do not map to reality. > > Just to play with various stats methodologies I ran a few more accounting methods. x % means x % of the total of allocated blocks. > > Now, anyone can guess what is factual. or do the hard work to actually find smt that approximates reality. OR You can re-read the US commentt, which I have just done, I think they are only counting allocations since the creation of the RIRs. Here is the quote that leads me to think this: "Continued internationalization of the Internet is evidenced by the recent creation of Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) for Latin America and Africa and the enhanced efforts of the Internet community to work towards an equitable distribution of IP addresses. For example, as of June 2005, cumulative IPv4 address allocations had the following geographical breakdown – 33% to the Asia Pacific Region, 32% to North America, 31% to Europe, 3% to South America and 1% to Africa. For that same period cumulative IPv6 allocations were – 56% to Europe, 23% to the Asia Pacific Region, 17% to North America, 3% to Latin American and 1% to Africa." "For that same period" in re IPv6 leads me to think that they are only counting recent allocations. This easily explains the discrepancy. -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Sun Sep 4 07:58:30 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 12:58:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Amb. Khan "food for thought " document on Internet governance Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050904125826.046080d0@pop.gn.apc.org> hi >A "food for thought " document prepared by Amb Khan for the Sept. 6 >informal consultations on Internet Governance. > > interesting.. >Mainly in the form of questions. Does anyone have energy to try and >answer? (I have deadlines on other things.) maybe we could put this document into a wiki? and people can respond that way, whoever wants to.. we have some proposals already we can slot in.. if people can't access wiki's, we could just post a message here for each question.. and people can answer that way.. we have about 2 weeks, so if we start now we might get something solid ready for prepcom i haven't thought about the questions yet, but think it would be good to think also about questions that are missing.. on into ------- when i look through the doc, one element i find missing are references to human rights.. along the lines of our comments in response to the WGIG.. that the report could have been strengthened by a broader cross-cutting HR framework approach.. and a reference to the overarching development objectives.. some references could be brought into section 5 - enabling environment on stakeholders --------------- roles and responsibilities - greater emphasasis on the principle of shared responsibility, rather than regulation and control (again, could intersect with section 5 enabling environment) coordination - seems a little premature unless the way it's phrased - assume it's referring to greater cooperation between different stakeholders involved in existing processes - maybe the question needs to be broken up - how to improve what we have, and to create what is missing.. section 5 is really rephrasing the recommendations as questions.. maybe there needs to be something allowing for actions to be taken around issues that haven't been prioritised in the final report (ie, the issues in the background document that are not in the final report, or emerging issues) on the process -------------- >In line with the WSIS Bureau proposals on time management, Sub-Committee A would have nine >meetings of three hours duration (27 hours in total), occupying one half-day of each of the first >nine working days of PrepCom-3. >In line with past practice, observers (business entities, civil society and international >organizations) would be accorded a certain time (e.g., initially 15 minutes each and later 5 minutes >each per session) for making contributions relevant to the topics under discussion during that >session. Unless otherwise decided, observers may be present throughout the work of the Sub- >Committee i imagine this means 15 mins at the beginning, and 5 minutes at the end of each session.. we should ask for clarification though.. >Small drafting groups may be created by the chair, as and when required. we could ask to have active Civil society participant(s) in drafting groups, or, to participate as observers.. >In the compilation document of comments on the WGIG report (DT/7) government comments >would be recorded first followed by observer comments (in alphabetical order) on each item. >During the work of Sub-Committee A, further compilation documents, based on written comments >submitted by delegations and observers, would be prepared, along similar lines to DT/7. karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sun Sep 4 08:18:58 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 08:18:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Amb. Khan "food for thought " document on Internet governance In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050904125826.046080d0@pop.gn.apc.org> References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050904125826.046080d0@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: Karen: I think a Wiki is a great idea. Question is where to host it. I can offer a place - consider the offer on the table. let me know... further comments below regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 4-Sep-05, at 7:58 AM, karen banks wrote: > we have about 2 weeks, so if we start now we might get something solid > ready for prepcom > agree. > i haven't thought about the questions yet, but think it would be > good to > think also about questions that are missing.. > > on into > ------- > when i look through the doc, one element i find missing are > references to > human rights.. along the lines of our comments in response to the > WGIG.. > that the report could have been strengthened by a broader cross- > cutting HR > framework approach.. and a reference to the overarching development > objectives.. some references could be brought into section 5 - > enabling > environment Several of the comments (not only from CS, but also from the US and others ) did have references to rights - and yes, they seem to be missing. not good. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Mon Sep 5 19:44:33 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 01:44:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] CSDPTT proposals to Tunis documents In-Reply-To: <23760194.1125908804261.JavaMail.www@wwinf1526> References: <23760194.1125908804261.JavaMail.www@wwinf1526> Message-ID: Jean-Louis: thanks for your comments. much appreciated. Given the long standing vis-a-vis the ITU, I - personally, wouldn't support the call for giving a prominent role to the ITU. Then again, it's just my personal view. I'm keen to hear what others think... I'll put forward a suggestion - get CS to first see if the ITU is willing to reform certain of it's practices vis-a-vis Civil Society - - There's much people have written about this already, especially those on the governance list... I'll just point out one issue that is always raised - that being the terribly expensive pricing they put on reports and documents they produce. If we want the ITU to change then,let's propose a position that civil society has already articulated - than being that creative commons license or even better a GNU type license be adopted. Would the ITU go for it? we should try.. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 5-Sep-05, at 10:26 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Dear all > > You'll find attached the English version of the 3 proposals > submitted by CSDPTT to WSIS CSD on August 30. > > I do hope a wide support of the CS represntatives and organizations > for these proposals, as well as I'm looking for some comments about > them; during our next meetings,as soon as to morrow at Geneva for > those who will attend. > > Many thaks in advance and best regards > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > President CSDPTT > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From maxsenges at gmail.com Tue Sep 6 06:20:00 2005 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:20:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Please give feedback to Position Paper Message-ID: <431d6dac.1b8080d3.06a2.3180@mx.gmail.com> Hello During the last weeks I have been drafting a “Position Paper on the Future Governance of the Internet” for the Committee for the Democratization of the United Nations ( www.kdun.de ). I would greatly appreciate if you could find the time to give some feedback. I am not an expert, so please excuse my outsider (”common sense”) approach. What is the original input of the paper There are two ideas put forward in the paper which I believe might be worthwhile to consider: Internet Constitution To establish cyberspace as the global democratic space capable of changing the way humans interact, communicate and deal with each other, the paper suggests to start working on an Internet Constitution. This Constitution would serve to define the fundamental norms, values, rights and duties each user (netizen) has to agree and comply to when participating in cyberspace. Like this, the ethics and good behavior in this virtual environment could be discussed and agreed upon. This Constitution – when setup to be ratified by each individual netizen - could furthermore represent the acknowledgement of cyberspace as a new global territory for human activity and development. Community Based Governance To construct the internet with most intelligence at the ends of the network (to connect “intelligent” clients over a “dumb” network of cables) has proven to be a good and remarkably flexible and resistant architecture. Inspired by this setup it is suggested to allow and encourage self defined user communities to develop and implement their respective governance and regulatory framework (e.g. for web auctions, or collaborative content and mail filters) while limiting the power of central internet governance institutions to coordination, mediation and facilitation between the interests of stakeholders. (Please read the paper as I have tried to explain the approach there in more detail.) Wiki I have setup a wiki on which you can review and edit the text. The wiki can be found under www.un-collaboratory.net . In case you do not have the time to use the wiki, I attached the draft paper as word rtf. Looking forward to your input Max ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- Max Senges UOC PhD student Carrer Hospital 973o 2a 8001 Barcelona, España Tel: +34 627193395 @: MaxSenges at gmail.com Link to Programme Presentation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- -------------- 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: DRAFT_PositionPaperOnInternetGovernance_01.rtf Type: application/msword Size: 27191 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Danielle.Mincio at bcu.unil.ch Wed Sep 7 04:20:26 2005 From: Danielle.Mincio at bcu.unil.ch (Danielle Mincio) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 10:20:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] IFLA Position on Internet Governance Message-ID: Dear all, You'll find here and in attachment the position of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions on the Internet governance. IFLA Position on Internet Governance 1. As the international professional association concerned with information and library services, IFLA is concerned that Internet governance and management should facilitate unrestricted access to information and freedom of expression and should enable social and economic development and cultural creation by and for all the peoples of the world. 2. IFLA opposes any measures which would lead to control of information access and free expression by commercial, governmental or sectoral interests. Measures which may be necessary to ensure the reliable operation of the Internet, control spam, support intellectual property protection and enable individuals to protect their privacy must not be used to limit the rights expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially those in Article 19. 3. IFLA supports the development of the Internet as a reliable multilingual system which will be available to all and will facilitate unrestricted access to information by all peoples in their languages of choice. 4. In regard to the proposed approaches to the governance of the Internet, IFLA supports a multistakeholder approach which involves governments, civil society and business and therefore endorses both the forum and the principles for global public policy and oversight proposed in the WGIG report. Consistent with these principles and the desirability of minimising administrative overheads, IFLA favours model 1 but with direct representation of all stakeholders on the proposed Global Internet Council. 5. As a voice for the 2.5 billion registered library users across the world and an ECOSOC accredited international professional organisation, IFLA is available to assist with the development of effective models for Internet governance. You'll find other information about IFLA and WSIS on http://www.ifla.org/III/wsis.html and http://www.ifla.org/III/clm/p1/CLM-pr16082005.htm Best regards Danielle -- Danielle Mincio IFLA WSIS Group Conservateur des manuscrits Responsable PAC Bibliothèque cantonale et universitaire Bâtiment central CH 1015 Lausanne Dorigny Tél +41 21 692 47 83 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: %Internet_governance_IFLA.pdf Type: application/applefile Size: 138 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Internet_governance_IFLA.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 41855 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 Sep 7 06:27:39 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 19:27:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] The unacknowledged convergence of open source, open access and open science Message-ID: Perhaps of interest. http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_8/willinsky/index.html A number of open initiatives are actively resisting the extension of intellectual property rights. Among these developments, three prominent instances -- open source software, open access to research and scholarship, and open science -- share not only a commitment to the unrestricted exchange of information and ideas, but economic principles based on (1) the efficacy of free software and research; (2) the reputation-building afforded by public access and patronage; and, (3) the emergence of a free-or-subscribe access model. Still, with this much in common, the strong sense of convergence among these open initiatives has yet to be fully realized, to the detriment of the larger, common issue. By drawing on David's (2004; 2003; 2000; 1998) economic work on open science and Weber's (2004) analysis of open source, this paper seeks to make that convergence all the more apparent, as well as worth pursuing, by those interested in furthering this alternative approach, which would treat intellectual properties as public goods. Thanks to Lessig Blog for the pointer. Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Sep 7 07:04:42 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 20:04:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] Amb. Khan "food for thought " document on Internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050904125826.046080d0@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: Was anyone able to attend the meeting yesterday? How was it? Particularly, anything on how we might be allocated time beyond the 15 minute plus 5 mentioned in the 'food for thought'? Thanks, Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Sep 7 08:04:25 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:04:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] CSDPTT proposals to Tunis documents Message-ID: ITU was the first UN organisation (next to ILO, which has a different model of trilateral partnership) which changed its constiution (in 1994) to open the organisation for non governmental members (it was called the small members in contrast to the big Ms / member states). ITU has now several hundreds of small Ms, mainly from the business sector. ITU people always argue that this is also open for NGOs and CS, but the high annual fee is prohibitive for 99 per cent of NGOs. Another argument ITU is using is that a number of WSIS related events - workshops, symposia etc. - are open to everybody and , mainly, free of charge. If ITU would get a greater role in the follow up of WSIS, one could consider to ask ITU to amend its constitution. Such an amendement could offer a third membership categorie for non-profits etc. with no membership fee but same rights as business members in Study Groups the key policy development and negotiation groups in the ITU structure. Voting rights will remain with big Ms, but to have involved in the bottom up policy development process has some merits. Constitutional changes can be made by the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference only. Such PPCs take plavce very four years (94: Kyodo, 1998: Minneapolis, 02: Marrakesh) The next one will be in October 2006 in Antalya, Turkey. In case WSIS adopts a recommendation that ITU should play a central role in WSIS follow up, such a recommendation should be linked to a duty to guarantee the "full involvment of all stakeholders" (agreed WSIS language) . Furthermore, some governments should be approached to figure out how a draft recommendation could be prepared for Antalaya. The problem here is that governmental ITU people are mainly from the former PTTs and telephone people, with only little involvment (and understandimg) of WSIS issues. Best wolfgang ----Original Message----- From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org on behalf of Robert Guerra Sent: Tue 9/6/2005 1:44 AM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org Cc: WSIS-EU; wsis-finance at yahoogroupes.fr; WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CSDPTT proposals to Tunis documents [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people. Your cooperation is highly appreciated] _______________________________________ Jean-Louis: thanks for your comments. much appreciated. Given the long standing vis-a-vis the ITU, I - personally, wouldn't support the call for giving a prominent role to the ITU. Then again, it's just my personal view. I'm keen to hear what others think... I'll put forward a suggestion - get CS to first see if the ITU is willing to reform certain of it's practices vis-a-vis Civil Society - - There's much people have written about this already, especially those on the governance list... I'll just point out one issue that is always raised - that being the terribly expensive pricing they put on reports and documents they produce. If we want the ITU to change then,let's propose a position that civil society has already articulated - than being that creative commons license or even better a GNU type license be adopted. Would the ITU go for it? we should try.. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 5-Sep-05, at 10:26 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Dear all > > You'll find attached the English version of the 3 proposals > submitted by CSDPTT to WSIS CSD on August 30. > > I do hope a wide support of the CS represntatives and organizations > for these proposals, as well as I'm looking for some comments about > them; during our next meetings,as soon as to morrow at Geneva for > those who will attend. > > Many thaks in advance and best regards > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > President CSDPTT > _______________________________________________ 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 apeake at gmail.com Wed Sep 7 10:21:24 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 23:21:24 +0900 Subject: [governance] IFLA Position on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Danielle, I really think you should look again at the models presented in the WGIG report. Model 1 offers nothing of value, even with IFLA's sensible amendment of the direct representation of all stakeholders. A body under the UN that dictates all Internet policy, from ICANN to spam and cybercrime. I find it hard to believe the IFLA would want to give some of the world's most oppressive regimes the opportunity to set global policy on such a swathe of issues. Hope IFLA will reconsider its position. Model 1 presents a clear threat to the freedoms IFLA champions. Kind regards, Adam On 9/7/05, Danielle Mincio wrote: > > Dear all, > > > You'll find here and in attachment the position of the International > Federation of Library Associations and Institutions on the Internet > governance. > > > IFLA Position on Internet Governance > > 1. As the international professional association concerned with > information and library services, IFLA is concerned that Internet governance > and management should facilitate unrestricted access to information and > freedom of expression and should enable social and economic development and > cultural creation by and for all the peoples of the world. > 2. IFLA opposes any measures which would lead to control of information > access and free expression by commercial, governmental or sectoral > interests. Measures which may be necessary to ensure the reliable operation > of the Internet, control spam, support intellectual property protection and > enable individuals to protect their privacy must not be used to limit the > rights expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially > those in Article 19. > 3. IFLA supports the development of the Internet as a reliable > multilingual system which will be available to all and will facilitate > unrestricted access to information by all peoples in their languages of > choice. > 4. In regard to the proposed approaches to the governance of the > Internet, IFLA supports a multistakeholder approach which involves > governments, civil society and business and therefore endorses both the > forum and the principles for global public policy and oversight proposed in > the WGIG report. Consistent with these principles and the desirability of > minimising administrative overheads, IFLA favours model 1 but with direct > representation of all stakeholders on the proposed Global Internet Council. > 5. As a voice for the 2.5 billion registered library users across the > world and an ECOSOC accredited international professional organisation, IFLA > is available to assist with the development of effective models for Internet > governance. > > > You'll find other information about IFLA and WSIS on > http://www.ifla.org/III/wsis.html and > http://www.ifla.org/III/clm/p1/CLM-pr16082005.htm > > > Best regards > Danielle -- > > > Danielle Mincio > IFLA WSIS Group > Conservateur des manuscrits > Responsable PAC > Bibliothèque cantonale et universitaire > Bâtiment central > CH 1015 Lausanne Dorigny > Tél +41 21 692 47 83 > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Sep 22 08:45:17 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:45:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] Use of SMTP server at the Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4332A75D.5040502@wz-berlin.de> Robert Guerra wrote: > port 25 seems to blocked in such a way that only the itu smtp server > can be used. > > if you use a vpn, or secure smtp (port 465) then it works You can also use the open relay offered by the itu. Replace your smtp server by: smtp.itu.int. It works almost always :-) jeanette > > regards, > > Robert > > -- > Robert Guerra > Managing Director, Privaterra > > > > > > On 22-Sep-05, at 1:59 PM, Dave Kissoondoyal wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> I am sorry if the following should not be addressed if this list. >> >> I have noticed that in the meeting email clients like MS outlook or >> outlook express cannot be used to send emails. >> I have been using my company's SMTP server in Mauritius for sending >> emails. While I am here, I am unable to connect to our SMTP server. >> At first I though that ITU has implemented this to prevent SMTP >> relay. However when I am running my own SMTP server on my laptop >> (through MS IIS), I can send my emails. However the emails do not >> reach the recipients. >> I have done various tests to confirm same. >> >> Here the issue arrises as follows: >> >> Is it a measure from ITU to prevent people from sending spam mails? >> However, what for genuine cases like me who wants to legitimately >> send emails? I am sure there are many cases like me. >> >> If somebody has a solution please do mention to me. In the mean time >> I am using mail2web and webmails for sending my emails. >> >> Thanks >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> >> >> Get the great new Windows Desktop Search - MSN Search Toolbar FREE >> download! >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.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 Tue Sep 27 10:12:41 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:12:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] draft text on political oversight In-Reply-To: <43392D7C.605@wz-berlin.de> References: <43392D7C.605@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <43395359.40208@wz-berlin.de> I have submitted the text on behalf of the Heinrich-Böll Foundation. So, don't get too upset with me:-) I have added a few remarks in reaction to comments from the IG caucus meeting and in reaction to Theresa Swineheart and Paul Twomey, who violently disagreed with our statement. They think point 4 of the statement plays into the hands of China. Here is what I read: Political Oversight 62b: 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 oversight organization for domain names and IP addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard to ICANN be implemented in a reasonable time frame: 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent role of stewardship in relation to ICANN and enters into an adequate host-country agreement for ICANN. 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the community of Internet users, civil society, the technical community, private sector and governments. 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. ICANN must establish a process for extraordinary appeal of its decisions in the form of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission, established on a case-by-case basis. Just to be clear, we are not calling for an oversight structure, and we don't see an independent review process as a path towards that direction. 5. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government transfers the IANA function to ICANN. ------------------------------ Its a start, nothing carved in stone... jeanette Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, Avri and I have drafted some language on political oversight. Text > should be read this afternoon. We have to submit it by 2pm. Please have > a look and let us know if we can read it on behalf of the IG caucus or > if we have to invent another stakeholder group. > jeanette > > > Political Oversight > > 62b: 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 oversight organization for domain names and IP > addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard to > ICANN: > > 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent role of > stewardship in relation to ICANN and enters into an adequate > host-country agreement for ICANN. > > 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on > its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the community > of Internet users, private sector and governments. > > 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. ICANN must establish a review process for its decisions in the form > of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission, established on a > case-by-case basis. > > 5. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government > transfers the IANA function to ICANN. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Sep 24 18:49:54 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 08:49:54 +1000 Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? In-Reply-To: <53848A0B-94FC-43C3-85AD-00A67358FAEF@acm.org> Message-ID: <20050924225751.B860168027@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Avri wrote: >I don't think one has to go as far as giving the GAC a veto. >I think there are intermediate steps that could achieve a similar >effect. e.g. give the GAC, and some CS oriented ICAN entity, >perhaps the ALAC, or something with wider inclusion of users or at >least domain holders, seat(s) on the board and give the GAC the >ability to cause a full review of any ccTLD (and perhaps other issues >related to national policies though this is somewhat more difficult >to define) decision. >what I do agree with is the proposition that ICANN could go a long >way to having a greater degree of multistakeholder control, and that >this needs to be achieved during the year approaching the end of the >MOU, when one can only hope that the US will live up to its >obligation to set the mature and self regulating organization free. Yep - if that is acceptable to governments it would be a good move. Perhaps the only way this will happen is if there is a strong push from Prepcom and a formal approach to ICANN? But your response doesn't address the root zone authorisation function which can't be ignored - if there are government reps on ICANN board, MOU finishes, but US retains unilateral control of root zone authorisation function, I don't think that's a good outcome at all. The preferred model has to address the latter directly or propose a transition. _______________________________________________ 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: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit-multimedia.com Sat Sep 24 18:52:19 2005 From: laina at getit-multimedia.com (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 00:52:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? In-Reply-To: <53848A0B-94FC-43C3-85AD-00A67358FAEF@acm.org> Message-ID: <20050924225233.FWTD1251.morpheus1.pacific.net.sg@LAINATABLET> I tend to agree with Avri that we need to be sure what we are fixing. Although I do feel that oversight by US is the only issue here. ICANN is controversial to many actors, not just governments, as they do not feel it to be truly "multistakeholder", with clear transparency and legitimacy. If you recall, the Dept of Commerce under Ira Magaziner did try to "give over" oversight by calling for the Green Paper and White Paper process of consultation from all actors around the world, including gov. For those of you involved then, you will recall ITU, EU, some Asian governments, etc were all active during that "multistakeholder" process. We also had the International Forum for the White Paper process which tried to bring the process even further to develop clear models (4 were finally submitted through the process), but in the end things were hijacked by vested interests lobbying in DC, and also using the argument that no good alternative existed from any of these models proposed. All the clear principles of the White Paper on accountability, legitimacy, checks and balances through the at-large group etc were hijacked in the end through the closed process of coming up with ICANN. Many are still not implemented. Yes, things need to be done to fix this oversight issue by the US but as you can see, this issue was discussed as way back as 1996 onwards and involves more than this. ICANN started on the wrong foot i.e. without clear legitimacy and mandate from the open consultative process. (Resurrecting the White Paper will show you some of the history to what the Dept of Commerce were themselves proposing back then and the models the rest of the world proposed as solutions. )Not trying to defend the US, it is still worthwhile keeping in mind though that it was the US who initiated the process of internationalising their oversight function in the first place back in 1996. In any case, until there is a clear and better alternative, the US can continue to use that as the excuse for not doing anything more than it has done with ICANN not being perfect either. Trying to fix what is not working in ICANN could help allay some of the concerns of gov and other actors who feel the ICANN is not working too. How we do this with ICANN willing to do this, is another matter and we could use WSIS to put pressure on US to reform ICANN. Just a thought. Whatever it is, we need to understand the ramifications of any solution adopted. Working out solutions for how this should work will take time (we will definitely not solve this here at PrepCom 3). I agree with WGIG that clear mandate and timeline to have a WG to ensure this happens will be more constructive to help move things forward. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 12:21 AM To: Governance Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? On 24 sep 2005, at 23.23, Ian Peter wrote: > The only other situation likely to be simple enough to satisfy would > be a "more power to GAC" one. Let GAC have a right of veto on root > zone policy issues. I know its not ideal to everyone, but is it more > acceptable than nothing happening or some ridiculous government > top-heavy structure being established for this purpose? > I don't think one has to go as far as giving the GAC a veto. I think there are intermediate steps that could achieve a similar effect. e.g. give the GAC, and some CS oriented ICAN entity, perhaps the ALAC, or something with wider inclusion of users or at least domain holders, seat(s) on the board and give the GAC the ability to cause a full review of any ccTLD (and perhaps other issues related to national policies though this is somewhat more difficult to define) decision. what I do agree with is the proposition that ICANN could go a long way to having a greater degree of multistakeholder control, and that this needs to be achieved during the year approaching the end of the MOU, when one can only hope that the US will live up to its obligation to set the mature and self regulating organization free. this is, btw, implicit in my understanding of option 2, as i will argue during the Tuesday forum on the issue. 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 Wed Sep 28 17:53:42 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 07:53:42 +1000 Subject: [governance] final In-Reply-To: <0E3FB139-0B8F-40AD-90BC-B2320C6FFB0A@acm.org> Message-ID: <20050928220230.0F12468033@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> I support Avri's statement as is. Ian Peter Senior Partner Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd P.O Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel +614 1966 7772 Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005) > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance- > bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, 29 September 2005 4:01 AM > To: Governance Governance Caucus > Cc: Jeanette Hofmann > Subject: [governance] final > > Hi, > > I have taken in Karen's grammatical changes and form change > and added gender agreements to 6 > i propose that this is what Jeanette sends in as the time is up. > > a. > > > > Political Oversight > > 62b: 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. > > 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 multistakeholder community > will take part in the process through participation in the ICANN process. > It is also expected that the multistakeholder community will observe and > comment on the progress made in this process through the proposed Forum. > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005 > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Thu Sep 29 11:40:12 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:40:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] draft statement In-Reply-To: <5567646E-D4E1-4C2D-8005-652B6A0020AE@acm.org> Message-ID: <200509292351892.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Not sure which amendments you are adopting in these bracketts but speaking personally not on behalf of my NGO, I like the emphasis on the need to adopt multistakeholder and also not to predefine or limit the role of the stakeholders involved. I am not in Geneva, but it sounds like the Canadians are coming up with somethingmore workable and acceptable. I like the support for this. Overall the spirit of this note is in the right direction of inclusiveness and review also ensure some accountability and mapping progress. The statement is also not too prejudicial or harsh. As an NGO, we have no specific stand on any solution adopted save it be done in the right spirit of cooperation, shared responsibility and the "trusteeship"i.e for the good of all. Thanks, Laina _____ From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 4:59 PM To: Izumi AIZU Cc: Governance Governance Caucus; Jeanette Hofmann Subject: [governance] draft statement hi, a quick pass with adds, deletes and replace] Statement on new proposals Sep 29 Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Good evening everyone. My name is Izumi Aizu[Delete:, succeeding the co-coordinator's role of the] [add: of Glocom speaking on behalf of the] Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus [delete: from my colleague Adam Peake at GLOCOM]. [delete: First we would like to thank all the efforts the delegations are now putting to conclude this two week long session of PrepCom 3. We hope we can go back home with the tangible product of mutual cooperation and collaboration tomorrow. [delete: Now, we again would like to express our great concern, however, about the working modality of the Drafting Group sessions which essentially deny us from meaningful participation. We like to remind you that all of the non-governmental stakeholders, the private sector, international organizations and us, the citizens, or the civil society are your essential partners, that was agreed under the Geneva WSIS principles. Therefore we strongly urge you to reconsider this negative situation and start implement far more constructive and productive working method for any of the remaining work as well as all the work of the Tunis summit, follow up and future works ahead. [delete: On the progress being made at the Subcomitee A on Internet Governance, we would like to share the following observations. First, we welcome [add: the fact] that Subcom A [add: has] finally started to discuss the core issues [delete:in its full slot at this very end of the session.] Civil society welcomes the proposal made this morning by the delegation of Canada. We think it embodies the Geneva Principle of multi-stakeholdership [replace; with/including the] full and equal participation principle, and greater emphasis on inclusion from developing parts of the world. We also welcome the explicit recognition of the WGIG process, the open consultation process. With this encouraging proposal from Canada, Civil Society would like to [replace: retaliate/reiterate] our position on participation [delete: once again] : We seek for full and equal participation of all stakeholders as a matter of principle and a matter of practice. On the proposal made by the European Union, we have carefully read and analyzed it and [replace: came/ have come] to the following conclusion. First, we like to thank EU for having informal consultation with Civil Society this afternoon. We had very constructive meeting and made a meaningful dialogue. As we said during the meeting, we have some concerns and reservations in the following areas. While we also [replace: share/believe] that some adjustments or improvement is necessary in the area of Internet Governance, including that of the current ICANN framework, [add: but] we do not agree that governments alone [replace: will/should] be given any special role over other stakeholders [replace: which/as ] is expressed in this new EU proposal. We do not agree with the language in para 63. which says "with the special emphasis on the complementarity between all the actors involved . including governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations each of them in its field of competence;", we have problem with "each of them in its field of competence " which would confine our ability for full engagement, [add: especially since the agreed language in para 42c attempts to limit civil society to community activity] We also do not support "Para 64. Essential tasks" as a whole. We do not think that the areas described from a) to e) in specifics should rest under the sole involvement of international government involvement, which is clearly against the multi-stakeholder principle WSIS has agreed with. We also do not agree [add: with] the limited [repalce: nature/duration] of [add: the] Forum [add: .][delte: , with predefined period.] We see the need for the periodic review as is described in Canada proposal, but [add: are] not in full support of the default sun-set provision EU proposes. With the same concern, we have doubt[s] about the 2 phase approach [replace: to create / or creating]Forum first, finish that, and then start[ing] the transition. We hope that EU together with other colleagues here in Geneva will find ways to improve these areas and come together for mutually agreeable solution. Again we need true multi-stakeholder practice [repalce: in/with] full and equal [replace: footing/particpation]. Thank you very much. -------------- 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 Sep 29 12:05:37 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:05:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] draft statement In-Reply-To: <99F67580-2C96-40C5-AF10-F46B0C121EBC@acm.org> Message-ID: <200509300017945.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Looks OK although I am not sure what you mean by "Finally we have grave concern about the the level and application of International law, especially with relation to human rights, of the cooperation models.". There are issues on how Iwhat is public and private international law in ICT field. International law in Human Rights is often countered by the argument of national sovereignity. Perhaps the words they already use in WGIG e.g. "freedom of expression" or even "right to communicate" which ITU and others discuss, may be better received and they can mean the same thing- just a suggestion. As for cooperation models, sounds good but again it is new territory so are you referring to any particular model that countries have agreed to under international law. Do you mean they have to give everyone equal voices in this new cooperation model. We tried to invoke some "trust" or "cooperation" models used under the "common heritage of mankind" principle- if you read our statement. Under that concept, again there are no real models that apply as they currently are cooperative models between stakeholders but civil society is a new player there too. We are in new ground, and other than that, no real issue other than let's be clear to get the best effect. Thanks for the hard work you and others have put into trying to get statements out and to help the process along. Regards, Laina signing off at midnight in Singapore _____ From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 5:50 PM To: Izumi AIZU Cc: Governance Governance Caucus; Jeanette Hofmann Subject: [governance] draft statement with edits done (even fixed one of my own typos] & do you still have the same concerns after this meeting? i added a line on human rights. Statement on new chapter 5 proposals Sep 29 Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Good evening everyone. My name is Izumi Aizu of Glocom speaking on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. First, we welcome the fact that Subcom A has finally started to discuss the core issues . Civil society welcomes the proposal made this morning by the delegation of Canada. We think it embodies the Geneva Principle of multi-stakeholdership including the full and equal participation principle, and greater emphasis on inclusion from developing parts of the world. We also welcome the explicit recognition of the WGIG process, the open consultation process. With this encouraging proposal from Canada, Civil Society would like to reiterate our position on participation: We seek for full and equal participation of all stakeholders as a matter of principle and a matter of practice. On the proposal made by the European Union, we have carefully read and analyzed it and have come to the following conclusion. First, we like to thank EU for having informal consultation with Civil Society this afternoon. We had very constructive meeting and made a meaningful dialogue. As we said during the meeting, we have some concerns and reservations in the following areas. While we also believe that some adjustments or improvement is necessary in the area of Internet Governance, including that of the current ICANN framework, we do not agree that governments alone should be given any special role over other stakeholders as is expressed in this new EU proposal. We do not agree with the language in para 63. which says "with the special emphasis on the complementarity between all the actors involved . including governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations each of them in its field of competence;", we have problem with "each of them in its field of competence " which would confine our ability for full engagement, especially since the agreed language in para 42c attempts to limit civil society to community activity. We do appreciate your inclusion of the 'end-to-end principle' in para. 63 since that gives the maximum level of freedom to users at the edge of the network. We also do not support "Para 64. Essential tasks" as a whole. We do not think that the areas described from a) to e) in specifics should rest under the sole involvement of international government involvement, which is clearly against the multi-stakeholder principle WSIS has agreed with. We also do not agree with the limited duration of the Forum. We see the need for the periodic review as is described in Canada proposal, but are not in full support of the default sun-set provision the EU proposes. With the same concern, we have doubts about the 2 phase approach of creating the Forum first, finish that, and then starting the transition. Finally we have grave concern about the the level and application of International law, especially with relation to human rights, of the cooperation models. We hope that EU together with other colleagues here in Geneva will find ways to improve these areas and come together for mutually agreeable solution. Again we need true multi-stakeholder practice with full and equal participation. Thank you very much. -------------- 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-multimedia.com Wed Sep 21 17:55:36 2005 From: laina at getit-multimedia.com (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:55:36 -0700 Subject: [governance] "new" process and players and its impact on IG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050921215544.BBGV1251.morpheus1.pacific.net.sg@LAINATABLET> Hi Carlos, I am sorry I did not get a chance to meet with you, but I just thought I would share another perspective of this "new" process, being a newcomer myself. I can see that the IG caucus group is a group that has been working together to build concensus and common statements, and have done a great job. I think however, we should note that on Monday night, the content and themes group of the CS Plenary, changed the working methods of CS to mirror the government group, i.e. Sub Committee A and B. They decided that the most efficient and effective way for all caucuses at this point in PrepCom 3 is to work using two CS working group...i.e. Subcommittee A group- which turned out to be Internet Governance Caucus and Subcommittee B Caucus- which was not in existence before an so newly created with Bertrand running it. Considering this change, there have been new faces from other caucuses being asked to channel their statements and points of view within IG. I think Adam and Jeanette have done a great job under the circumstances to make the new comers feel welcome and become facilitators to take their views into IG. Many are newcomers but have views they would like to share, which they feel are relevant to the broad definition adopted by WGIG on Internet Governance. Adam and Jeanette have counseled the new comers from these caucuses on how to best impact Subcommitte A by making their statements relevent to the issues on the table of governments and to start proposing text. They have also explained that in lieu of verbal submissions, caucuses could submit written statements. Given this new dynamics, there is little room for concensus building and unified statements aside from IG and trying to get views on the table from different caucuses that related to the issues on the table. I know this is not the ideal circumstance given the work all of you have done over the last year or two to build concensus positions, but it is something that just happened as of Monday in the CS Content and Themes Plenary, and we need to see how to work within it. What Bertrand with Subcommitte B is doing is amazing too. His group meets 7-8pm every evening and then again 10-11am the next morning. He works with small drafting groups and tries to get concensus documents overnight, which is then reviewed by the wider group the next morning. Whilst this is great, there are some NGOs feeling very left out as they lack resources and energy to stay up 7-8pm and overnight with Betrand's smaller group and again the next morning for coffee in an area non-conducive for large group discussions. Those who can, have been included. If this is concensus amongst CS, this can be said to be questionable, but I think everyone is doing the best under the circumstances. Of course I don’t have the history of your first IG group concensus and so I cannot comment on this, and I see there have been many responses on from Bill and others to your mail, I thought I would share this thought on the "new" process and players, so you also see how the dynamics and players in IG Caucus has changed as of Monday, and how Jeanette and Adam are doing their best under the circumstances. I think if we keep as open and transparent, and try to understand how best to work within the current dynamics of the greater CS group, we can make some headway, or we can discuss how to make the process better before end of this week or the next. Just some thoughts to share. Regards, Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of carlos a. afonso Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 3:51 AM To: Jeanette Hofmann; WSIS Internet GovernanceCaucus; Robert Guerra; Adam Peake Cc: magaly at greatvideo.com; wdrake at ictsd.ch Subject: Re: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponement oftoday'scaucus meeting People, Sorry for not being physically more present -- trying to work with the Brazilians as the events unravel at subcommittee A, which is the reason of my earlier arrival in Geneva. I would like to express my concern (which is the concern of the Brazilian NGOs working on Internet/ICT governance issues as well, like INDECS, the Digital TV civil society caucus, CDI-PE, Rits, the Softwarelivre.org group, several other members of the CRIS-Brasil campaign and so on) that, contrary to what the caucus managed to present in subcomm B (a unified statement built by a consensus effort, albeit in a rush, thanks to the great work of the Ralf-Bertrand duo among others), our presentation in subcomm A was piecemeal and the specific part on Internet governance mechanisms not based on consensus. I am afraid the presentation by Bill Drake is based on a vision which is not shared by many civil society organizations. We understand we do not want a "revolution" -- and this is mostly consensus -- but we need some significant changes in the mechanisms, first, to consider the set of priority issues which are not in the current ICANN-based system, and second, to take into account the need for practical actions regarding paragraph 48 of the WGIG report, among other reasons. If we endorse the statement as a consensus, we are in practice almost doing what ICANN wants us to do, ie., defend the creation of an innocuous consultative/advisory forum which might never be really taken seriously. I understand the opening statement by Adam tried to show this did not represent consensus, but I did a survey later on among Southern delegates (Brazil, India, Iran, Cuba among others) and most of them understood otherwise. Many of these delegates also wrongly associate model 2 of the WGIG report with the civil society caucus -- we must recall model 2 was built under the influence of ICANN-related people and business reps in the WGIG. Do we really want this perception to stay? What will be our consensus position? Just to make clear, my position (to which the Brazilian position has basically converged) was expressed in my "parallel" paper written during the last months of the WGIG. What are the other positions in the caucus on this which we could analyze and try to build a consolidated/consensus position? Or we just leave things as they are? fraternal regards --c.a. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272 - sexto andar 22270-060 Rio de Janeiro Brasil tel +55-21-2527-5494 fax +55-21-2527-5460 http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus , plenary at wsis-cs.org, Robert Guerra , Adam Peake Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:07:12 +0200 Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponement oftoday's caucus meeting > [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 everyone, unfortunately, weh need to postpone the IG caucus meeting > for 40 minutes. I would suggest we start at 3.10 pm in room E 30/56. > The > reason is that Adam and I have been asked to attend the bureau meeting > today. > > Please spread the word to those who might not have Internet access > this morning so that we avoid people coming in vain and disappear > again. > > Sorry again, hopefully see you at 3.10 pm then. > > jeanette > _______________________________________________ > 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 jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca Thu Sep 22 07:00:11 2005 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:00:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] Subcomitee A: Full Report Thursday Sept 22 In-Reply-To: <64980.83.76.136.227.1127377739.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <002101c5bf64$ce6de2f0$1bd96a9c@jgsnotebook> See detailed report below: Key points: - drafting groups will be formed - will be limited number to accommodate smaller delegations - stakeholders (NGOs, CS and PS) role in them is still open: will either be A) closed completely; B) allowed in as observers only with some speaking rights; C) allowed full participation in negotiations - this will be decided right away - chair will diffuse a document for discussion, form drafting groups for tomorrow am Full notes: Subcommittee A: Thursday Sept 22- 10-13 hrs, RM XX Before session: Handout: The Chair’s Discussion Paper (paper version of discussion agenda projected on screen and discussed yesterday) reads as follows: (English only) Preambular text Part 1: introduction - Geneva principles - WGIG mandate - Working Definition Part 2: Stakeholders - roles and responsibilities - coordination Part 3: Public policy issues relevant to IG 3a) infrastructure and management of critical internet resources 3b) use of internet - internet stability - spam - access to info and knowledge - freedom of expression - data protection and privacy rights - consumer rights - Intellectual property rights Part 4: Measures to promote development - capacity building - meaningful participation in global policy development - multilingualism - enabling environment Part 5: follow-up and future arrangements -approach: evolutionary / incremental -framework for interface between existing and future arrangement -possible governance/ oversight function: (four models) - possible forum -recommended mandate -structure- light/ heavy? Loose/ tight? 10:15 Karen Johnson of Council of Europe -bring to delegates attention that the statement in WGIG report that “there is a lack of multi-lateral forums on prevention of cyber crime” is false. -encourages WSIS to adopt Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime so that work is not duplicated. CariCom (Caribbean Communication) - our lack of participation in the WSIS process reflects not a lack of interest but a lack of capacity common to all developing countries - access to backbone, use and misuse, d 10:23 Chair: We went through parts 1-3 yesterday, we are now on part 4 (of above document) -asks for comments (none given) Chair: moving to part 5 -asks comments: Russia - section 5, bullet 3, suggests remove word “four” so that it says only models, since all models have been critiqued - would like document DT8 annotated with cross references to WGIG report and document DT 7, the comments received on Chair: this paper (DT 8 as written above) has no status, is just a tool to facilitate discussion, but annotation can be done. Columbia - sure that there are other models, so we should say models instead of ‘four models’, but shouldn’t be too vague because we have to know what the models are. Chair: -reviews models from WGIG report Brazil - we need some background information- the WGIG report was requested by our heads’ of state, it is not without status, it is highest possible status. It deserves our utmost attention. - We have to focus our discussion. UK (on behalf of EU) - support chair’s plans for discussion - still much work to be done to build on common ground, build on shared understandings - what is the timetable? When does chair envisage tabling text? - Reiterates support for WGIG report, but that it is not a negotatied text, agree that other material can contribute to the discussion, notably document DT 7 (the comments on WGIG report) - There is no unique definition of IG, WGIG is a working def., we can discuss as needed and revisit at the end. Chair: - timetable will be aggressive: maybe starting tomorrow, be ready for afternoon and evening sessions - to discuss exact deadlines soon. Iran - questions the / between evolutionary/ incremental/ revolutionary - is ‘framework’ something different from model and forum? The United States - a number of interventions have made points with which we would like to associate - we have a view on the WGIG definition we will discuss it - we agree with Russia on the 4 models, there are nuances between the model that may come from external to the WGIG report. - Overall accept the chair’s text as a non-status working document. Singapore - the scheme of this document is the correct one and the order is the correct one. Chair: Language should be in readable prose but accessible to heads of states and technocrats. Honduras - recommends that “access for all” is mentioned as a specific point in document as it is in WGIG report and not just assumed as part of implementation Saudi Ariba - in favour of Irans suggestion RE part 5, what is the chair’s postion? Chair: You are attaching too much importance to the text- they are just bullet points for discussion, not points for negotiation. Cuba -part 4 is separated from part 3, thus development issues are separate from public policy issues - like to associate with iran’s points on part 5, and with brazil, iran and others and that we have to move quickly to issues of text in regards to part 5 in particular Chair: - We can find some language to link IG and development Brazil - CCBI said yesterday that they do not support a more centralized system for IG, the Brazilian gov agrees with this totality because it is impossible to have a system more centralized than the current system where 1 company from California controls everything. They only way to solve this is to have an Internet Counsel. This is common to WGIG models 1, 2 and 3 and we just need to negotiate the details. This is, I think a hunaimus decisions of the WGIG report and I have heard nothing to contradict it from the other delegations. Chair. - You are backing a fusion between model 3 and 4? Hati - We need ICT programs without which interconnection and even training will be meaningless for development. Chair - segments closed temporarily, we will hear statements Egypt - further expansion of list to include all developmental concerns Stakeholders: PS: Mathew Sheers, Internet society - It is very unlikely that people around the world care about root servers, IPv 6 etc, but they do care about access costs, language availability and training etc. - Quotes paragraph 4 of WSIS declaration - We have spent too much time discussing architexture, more real issues. - The IS has spent much time in the last decades doing capacity building - Make connectivity and capacity the issues here - The existing structures work, the public policy issues are addressed elsewhere. - We in the Internet community are interested in organic chance, participants in the WSIS must acknowledge that the Internet community has worked - The internet community includes standards setting institutions and many other types of orgs. It is at the core of the development of the past, present and future of the internet yet they are not one of the primary stakeholders. Demands to acknowledge that. Ishia from CCBI - clarifies position on centralization. - Discussion of forum function, there are many existing forum. Internet is designed and works in a de-centralized design. - CCBI supports efforts to encourage participation in existing forums. - Any additional exercises would have to add value. - Would be a duplication of costs and resources and could sidetrack efforts to increase access to ICTs- to the real reason of the WSIS - Any events or spaces should be to exchange info on existing organizations. Heather Shaw ICC, on Behalf of CCBI - creating new fora can be expensive, particularly where existing mechanisms exist and thus existing mechanisms should be exhausted first. - WSIS should foucs on more meaningful participation in existing fora as a discussion of capacity building. - Translation of docs, travel expenses for developing countries. - All people must have access to basic education and access to ICT training - Educators should use info about current and future marketplaces to structure curiulms - Submitts language suggestion for chapter 3 (very long, missed it- look for text version) CS: Ralf on behalf of Privacy and security group - only if people can use it freely can the Internet be the important tool of development - support WGIG conclusions on privacy - lack of rules on problem - joins Montreaux declaration in calling on UN to enact global law - joins in calls to enact global privacy forum - will submit language soon Adam Peake IG cacus - Civil society not satisifid with roles and responsibilities as described in Geneva dec, but are more than satisified with the roles and responsibilities described in WGIG report Venezuela - We haven’t got to the heart of the matter, we need to hurry - As regards part 4, we propose to put all of these into a single part that could be called governance models. The important thing is to reach agreement. - Proposes that we set up several groups to discuss the, by tomorrow by latest. Chair - consolidate your own and regional positions and then reach out to other delegations - I am thinking about working groups. - There will be no prepcom III bis, everything must, must, must be done here, there will be no intersectional meeting of any kind. El Salvador - overlap between 3a and part 5 of chair’s document Saudi Arabia (on behalf of Group of Arab Countries) - Arab group prepared to make statement on part 5. Chair - calls for cross fertilization to synthesize ideas proposal 1: - Drafting groups as of tomorrow - Chair will circulate a text with blanks in it in areas where common ground has not been established. Paper will not have any status. Designed to instigate submission of language and thus, negotiation amongst positions. - Rolling text by early next week. - Likeminded groups should meet this afternoon, try to build coalitions, cross group dialogues. - Asks for direction on the possibility of having CS, PS and International orgs as observers of drafting groups. US - Practicality and principle - Many delegations are small in terms of the number of experts that they can bring into drafting groups. Thus, few groups are better - In response to the Internet Society, we seek an opportunity for those groups to participate in the debate much more than 15 minutes at the end of every session. They need to be at the table. Brazil - we are here negoating a text to be signed by our heads of state, this is an intergovernmental process. We have CS and PS in our delegation, but we have to have a moment when governments sit together to decide. Dr. Kelly (from Chair). - relevant sections from Rules of Procedures section 8 rule 51 - no text relating specifically to drafting groups or working groups Saudi Arabia - small number of groups - must be set up after principle decisions have been taken here - the Geneva summit set the precedent already, the same method should be adopted here. Members of CS and PS- through their delegations- may participate, there is no need to invent a new mode of participation. Senegal (on behalf of Africa) -limited numbers of groups Canada - 2 areas of agreement amongst all. Security and multi-stakeholder - There are many stakeholder groups that can bring a great to negotiation (as with US). - Need to deal in plenary with some issues first. Chair: - things will go to groups and come back to plenary. Plenary should not block the work of the working groups. Iran - limited numbers of groups - national committees established with multi-stakeholders, but mandate not clear here for this, this is an intergovernmental process. - Sites rule 55, NGOs etc can distribute observers at public meetings, drafting meetings would not be public. El Salvador Chair Singapore UK (on behalf of EU) - need to draw on multistakeholderism to the maximum in the drafting of text. Australia - associate with Canada about concern for more discussion in plenary first - prefer a small number of drafting groups - would support the involvement of NGO stakeholders in drafting groups - we see value in those contributions of these groups - much of the expertise lies with these groups - rules of P suggest question is open to plenary Nicaragua (on behalf of GROLAC) - concerns about small delegations China - we have spent a lot of time working with the private sector, but the negotiations themselves are intergovernmental negotiations. Honduras -maybe should be regional groups. - any other stakeholders who want to observe can participate Turkey - supports the proposals and looks forward to working with stakeholders in observer capacity, following the rules of P Singapore - limited size delegation - observation by multi-stakeholder, but no negotiation New Zeeland - more time in plenary - multi-stakeholder participation, use the WGIG report conclusions to involve them now. Norway - multi-stakeholder approach should be stakeholders as observers with the possibility to talk, but not in the drafting possibility itself. Pakistan (on behalf of Asian group) - The Asian group is of the view that the this prepcom should adhere to the rules and procedures established during the Geneva documents. Switzerland - necessary to give the right to speak to stakeholders in the meetings India - supports Brazil and China, but at the same time the drafting groups must have observers from other stakeholders, so we support Singapore Canada - points out that not all regional groups are in the business of coordinating positions Barbados - expertise of stakeholders is vitally important Togo - limited number of groups Sudan - we are not convinced of need of groups, it will all come back here in the end - suggests 2 groups, - 5.3: models for IG - and one which deals with all of the other matters South Africa - we thought that that confusion over stakeholders was cleared using the rules of P in the Geneva phase, that roles for observers were there. Chair - rules of procedure stickly followed do not allow for parcipation - precendant suggests possibility - we are in a grey area Indonesia - supports chair, Asia group Nigeria - the rules need to be followed, if they participate they have no voting rights Nepal - it wouldn’t be a bad idea to seek input from observers, but not in dafting process Lebanon - confirm Saudi Arabia / Brazil, stakeholders should not participate in intergovernmental drafting groups Australia - asks legal advice - supports Singapore position, think it is important that they speak but do not have negotiating powers Algeria - limited groups and open ended groups - prefer to stay in white area of rules rather than grey area Azerbaijan - very usefull to invite all of the stakeholders according to the existing rules Chair - no objection to setting groups up - number should be limited - no objection that I circulate a paper - associating stakeholders: 3 postions emeged - 1. associate them; 2. don’t associate them; 3. associate them, give them statements to make, but they do not vote. Gave sinagpore and those who supported them 5 minutes to convert everyone else to the middle road. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-= 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 William Drake Sent: September 22, 2005 4:29 AM To: Governance Subject: [not_spam] [governance] ICT4Peace meeting and draft report Hello, Over the past year I've been working on a project for the Swiss government with Daniel Stauffacher (Swiss WSIS ambassador) and others on the use of ICT in (military) conflict management, humanitarian relief, and peacebuilding operations, www.ict4peace.org. The final report of the first project phase will be released at the Tunis Summit, where we'll also do a parallel event with Former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari etc. If anyone is interested in these issues, there will be a short parallel event on the project tomorrow Friday 23rd, 13.00 – 14.00 hours, Palais des Nations, room XXIII, Presentation of the ICT4Peace Report by Ambassador Stauffacher, Mr. William Drake, Mr. Paul Currion and Ms. Julia Steinberger. The event is organized by the Swiss Executive Secretariat for the WSIS. The draft report is now online at the following rather unfortunate URL: http://www.ict4peace.org/fs-search/download/ICT4Peace%20report,%20Sept%2 019%202005.doc?version_id=8952 Best, Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development www.ictsd.org Geneva, Switzerland http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche ******************************************************* _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca Thu Sep 22 07:16:16 2005 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:16:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] IG working group compositon- update In-Reply-To: <002101c5bf64$ce6de2f0$1bd96a9c@jgsnotebook> Message-ID: <002401c5bf67$0d195d70$1bd96a9c@jgsnotebook> No definitive results of consultation lead by Singapore and el Salvador on role of Non-gov stakeholders in Subcommittee A working groups. Consultation will continue and results will be announced 10 am tomorrow. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-= 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 Jeremy Shtern Sent: September 22, 2005 7:00 AM To: 'Governance ' Subject: [not_spam] [governance] Subcomitee A: Full Report Thursday Sept 22 See detailed report below: Key points: - drafting groups will be formed - will be limited number to accommodate smaller delegations - stakeholders (NGOs, CS and PS) role in them is still open: will either be A) closed completely; B) allowed in as observers only with some speaking rights; C) allowed full participation in negotiations - this will be decided right away - chair will diffuse a document for discussion, form drafting groups for tomorrow am Full notes: Subcommittee A: Thursday Sept 22- 10-13 hrs, RM XX Before session: Handout: The Chair’s Discussion Paper (paper version of discussion agenda projected on screen and discussed yesterday) reads as follows: (English only) Preambular text Part 1: introduction - Geneva principles - WGIG mandate - Working Definition Part 2: Stakeholders - roles and responsibilities - coordination Part 3: Public policy issues relevant to IG 3a) infrastructure and management of critical internet resources 3b) use of internet - internet stability - spam - access to info and knowledge - freedom of expression - data protection and privacy rights - consumer rights - Intellectual property rights Part 4: Measures to promote development - capacity building - meaningful participation in global policy development - multilingualism - enabling environment Part 5: follow-up and future arrangements -approach: evolutionary / incremental -framework for interface between existing and future arrangement -possible governance/ oversight function: (four models) - possible forum -recommended mandate -structure- light/ heavy? Loose/ tight? 10:15 Karen Johnson of Council of Europe -bring to delegates attention that the statement in WGIG report that “there is a lack of multi-lateral forums on prevention of cyber crime” is false. -encourages WSIS to adopt Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime so that work is not duplicated. CariCom (Caribbean Communication) - our lack of participation in the WSIS process reflects not a lack of interest but a lack of capacity common to all developing countries - access to backbone, use and misuse, d 10:23 Chair: We went through parts 1-3 yesterday, we are now on part 4 (of above document) -asks for comments (none given) Chair: moving to part 5 -asks comments: Russia - section 5, bullet 3, suggests remove word “four” so that it says only models, since all models have been critiqued - would like document DT8 annotated with cross references to WGIG report and document DT 7, the comments received on Chair: this paper (DT 8 as written above) has no status, is just a tool to facilitate discussion, but annotation can be done. Columbia - sure that there are other models, so we should say models instead of ‘four models’, but shouldn’t be too vague because we have to know what the models are. Chair: -reviews models from WGIG report Brazil - we need some background information- the WGIG report was requested by our heads’ of state, it is not without status, it is highest possible status. It deserves our utmost attention. - We have to focus our discussion. UK (on behalf of EU) - support chair’s plans for discussion - still much work to be done to build on common ground, build on shared understandings - what is the timetable? When does chair envisage tabling text? - Reiterates support for WGIG report, but that it is not a negotatied text, agree that other material can contribute to the discussion, notably document DT 7 (the comments on WGIG report) - There is no unique definition of IG, WGIG is a working def., we can discuss as needed and revisit at the end. Chair: - timetable will be aggressive: maybe starting tomorrow, be ready for afternoon and evening sessions - to discuss exact deadlines soon. Iran - questions the / between evolutionary/ incremental/ revolutionary - is ‘framework’ something different from model and forum? The United States - a number of interventions have made points with which we would like to associate - we have a view on the WGIG definition we will discuss it - we agree with Russia on the 4 models, there are nuances between the model that may come from external to the WGIG report. - Overall accept the chair’s text as a non-status working document. Singapore - the scheme of this document is the correct one and the order is the correct one. Chair: Language should be in readable prose but accessible to heads of states and technocrats. Honduras - recommends that “access for all” is mentioned as a specific point in document as it is in WGIG report and not just assumed as part of implementation Saudi Ariba - in favour of Irans suggestion RE part 5, what is the chair’s postion? Chair: You are attaching too much importance to the text- they are just bullet points for discussion, not points for negotiation. Cuba -part 4 is separated from part 3, thus development issues are separate from public policy issues - like to associate with iran’s points on part 5, and with brazil, iran and others and that we have to move quickly to issues of text in regards to part 5 in particular Chair: - We can find some language to link IG and development Brazil - CCBI said yesterday that they do not support a more centralized system for IG, the Brazilian gov agrees with this totality because it is impossible to have a system more centralized than the current system where 1 company from California controls everything. They only way to solve this is to have an Internet Counsel. This is common to WGIG models 1, 2 and 3 and we just need to negotiate the details. This is, I think a hunaimus decisions of the WGIG report and I have heard nothing to contradict it from the other delegations. Chair. - You are backing a fusion between model 3 and 4? Hati - We need ICT programs without which interconnection and even training will be meaningless for development. Chair - segments closed temporarily, we will hear statements Egypt - further expansion of list to include all developmental concerns Stakeholders: PS: Mathew Sheers, Internet society - It is very unlikely that people around the world care about root servers, IPv 6 etc, but they do care about access costs, language availability and training etc. - Quotes paragraph 4 of WSIS declaration - We have spent too much time discussing architexture, more real issues. - The IS has spent much time in the last decades doing capacity building - Make connectivity and capacity the issues here - The existing structures work, the public policy issues are addressed elsewhere. - We in the Internet community are interested in organic chance, participants in the WSIS must acknowledge that the Internet community has worked - The internet community includes standards setting institutions and many other types of orgs. It is at the core of the development of the past, present and future of the internet yet they are not one of the primary stakeholders. Demands to acknowledge that. Ishia from CCBI - clarifies position on centralization. - Discussion of forum function, there are many existing forum. Internet is designed and works in a de-centralized design. - CCBI supports efforts to encourage participation in existing forums. - Any additional exercises would have to add value. - Would be a duplication of costs and resources and could sidetrack efforts to increase access to ICTs- to the real reason of the WSIS - Any events or spaces should be to exchange info on existing organizations. Heather Shaw ICC, on Behalf of CCBI - creating new fora can be expensive, particularly where existing mechanisms exist and thus existing mechanisms should be exhausted first. - WSIS should foucs on more meaningful participation in existing fora as a discussion of capacity building. - Translation of docs, travel expenses for developing countries. - All people must have access to basic education and access to ICT training - Educators should use info about current and future marketplaces to structure curiulms - Submitts language suggestion for chapter 3 (very long, missed it- look for text version) CS: Ralf on behalf of Privacy and security group - only if people can use it freely can the Internet be the important tool of development - support WGIG conclusions on privacy - lack of rules on problem - joins Montreaux declaration in calling on UN to enact global law - joins in calls to enact global privacy forum - will submit language soon Adam Peake IG cacus - Civil society not satisifid with roles and responsibilities as described in Geneva dec, but are more than satisified with the roles and responsibilities described in WGIG report Venezuela - We haven’t got to the heart of the matter, we need to hurry - As regards part 4, we propose to put all of these into a single part that could be called governance models. The important thing is to reach agreement. - Proposes that we set up several groups to discuss the, by tomorrow by latest. Chair - consolidate your own and regional positions and then reach out to other delegations - I am thinking about working groups. - There will be no prepcom III bis, everything must, must, must be done here, there will be no intersectional meeting of any kind. El Salvador - overlap between 3a and part 5 of chair’s document Saudi Arabia (on behalf of Group of Arab Countries) - Arab group prepared to make statement on part 5. Chair - calls for cross fertilization to synthesize ideas proposal 1: - Drafting groups as of tomorrow - Chair will circulate a text with blanks in it in areas where common ground has not been established. Paper will not have any status. Designed to instigate submission of language and thus, negotiation amongst positions. - Rolling text by early next week. - Likeminded groups should meet this afternoon, try to build coalitions, cross group dialogues. - Asks for direction on the possibility of having CS, PS and International orgs as observers of drafting groups. US - Practicality and principle - Many delegations are small in terms of the number of experts that they can bring into drafting groups. Thus, few groups are better - In response to the Internet Society, we seek an opportunity for those groups to participate in the debate much more than 15 minutes at the end of every session. They need to be at the table. Brazil - we are here negoating a text to be signed by our heads of state, this is an intergovernmental process. We have CS and PS in our delegation, but we have to have a moment when governments sit together to decide. Dr. Kelly (from Chair). - relevant sections from Rules of Procedures section 8 rule 51 - no text relating specifically to drafting groups or working groups Saudi Arabia - small number of groups - must be set up after principle decisions have been taken here - the Geneva summit set the precedent already, the same method should be adopted here. Members of CS and PS- through their delegations- may participate, there is no need to invent a new mode of participation. Senegal (on behalf of Africa) -limited numbers of groups Canada - 2 areas of agreement amongst all. Security and multi-stakeholder - There are many stakeholder groups that can bring a great to negotiation (as with US). - Need to deal in plenary with some issues first. Chair: - things will go to groups and come back to plenary. Plenary should not block the work of the working groups. Iran - limited numbers of groups - national committees established with multi-stakeholders, but mandate not clear here for this, this is an intergovernmental process. - Sites rule 55, NGOs etc can distribute observers at public meetings, drafting meetings would not be public. El Salvador Chair Singapore UK (on behalf of EU) - need to draw on multistakeholderism to the maximum in the drafting of text. Australia - associate with Canada about concern for more discussion in plenary first - prefer a small number of drafting groups - would support the involvement of NGO stakeholders in drafting groups - we see value in those contributions of these groups - much of the expertise lies with these groups - rules of P suggest question is open to plenary Nicaragua (on behalf of GROLAC) - concerns about small delegations China - we have spent a lot of time working with the private sector, but the negotiations themselves are intergovernmental negotiations. Honduras -maybe should be regional groups. - any other stakeholders who want to observe can participate Turkey - supports the proposals and looks forward to working with stakeholders in observer capacity, following the rules of P Singapore - limited size delegation - observation by multi-stakeholder, but no negotiation New Zeeland - more time in plenary - multi-stakeholder participation, use the WGIG report conclusions to involve them now. Norway - multi-stakeholder approach should be stakeholders as observers with the possibility to talk, but not in the drafting possibility itself. Pakistan (on behalf of Asian group) - The Asian group is of the view that the this prepcom should adhere to the rules and procedures established during the Geneva documents. Switzerland - necessary to give the right to speak to stakeholders in the meetings India - supports Brazil and China, but at the same time the drafting groups must have observers from other stakeholders, so we support Singapore Canada - points out that not all regional groups are in the business of coordinating positions Barbados - expertise of stakeholders is vitally important Togo - limited number of groups Sudan - we are not convinced of need of groups, it will all come back here in the end - suggests 2 groups, - 5.3: models for IG - and one which deals with all of the other matters South Africa - we thought that that confusion over stakeholders was cleared using the rules of P in the Geneva phase, that roles for observers were there. Chair - rules of procedure stickly followed do not allow for parcipation - precendant suggests possibility - we are in a grey area Indonesia - supports chair, Asia group Nigeria - the rules need to be followed, if they participate they have no voting rights Nepal - it wouldn’t be a bad idea to seek input from observers, but not in dafting process Lebanon - confirm Saudi Arabia / Brazil, stakeholders should not participate in intergovernmental drafting groups Australia - asks legal advice - supports Singapore position, think it is important that they speak but do not have negotiating powers Algeria - limited groups and open ended groups - prefer to stay in white area of rules rather than grey area Azerbaijan - very usefull to invite all of the stakeholders according to the existing rules Chair - no objection to setting groups up - number should be limited - no objection that I circulate a paper - associating stakeholders: 3 postions emeged - 1. associate them; 2. don’t associate them; 3. associate them, give them statements to make, but they do not vote. Gave sinagpore and those who supported them 5 minutes to convert everyone else to the middle road. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-= 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 William Drake Sent: September 22, 2005 4:29 AM To: Governance Subject: [not_spam] [governance] ICT4Peace meeting and draft report Hello, Over the past year I've been working on a project for the Swiss government with Daniel Stauffacher (Swiss WSIS ambassador) and others on the use of ICT in (military) conflict management, humanitarian relief, and peacebuilding operations, www.ict4peace.org. The final report of the first project phase will be released at the Tunis Summit, where we'll also do a parallel event with Former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari etc. If anyone is interested in these issues, there will be a short parallel event on the project tomorrow Friday 23rd, 13.00 – 14.00 hours, Palais des Nations, room XXIII, Presentation of the ICT4Peace Report by Ambassador Stauffacher, Mr. William Drake, Mr. Paul Currion and Ms. Julia Steinberger. The event is organized by the Swiss Executive Secretariat for the WSIS. The draft report is now online at the following rather unfortunate URL: http://www.ict4peace.org/fs-search/download/ICT4Peace%20report,%20Sept%2 019%202005.doc?version_id=8952 Best, Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development www.ictsd.org Geneva, Switzerland http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche ******************************************************* _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca Fri Sep 23 08:55:29 2005 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 08:55:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Summar Notes- Subcomitee A (IG) : Friday September 23 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003401c5c03e$153d2040$3ae06a9c@jgsnotebook> Summary Notes on Subcomitee A Friday Sept 23 There has been a lot of activity posted on the listserves since the session ended, apologies if this duplicates a message already posted. Overview of Activity Today in Subcommittee A (Internet Governance): - Chair asked for results of his consultation yesterday on the role of stakeholders in the drafting groups from Singapore and El Salvador. - Singapore, having conducted roughly half of the consultation reported that almost all countries agreed on the point that the stakeholders (Private Sector, Intergovernmental Organizations and Civil Society) should be allowed to enter the room at the beginning of each drafting group meeting and give a statement. Singapore then suggest that a majority of the delegations with whom it had consulted felt that stakeholders should then be forced to leave, and a minority felt that stakeholders should then be allowed to remain in the room as observers to the negotiations (with no speaking or negotiating rights). - El Salvador, speaking on the other half of the delegations whom it had consulted suggested that, in its sample, the majority was in favour of allowing stakeholders to have observer status and the minority was in favour of closing the room after opening statements. - The Chair of Subcommittee A, recognizing this as an unresolved issue of Prepcom process, thus passed the matter upwards to the Chair of the entire Prepocom, who was to have held informal consultations at 12pm on this issue. We are as yet unaware of his decision. - The chair then introduced the non-paper which could serve as the basis of negotiations over langue in the working groups. It is available online here: http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1962|0>http:/ /www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1962|0 -There was debate about the paper, some (US and Canada) felt it had too many preformed conclusions but most accepted that it could be worked with. The chair re-assured that it was a neutral and non-biased non-paper and that any perceived conclusions in it would just be negotiated away. -Discussion then turned to the logistics of the drafting groups. It was suggested that the non-paper should be debated first, but the chair non-the-less proposed that he make his suggestions today. -He suggests three drafting groups: DG1. On part 1, part 2 and part 3b of his non-paper DG2. on part 4 with a particular focus on measures to support development of in his non-paper DG3. On par 3a and 5 of his non-paper. - The Chair suggests that he himself will chair DG 3. - It is then decided that, as the text is not yet translated into any languages other than English, as the Delegations have not had time to analyze it or to confer with their regional and national delegations and, as there is not yet a version of the text available that cross references it with the Chair's food for thought document, the WGIG report (DT 5) and the comments on the WGIG report (DT 7), that the delegates will have the weekend to review the non-paper and consider if the chair's proposed methodology is appropriate. It is also decided that the Chair will need to give consideration to the question of if DGs will work in parallel or one after the other so that smaller delegations can participate in all three. - Thus, despite some objections that this is developing far too slowly and that there is not enough time left in Prepcom to accomplish this negotiation, the session is adjourned with the decision that first thing Monday AM, it will be discussed if the Chair's suggestions for the composition of drafting groups is acceptable. Presumably, the idea is this will be a quick process and that the drafting groups themselves will begin in earnest on Monday, but as of Monday at 10am Subcomitee A will still be in the plenary stage discussing its methodology. Cheers, PS. Please feel free to send questions/ clarifications on-list or off-list on any of these points. In answer to some queries I received yesterday: Please also feel free to insert this text in blogs or cross post it if you like (I kindly ask however that you please be careful to keep it in its context however). Robert Guerra will also be putting it into his blog, though I do not have the link at the moment. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-= 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 Danny Butt Sent: September 23, 2005 7:01 AM To: Governance Governance Caucus Subject: [not_spam] Re: [governance] proposed drafting groups Well that's interesting. But what happens if (say) the public policy issues and the work of group 3 is not aligned? It also seems to me that the "development" area will end up having little leverage on outcomes, as all the implementable action looks to be in group 3 (and some of 1). having read the document, my suggestions for an expanded description of Civil Society's role seem out of place, so apologies. It looks like it should just be one sentence. Actually, I can't quite tell what Part Two is doing in the Chair's document if the stakeholders have already been defined elsewhere? Couldn't the whole thing be taken out entirely? Cheers, Danny On 23/09/2005, at 8:44 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Amb Khan has now proposed 3 drafting groups to be set up: > > Drafting group 1: Part 1 (introduction), Part 2 (stakeholders), > Part 3b > (public policy issues related to the use of the Internet) > Drafting group 2: Part 4 (Development) > Drafting group 3: Part 3a (Infrastructure, Management), Part 5 > (Follow up) > > > Governments are asked to comment on this proposal monday. So, nothing > will happen until then. Now, if that isn't an efficient procedure... > jeanette > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Sep 29 13:37:09 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:37:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] press conference Message-ID: <433C2645.706@wz-berlin.de> Civil society plans to organize a press conference tomorrow. The content and themes meeting suggested that focal points for the two subcommittees should speak on behalf of the various working groups and caucuses. The current agreement is to circulate a statement that reflects our position regarding multistakeholder participation in the drafting group. In addition to that, three people will be able to speak with the press. Since I leave tomorrow and probably won't be able to attend the press conference, I'd like to suggest Avri to speak on behalf of the Internet Governance caucus. Is that ok for everybody. We need to give a name tomorrow morning at the plenary meeting. please a quick response from those listening. thank you, jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Thu Sep 29 17:05:53 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:05:53 -0300 Subject: [governance] press conference In-Reply-To: <433C2645.706@wz-berlin.de> References: <433C2645.706@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <433C5731.2020608@rits.org.br> I agree. --c.a. Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Civil society plans to organize a press conference tomorrow. The content >and themes meeting suggested that focal points for the two subcommittees >should speak on behalf of the various working groups and caucuses. > >The current agreement is to circulate a statement that reflects our >position regarding multistakeholder participation in the drafting group. >In addition to that, three people will be able to speak with the press. >Since I leave tomorrow and probably won't be able to attend the press >conference, I'd like to suggest Avri to speak on behalf of the Internet >Governance caucus. Is that ok for everybody. > >We need to give a name tomorrow morning at the plenary meeting. please a >quick response from those listening. thank you, >jeanette >_______________________________________________ >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 Sep 30 03:56:07 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:56:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Forum/oversight: Middle Ground proposal In-Reply-To: <3035.156.106.217.12.1128065405.squirrel@156.106.217.12> References: <433C2645.706@wz-berlin.de> <3035.156.106.217.12.1128065405.squirrel@156.106.217.12> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050930084512.03f046d0@pop.gn.apc.org> hi we had an interesting discussion last night about the new 'middle ground' proposal from Canada/NZ/Aus/Switzerland/US/Singapore/Argentina/Uruguay - which, if you read carefully, is very familiar - many of the key points from the WGIG recommendations are there.. still has a few fuzzy bits but seems to have the support of the African Group at least.. we all had hard copy last night, but it's not online yet.. does anyone have a copy? article in herald tribune .. re EU proposal karen http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/29/business/net.php EU and U.S. clash over control of Net By Tom Wright International Herald Tribune FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 [] GENEVA The United States and Europe clashed here Thursday in one of their sharpest public disagreements in months, after European Union negotiators proposed stripping the Americans of their effective control of the Internet. The European decision to back the rest of the world in demanding the creation of a new international body to govern the Internet clearly caught the Americans off balance and left them largely isolated at talks designed to come up with a new way of regulating the digital traffic of the 21st century. "It's a very shocking and profound change of the EU's position," said David Gross, the State Department official in charge of America's international communications policy. "The EU's proposal seems to represent an historic shift in the regulatory approach to the Internet from one that is based on private sector leadership to a government, top-down control of the Internet." _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Sep 28 05:24:16 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:24:16 +1000 Subject: [governance] room documents posted this morning In-Reply-To: <62947.195.186.175.34.1127897491.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <20050928092755.89BE674010@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2033|2034|2035|20 36|2040|2037|2038 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 William Drake > Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2005 6:52 PM > To: jeanette at wz-berlin.de > Cc: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] protest statement drafted by Avri > > Hi, > > Fine with at least one awake gringo... > > Bill > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann > > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 10:42 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] protest statement drafted by Avri > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > Avri has redrafted our statement on exclusion of stakeholders from the > > drafting groups. We weren't be able to discuss it in plenary this > > morning due to lack of time. We would thus like to read this statement > > this morning on behalf of the IG caucus. Any objections to that? I know, > > you americans are still sleeping. Sorry... > > jeanette > > > > Internet Governance Statement on the Decision to Exclude > > Non-governmental stakeholders from Drafting Groups > > > > September 27, 2005 > > > > 0. We want to thank the chair for your personal efforts to ensure > > transparency and inclusion. We also want to thank the many nations that > > have supported the non-governmental organizations in our quest to fully > > participate in this Prepcom. Now that it has become the practice of > > some drafting groups to expel non-governmental participants, Civil > > society is forced to protest > > > > Civil Society believes all non-governmental partners should be able to > > make statements on the same basis as agreed for the subcommittees, to > > remain in the room as observers for the entire session and to further > > contribute at the discretion of the chair of the drafting groups. Such > > procedures would put into practice the commitment to the “full > > participation of all stakeholders” (e.g. Para 39.) > > > > 1. The decisions to exclude non-governmental stakeholders from > > meaningful participation in the drafting groups are not acceptable as a > > matter of principle. The WSIS and the WGIG have affirmed that governance > > of the Internet must be based on real partnerships with the > > participation of all stakeholders in an open, inclusive and transparent > > manner. These principles are central to the Geneva documents. > > > > The decisions made to exclude non-governmental stakeholders from > > meaningful participation in the drafting groups breaks these fundamental > > conditions and undermines the legitimacy of all outcomes of the WSIS. > > The sincerity of commitments made by some governments to these > > principles is now open to question. > > > > 2. The decisions to exclude non-governmental stakeholders from the > > drafting groups are not about rules and procedure, but rather a matter > > of political courage and principle. In each meeting you have the choice: > > to be inclusive or exclusive, to work in partnership, with transparency > > and openness, or to chose not to do so. There was a great opportunity > > here to move forward with all the progress we have made within the UN > > and WSIS, but this has been a move backwards. > > > > 3. The Internet is the creation of the multi-stakeholder cooperation of > > academia, civil society, governments, private sector and technologists. > > There has never been a more successful multi-stakeholder partnership > > than the one that has created and nurtured the Internet. Governments in > > Geneva risk jeopardizing this partnership. > > > > 4. The WGIG process demonstrated that civil society organizations > > contribute positively. Our exclusion deprives the Prepcom of valuable > > knowledge, expertise and perspectives. Civil society has been, and will > > continue to be, the main force for promoting capacity building and > > development of the Internet in developing countries. Civil society > > understands what is needed in order to continue that work, and exclusion > > from the drafting groups makes it more difficult for us to continue that > > work effectively. > > > > 5. The WSIS Plan of Action cannot be implemented by governments alone: > > the active engagement of civil society actors is needed in the follow-up > > stage; our exclusion today would discourage many from engaging after > > Tunis and would therefore reduce the chances of effectively implementing > > the ambitious Plan of Action of Geneva. > > > > 6. We strongly protest the decisions to exclude non-governmental > > observers from the drafting groups. The Tunis declaration will be > > meaningless if it is not seen as legitimate by all those involved in the > > creation and evolution of the Internet, its applications, services and > > content. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005 > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca Thu Sep 22 09:48:40 2005 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:48:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] Sept 22 / IG subcomittee (A) excutive summary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003401c5bf7c$5c9bee20$1bd96a9c@jgsnotebook> Hi Michael and others who may not want to read 11 pages of scrambled notes in UN speak, Here is a quick and dirty executive summary of this (Thurs) AM's Subcommittee A meeting on Internet governance; -they discussed the items described in the chair's document in general terms. - decided that drafting groups will be formed to work on getting language on specific issues - these groups will be limited number to accommodate smaller delegations - stakeholders (NGOs, CS and PS) role in them is still open: will either be A) closed completely (Brazil, Iran China etc) ; B) allowed in as observers only with some speaking rights (Singapore, el Salvador etc); C) allowed full participation in negotiations (US, most strongly). This was to be decided right away through a consultation co-ordinated by Singapore and el Salvador. Singapore came back and said that it was agreed upon that it will be alright to allow stakeholders to attend at the outset, they will be invited to present statements. Thereafter there is unresolved tension between 2 views: 1). That they would then be asked to leave, negotiation would occur without stakeholders in the room 2). Instead be allowed to remain in the room to observe with no right to speak. - the consultation will continue and results will be announced first thing tomorrow on the status of stakeholder (CS, International NGOs, PS) participation in the draft groups/ negotiation - The chair will diffuse a nondocument for discussion to serve as the basis for the negotiation over language. It is different from the document that he put out today, but has not been seen but is believed to be based on the WGIG report, his initial chair non document and the comments received on both. It is a non status document. - Tomorrow, the chair will announce what the status of stakeholders is in the drafting groups, diffuse his nonpaper and give the marching orders on these drafting groups (number, theme, schedule, deliverables etc). Hope that helps a little. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-= 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 Gurstein, Michael Sent: September 22, 2005 8:24 AM To: Robert Guerra; Izumi AIZU Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org Subject: [not_spam] Re: [governance] Sept 22 / Morning subcomittee notes Robert and all, Thanks very very much for the on-going notes (they give a strong sense of the process) but it would help a lot for those of us following at a distance if we could have an occasional "wrap-up" of the current state of play (sorry for the on-going tv sports metaphors), but what we are getting through the lists is a play by play and some of the internal strategic discussions and banter, but there isn't much stepping back and giving one a sense of either the current score or overall what is happening with the game, the league standings, the drive for the Championship Cup etc.etc.... This may not matter much as the game is being played out on the ground, but this approach certainly doesn't build a strong (or informed) base of supporters. MG -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: September 22, 2005 2:12 PM To: Izumi AIZU Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Sept 22 / Morning subcomittee notes My complete notes are on my blog @ On 22-Sep-05, at 1:15 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > OK, the webcast came back now. I missed the first portion > of Chair's summary, but so Singapore and El Salvador will report back > tomorrow morning, right? > yes. they will report back in the morning with what consensus (if any) they can come up with. > 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-multimedia.com Tue Sep 20 16:07:50 2005 From: laina at getit-multimedia.com (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:07:50 -0700 Subject: [governance] Today's Subcommittee A meeting In-Reply-To: <43304751.3080602@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <20050920200755.YCQK1251.morpheus1.pacific.net.sg@LAINATABLET> Thanks Jeanette for that detailed input on the proceedings of this morning and for all that great work. I was wondering if you may also wish to explain to this group, the "new working methods" as decided by the content and themes plenary. You did touch upon this at the end of your mail, but perhaps reiterating it could ensure everyone is on the same page. From what I understand, the idea is to mirror the workings of the governmental discussions, i.e. now the Internet Governance caucus has become sort of the Subcommittee A working group for civil society inputs coordinated by you, and there is a new caucus for Subcomittee B, which Betrand de La Chapelle is coordinating. The idea from what I understood it, is an attempt to get a more organised effort from civil society to make a better impact on this PrepCom 3 process. Thanks Jeanette and Adam for clarifying how the various caucuses can participate in IG caucus verbally and for distributing the IG Caucus inputs to the WGIG process to be used as a basis for further discussion. I also believe the consistent time slot 2.30pm to 4.30pm in a consistent room, Room E3056/58, combined with this mailing list will keep the process transparent, efficient and effective for many of us new comers. Perhaps you or Adam may wish to further clarify to others, since many may not have been in the room either last night or tonight or are even here in Geneva for that matter. Best Regards, Laina Raveendran Greene Values and Ethics Caucus member -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 10:31 AM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Today's Subcommittee A meeting Hi, as I just learned from Rik, I am supposed to give an overview on the meeting of Subcommittee A. While I took some notes, they are not half as systematic as those Rik provided on yesterday's plenary meeting. Frankly, I would be more sorry about this if anything of great relevance had happened in this meeting. Today's meeting was devoted to general comments on the WGIG report. The governments spoke for a bit more than two hours. None of the statements was surprising. Most governments reiterated what they have said all along. The perhaps nicest statement came from Norway. While the delegate was talking I considered asking him to join the civil society Internet Governance caucus :-) Here are my notes from the Norway statement: Norway: overarching principle, allow the Internet to grow, need to ensure stability, appreciate groups consensus; welcome that IG definition is not only about root zone but also security, crime, capacity building, human rights. There is no global forum for dialogue, need for new model, merits ne forms of institutional coordination. Need for forum with full involvement, governments, private sector, civil society; should be linked to UN, allows for meaningful participation of all, incl. development areas. Forum should be designed lightweight, efficient, IG should build on existing strctures, but with stronger recogniztion of public policy issues; welcome working group to recognize freedom of expression as one of the most important public policy issues! China commented almost exclusively, and in a very emotional way, on yesterday's plenary discussion on the accredition of the chinese human rights group. The US statement followed the Chinese statement. It didn't respond to the Chinese intervention. It was fairly general and didn't contribute anyting concrete. Civil society used its 15 min. time slot today for 5 interventions. Adam has already posted them. We will have another 15 minutes, which we can divide between Thursday and Friday. We have no speaking time left for tomorrow. From what we picked up today, the whole week will be devoted to statements on several parts of the WGIG report. The actual drafting will not start before the weekend. Amb. Khan asked all stakeholders to deliver in the coming days written text ("language") for the final Tunis document. In other words, the time for comments is more or less over. We have to draft input now for the final documents. The Internet Governance caucus thus asks all other working groups and caucuses to deliver text that shall be included in our contribution to the Tunisia documents. The basis for our contributions should be the civil society position paper on the WGIG report. This position paper can be found here: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/contributions/co55.doc To conclude, what we have to do in the following days is to choose speakers and topics for the second speaking slot, and to draft text for our contribution for the final documents. Hopefully, I didn't forget too much and I don't sound too confused, 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 laina at getit.org Thu Sep 29 09:35:45 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 15:35:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509292147477.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Agreed with you Lee. There is a need to remind people about the openess of the Internet and the spirit in which it was created and spread around the world. In our statement, we tried to remind delegates that the Internet was created by individuals with a high sense of shared responsibility and trust, and any efforts for IG, whether improving the status quo, creating a forum and/or new oversight mechanisms, should all be done within these same spirit. Currently, as Amb Klarkin pointed out, we are at a unique juncture of public and private international law coming together. It has happened before from the 60s to 90s, with the rise of MNCs and international law moving towards the application of "soft laws" and increase of private international law applications. Now we have the civil society equation, which is new to some agencies especially the likes of ITU. It is a very unique juncture of the creation of a "new form of cooperation" between stakeholders and a new form of "soft law" (even moving beyond what we have in PIL....a term used in public international law vis a vis MOUs e.g. lke the one we had on GMPCS on LEOs etc..). Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee McKnight Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:21 PM To: wdrake at cpsr.org; wdrake at ictsd.ch; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function Karen, Bill, I appreciate your intent Karen and APC's intent but agree with Bill that 'binding international agreements' on openness is a contradication in terms that will never fly. Language more along the lines that the forum's efforts should keep in mind the need to preserve the Internet's essential features, such as, 'openness etc..' might have the opposite effect of making agreement easier, since then the forum is signalling the techies that it will not muck things up. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> wdrake at cpsr.org 09/29/05 5:55 AM >>> Karen, > >In the context of the evolving public and technical policy landscape of > >the Internet there will be a need to concretize binding international > >agreements that relate to: > > > >- the architectural principles of the Internet, including > >interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle I am very strongly opposed to putting this in the forum, and believe it will provide the USA and business with a big opening to reject the forum outright. I hope you will reconsider, it's dangerous. Rest is consistent more or less with IGcaucus etc. BD _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Sep 25 15:46:29 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 05:46:29 +1000 Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050925195434.9D51668022@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> McTim, let's separate the issues here. There is a digital divide issue being addressed at WSIS. There is also an Internet governance issue being addressed. WE have no disagreement about the importance of the first issue. Addressing this appropriately is important. However, this does not distract from the importance of the second issue. They are separate and will both be addressed. On the second issue (correct me if I am wrong) ISOC has no position on the unilateral USG control of root zone authorization, opposes a forum function, and rejects all four governance models. I suggested > There is at least a strong chance that no firm structural recommendation > will come from Prepcomm, but there seems at the same time (taking the Chairs > non-paper) an acknowledgement that some change is needed. I realize that > there are a bunch of ambassadorial types in Geneva from ISOC arguing the > opposite, but lets hope the argument that change is needed sticks. CS should > enforce that. Which structural change recommendations in Internet governance is ISOC supporting or recommending? Thanks for engaging, 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: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, 25 September 2005 9:17 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: wdrake at ictsd.ch; Governance; jeanette at wz-berlin.de; ajp at glocom.ac.jp; mueller at syr.edu Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? Hello Ian, On 9/24/05, Ian Peter wrote: > There is at least a strong chance that no firm structural recommendation > will come from Prepcomm, but there seems at the same time (taking the Chairs > non-paper) an acknowledgement that some change is needed. I realize that > there are a bunch of ambassadorial types in Geneva from ISOC arguing the > opposite, but lets hope the argument that change is needed sticks. CS should > enforce that. Actually the ISOC ambassadors are arguing no such thing. We realise that Inet Governance mechanisms need to include more (and better informed) stakeholders. What we are trying to put forth is the notion that WSIS is supposed to be about connecting the unconnected, building a more inclusive Information Society, ICT4D, etc. IIRC, our consensus position is that settling the ownership of the rootzone question will not make Internet access any cheaper, more reliable or faster; nor will it connect the unconnected, train folk on IT usage or positively impact any of the other development issues that get lost when we focus on narrow IG issues. > > Usually before change occurs a "burning platform for change" needs to be > understood and realized. The burning platform for change here is: > > "US unilateral control of root zone policy is unacceptable for an > international network. Period." (apologies to Ambassador Gross) You may be right about this. however, I think that a more fruiful use of WSIS time, energy and monies would be to electrify remote communities, build telecoms infrastructure, train local communites in ICT usage, etc. > There's some thoughts anyway. Good luck achieving anything next week! It > will require a big dose of pragmatism, from what I am reading. You are certainly correct on this point! -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Sep 25 17:09:15 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:09:15 +1000 Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050925211721.1143B68023@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Count me in on this agreement as well - Sounds to me like we have a broad consensus on a non binding forum, given Carlos's comments here. -----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, 25 September 2005 11:24 PM To: ian.peter at ianpeter.com; ca at rits.org.br Cc: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; wdrake at ictsd.ch; governance at lists.cpsr.org; jeanette at wz-berlin.de Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? Surprisingly, I find myself in significant agreement with the first two steps of Carlos's concept of an ideal sequence. >>> Carlos Afonso 09/25/05 5:14 AM >>> >- Agreement now on the immediate need of an advisory forum >(with as many additional functions as it is possible to negotiate >-- and these might happen in steps after the forum is created), >- Immediate establishment of the process towards and international >Internet governance convention, deriving from it the oversight >functions and mechanisms needed An major changes in oversight require careful negotiation of principles and also careful limitation of the powers of governments over the Internet. This requires a negotiation and a process by which governments and citizens can ratify (i.e., voluntarily accept) such an agreement. >- The USA gets convinced that ICANN must become a true global > body, host country agrement and all; this agreement means a >total autonomy contract between ICANN and the USA similar to >any country agreement with hosted international organizations -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Thu Sep 29 11:50:38 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:50:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509300002509.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Perhaps Milton, we could spell the problem we are trying to fix rather than giving the answer outright. Given the public, private international law, versus softlaw, versus application of international law by each country is different (ie some countries require ratification by congress or something before international law becomes applicable in their countries, etc) so it is not as easy as to say "binding int'l agreements". I agree however the issue is an important one and is the main cause of the "ruffle". How to make ICANN transparent, accountable and legitimate with universal participation. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 5:45 PM To: wdrake at cpsr.org; wdrake at ictsd.ch Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function No, you are wrong I think. The "binding international agreements" could serve to protect end to end and openness from interference, mostly by governments, just as human rights agreements protect people from interference with rights. That is not anything like an "oversight Council" which stands above ICANN/or other Internet administrators and providers and decides where to intervene. Perhaps the language needs to be clarified, and its implications thought out more, but APC statement seems to me to be merely repeating the advice some of us offered that the Forum needs to focus on getting negotiated principles in place. The Forum does not have the negotiation power, but could serve as a preparatory process where things are discussed, and then taken into other forums. In fact, that could happen whether a statement says so or not. >>> wdrake at cpsr.org 09/29/05 11:21 AM >>> The problem is not the invocation, the problem is this: "In the context of the evolving public and technical policy landscape of the Internet there will be a need to concretize binding international agreements...The forum should monitor this evolving landscape with a view to the initiation of a process to concretize such international agreements." This is no fly territory to the US, business, and probably other OECD governments. Creeping council... BD _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.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 Sep 29 20:34:46 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 02:34:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] press conference In-Reply-To: <433C6B02.3030903@gmx.net> Message-ID: <20050930084600.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Agreed. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 12:30 AM To: Jeanette Hofmann Cc: 'Governance Governance Caucus' Subject: Re: [governance] press conference Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Civil society plans to organize a press conference tomorrow. The >content and themes meeting suggested that focal points for the two >subcommittees should speak on behalf of the various working groups and caucuses. > >The current agreement is to circulate a statement that reflects our >position regarding multistakeholder participation in the drafting group. >In addition to that, three people will be able to speak with the press. >Since I leave tomorrow and probably won't be able to attend the press >conference, I'd like to suggest Avri to speak on behalf of the Internet >Governance caucus. Is that ok for everybody. > > I am happy that Avri speaks for the Internet Governance caucus. Norbert Klein _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.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 Sep 29 10:09:07 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:09:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050929222090.SM01024@LAINATABLET> So true. And these principles, including that of shared responsibility ensures that we can then count on it as the NGN. Interesting that few people involved in the IP NGN issues are involved in IG issues. I think this is key. Meanwhile, whilst I was in Geneva, I heared rumours that some delegations (not to be named) are hoping to use the lack of info of the public Internet and how this open architecture works, to tell delegates that want to control the Internet, to agree to have their own DNS and IP system, without telling them that that would be introducing an alternative root system, thereby fragmenting the open and public architecture of the Internet. Not sure how this has progressed over the last few days, but I was concerned about this. I was also concerned that some CS players were feeding this confusion by making such statements too. This gets emotions high. Also they are not making a difference between oversight of new names and existing one (especially TLDs) and also the difference between management of IP address allocation issues which is not really under ICANN or US gov as such. DNS wise, The Somalia? And Libya? examples were being circulated as saying the US can get a CCTLD off the Internet if they like to. Apparently coincidentally or NOT, these countries were in discussions or something with the US when it happened. As far as I know, the individuals running the master and the copies around the world of the root server, will usually not allow this to happen. It may have happened because the administrator did not pay their dues for the CCTLD or something. Between this and IP issues, there may also be concern that as we go IP NGN globally, allocation issues will also be important and not sure they understand how this will be done. I was involved in APNIC';s early days and I do know misconceptions governments have about this. Being part of and having a say in APNIC is not something they know how to do, as these are new cultures to them. Getting the facts right would certainly help diffuse the emotions running high in Geneva. Not break it but diffuse it. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and ideas Ronda. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ronda Hauben Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 3:55 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Laina Raveendran Greene Cc: 'Lee McKnight'; wdrake at ictsd.ch Subject: Re: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function About 'end-to-end' and 'open architecture' Actually the architectural principle for the internet was 'open architecture' which meant that all the info about the the communicating networks would function as peers of each other,rather than requiring that any one become a component of another." A definition of open architecture is "Open architecture...describes the structure of the Internet, which is built on standard interfaces, protocols, a basic data format, and a uniform identifier or addressing mechanism. All the information needed regarding the interconnection aspects is publicly available." The end to end principle has been promoted as the essence of the Internet, but the Internet is not any single network (which goes from one end to another end.). The Internet is a network of networks. So it is important that this interconnection of dissimilar networks be recognized in characterizing the Internet, as this is the conception of its origin and what its nature is. This is what makes it possible for so many dissimilar networks to be interconnected in today's Internet. Ronda http://umcc.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/birth_tcp.txt http://www.circleid.com/article/96_0_1_0_Chttp://www.circleid.com/article/96 _0_1_0_C http://umcc.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/birth_tcp.txt On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > > Agreed with you Lee. There is a need to remind people about the > openess of the Internet and the spirit in which it was created and > spread around the world. In our statement, we tried to remind > delegates that the Internet was created by individuals with a high > sense of shared responsibility and trust, and any efforts for IG, > whether improving the status quo, creating a forum and/or new > oversight mechanisms, should all be done within these same spirit. > > Currently, as Amb Klarkin pointed out, we are at a unique juncture of > public and private international law coming together. It has happened > before from the 60s to 90s, with the rise of MNCs and international > law moving towards the application of "soft laws" and increase of > private international law applications. Now we have the civil society > equation, which is new to some agencies especially the likes of ITU. > It is a very unique juncture of the creation of a "new form of > cooperation" between stakeholders and a new form of "soft law" (even > moving beyond what we have in PIL....a term used in public > international law vis a vis MOUs e.g. lke the one we had on GMPCS on LEOs etc..). > > Laina > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee McKnight > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:21 PM > To: wdrake at cpsr.org; wdrake at ictsd.ch; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function > > Karen, Bill, > > I appreciate your intent Karen and APC's intent but agree with Bill > that 'binding international agreements' on openness is a > contradication in terms that will never fly. > > Language more along the lines that the forum's efforts should keep in > mind the need to preserve the Internet's essential features, such as, > 'openness etc..' might have the opposite effect of making agreement > easier, since then the forum is signalling the techies that it will not muck things up. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>>> wdrake at cpsr.org 09/29/05 5:55 AM >>> > Karen, > >>> In the context of the evolving public and technical policy landscape > of >>> the Internet there will be a need to concretize binding > international >>> agreements that relate to: >>> >>> - the architectural principles of the Internet, including >>> interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle > > I am very strongly opposed to putting this in the forum, and believe > it will provide the USA and business with a big opening to reject the > forum outright. I hope you will reconsider, it's dangerous. > > Rest is consistent more or less with IGcaucus etc. > > BD > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.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 Sep 29 11:26:40 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:26:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200509292338681.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Totally agree. I was involved in some of the IANA with Postel, with Green and White Paper and was also disillusioned with how ICANN was formed. Did watch it through the "reform" of what was broke and see how many of the issues remained unresolved, i.e. GAC, At-large etc. So it is not just gov but also some other stakeholders calling for reform. Thanks for your comments. Laina -----Original Message----- From: Ronda Hauben [mailto:ronda at panix.com] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 4:29 PM To: Laina Raveendran Greene Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Lee McKnight'; Ronda Hauben; wdrake at ictsd.ch Subject: RE: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function Yupe - having some actual education about the Internet and its origins would have been something one would have hoped that the WSIS process would have spent some resources on - to start the process off on a sound note. But perhaps people had to get interested in why this is important, which maybe is only now happening. In any case it is good it happens. The interconnection of dissimilar but peer networks is a critical part of the nature of the Internet, and that is why the creation of ICANN was a serious problem from the beginning. Under IANA, there was a mailing list of the administrators of the cctld's where there was some form of consultation process and discussion of what was happening with regard to the decisions being made. I only saw the mailing list at the time when ICANN was in the works, but ICANN was a serious diversion from the way that there had been an effort to have a collaborative process with feedback in the whole creation and development of the Internet. The problems introduced by the way that ICANN was created, and what was created are serious. This is the critical problem that WSIS had to deal with, but it just seemed that it got lost in other issues. In any case, the problem of creating an international public management form for the Internet's infrastructure will continue to be a critical problem that needs solution, or else there will be a serious danger to the integrity of the Internet. Any claims that there is "no problem" are seriously mistaken. On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > > So true. And these principles, including that of shared responsibility > ensures that we can then count on it as the NGN. Interesting that few > people involved in the IP NGN issues are involved in IG issues. I > think this is key. > > Meanwhile, whilst I was in Geneva, I heared rumours that some > delegations (not to be named) are hoping to use the lack of info of > the public Internet and how this open architecture works, to tell > delegates that want to control the Internet, to agree to have their > own DNS and IP system, without telling them that that would be > introducing an alternative root system, thereby fragmenting the open > and public architecture of the Internet. Not sure how this has progressed over the last few days, but I was concerned about this. > I was also concerned that some CS players were feeding this confusion > by making such statements too. Thanks for this info. I hadn't noticed discussion of this on the list before (though the posts have become too voluminous to read them all lately). This is the critical danger that exists. WSIS had to recognize this danger early on and take measures to counter it. > > This gets emotions high. Also they are not making a difference between > oversight of new names and existing one (especially TLDs) and also the > difference between management of IP address allocation issues which > is not really under ICANN or US gov as such. DNS wise, The Somalia? And Libya? Management of the IP addresses is under an entity that the US created and that is ultimately also under ICANN as far as I understood. The IP addresses is in fact what is critical to the operation of the Internet. It is serious there hasn't been more public discussion of this. > examples were being circulated as saying the US can get a CCTLD off > the Internet if they like to. Apparently coincidentally or NOT, these > countries were in discussions or something with the US when it happened. I thought there were examples of how ICANN took names out of the root, and I know of at least one case where ICANN's mismanagement led to one entity losing its domain name and someone hijacking it. So there is a real problem with ICANN as an entity that is not legitimate and not created as an entity capable of dealing with a very serious obligation. > > As far as I know, the individuals running the master and the copies > around the world of the root server, will usually not allow this to > happen. It may have happened because the administrator did not pay > their dues for the CCTLD or something. Between this and IP issues, > there may also be concern that as we go IP NGN globally, allocation > issues will also be important and not sure they understand how this > will be done. I was involved in APNIC';s early days and I do know > misconceptions governments have about this. Being part of and having a > say in APNIC is not something they know how to do, as these are new cultures to them. > > Getting the facts right would certainly help diffuse the emotions > running high in Geneva. Not break it but diffuse it. Yes there is a problem of governments getting it right. It doesn't help to have a situation where the key issues are not being made clear, but instead secondary issues are being raised to cloud what is really at stake. The process needs open information and discussion, rather than obfuscation. > Thanks for sharing your thoughts and ideas Ronda. Thanks Laina for this info about what is happening and the background you have given. > > Laina > Ronda > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ronda Hauben > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 3:55 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Laina Raveendran Greene > Cc: 'Lee McKnight'; wdrake at ictsd.ch > Subject: Re: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function > > > About 'end-to-end' and 'open architecture' > > Actually the architectural principle for the internet was 'open > architecture' which meant that all the info about the the > communicating networks would function as peers of each other,rather > than requiring that any one become a component of another." > > A definition of open architecture is "Open architecture...describes > the structure of the Internet, which is built on standard interfaces, > protocols, a basic data format, and a uniform identifier or addressing > mechanism. All the information needed regarding the interconnection > aspects is publicly available." > > The end to end principle has been promoted as the essence of the > Internet, but the Internet is not any single network (which goes from > one end to another end.). The Internet is a network of networks. > > So it is important that this interconnection of dissimilar networks be > recognized in characterizing the Internet, as this is the conception > of its origin and what its nature is. This is what makes it possible > for so many dissimilar networks to be interconnected in today's Internet. > > Ronda > > http://umcc.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/birth_tcp.txt > > http://www.circleid.com/article/96_0_1_0_Chttp://www.circleid.com/arti > cle/96 > _0_1_0_C > > http://umcc.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/birth_tcp.txt > > > On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > >> >> Agreed with you Lee. There is a need to remind people about the >> openess of the Internet and the spirit in which it was created and >> spread around the world. In our statement, we tried to remind >> delegates that the Internet was created by individuals with a high >> sense of shared responsibility and trust, and any efforts for IG, >> whether improving the status quo, creating a forum and/or new >> oversight mechanisms, should all be done within these same spirit. >> >> Currently, as Amb Klarkin pointed out, we are at a unique juncture of >> public and private international law coming together. It has happened >> before from the 60s to 90s, with the rise of MNCs and international >> law moving towards the application of "soft laws" and increase of >> private international law applications. Now we have the civil society >> equation, which is new to some agencies especially the likes of ITU. >> It is a very unique juncture of the creation of a "new form of >> cooperation" between stakeholders and a new form of "soft law" (even >> moving beyond what we have in PIL....a term used in public >> international law vis a vis MOUs e.g. lke the one we had on GMPCS on >> LEOs > etc..). >> >> Laina >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee McKnight >> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:21 PM >> To: wdrake at cpsr.org; wdrake at ictsd.ch; governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function >> >> Karen, Bill, >> >> I appreciate your intent Karen and APC's intent but agree with Bill >> that 'binding international agreements' on openness is a >> contradication in terms that will never fly. >> >> Language more along the lines that the forum's efforts should keep in >> mind the need to preserve the Internet's essential features, such as, >> 'openness etc..' might have the opposite effect of making agreement >> easier, since then the forum is signalling the techies that it will >> not > muck things up. >> >> Lee >> >> Prof. Lee W. McKnight >> School of Information Studies >> Syracuse University >> +1-315-443-6891office >> +1-315-278-4392 mobile >> >>>>> wdrake at cpsr.org 09/29/05 5:55 AM >>> >> Karen, >> >>>> In the context of the evolving public and technical policy >>>> landscape >> of >>>> the Internet there will be a need to concretize binding >> international >>>> agreements that relate to: >>>> >>>> - the architectural principles of the Internet, including >>>> interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle >> >> I am very strongly opposed to putting this in the forum, and believe >> it will provide the USA and business with a big opening to reject the >> forum outright. I hope you will reconsider, it's dangerous. >> >> Rest is consistent more or less with IGcaucus etc. >> >> BD >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> _______________________________________________ >> > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Sep 28 05:18:33 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:18:33 +1000 Subject: [governance] Speaking up In-Reply-To: <3067.156.106.225.194.1127897139.squirrel@156.106.225.194> Message-ID: <20050928092719.DF2D768038@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Vittorio, I think Avri's statement was good and should be read and tabled if people think that is appropriate. I would not add a threat to the written statement. Threatening undermines goodwill. However it would be worth mentioning to the few countries who continue to call for ejection of CS members that CS feels uneasy about co-operating with parties in Internet governance matters who seem determined to oppose the presence of CS voices. But I would caution that the game here is Internet governance, not process, and the more WSIS bogs down in procedural matters (a la day one) the less likely it is to achieve anything. I'm not sure how you make a strong statement without causing a procedural debate but if it's possible to do that it would be better. Ian Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance- > bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola > Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2005 6:46 PM > To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Speaking up > > I think the moment has come to speak up and read Avri's protest statement > against the exclusion of civil society and private sector from drafting > groups. > > I have been spending the last 60 minutes speaking with some governments, > with the business people, and with some of us. The business people are > meeting right now to decide whether to speak up, but it seems likely they > will, especially if we do the same. Some governments (both EU, and non-EU > from the developed world) have told us that they would support us, but > that they need to get a strong, formal and public protest from > non-governmental actors first. The EU is meeting at the topmost level > today at 3pm (the only high level group meeting in the week) and so would > need that statement before then. > > If we don't speak this morning, we risk missing the train. Yesterday civil > society people were repeatedly excluded from more and more drafting > groups. If we go down this path, it could even happen that the next round > of forum discussions, or even the forum itself, would adopt the same rules > of procedure, and be "multistakeholder" in the sense that CS and PS speak > in the first five minutes and then leave. > > We need to not accept losing one inch of ground on this issue. We need to > get consistent support from as many countries as possible, in public, so > that it can't be easily withdrawn. To do so, I think we have to confront > them with the risk (which, I think, would actually become reality) of the > Internet community refusing to participate in any new mechanism due to > this kind of treatment, and contesting the Summit through the press, which > would possibly turn the entire Tunis Summit into a failure for what > regards IG. > > These are my two cents. I hope that other people can support this point of > view, so that we can make a statement this morning. In any case, if we > can't manage to get proper closure on it due to shortage of time, I would > do it anyway, signing it with as many signatories as we can get. > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005 > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Fri Sep 30 07:22:21 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:22:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] Text of the "Western paper" on Internet Governancesection 5 In-Reply-To: <3083.156.106.224.63.1128072165.squirrel@156.106.224.63> Message-ID: <200509301934322.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Hope they will also include the needfor improvement of existing mechanisms to be multistakeholder inclusive, effective apprpriate universal partipipationmechanisms,accountable, and 'trusteeship' i.e making decisions for the good of all....somethings seriously lacking from all existingarrangements.... -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bervetola Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 11:23 AM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Text of the "Western paper" on Internet Governancesection 5 This is the text of the "Western paper" that was circulated yesterday, and that I referred to in my updates earlier this morning. ====== PART 5 : We recognize the efforts deployed by the initiators of the Internet, and the need to guarantee a stable and secure operation of this efficient tool for humanity. We are also convinced that there is a need for an evolutionary process towards a new transparent, democratic, and multilateral framework, with the participation of government, private sector, civil society and international organizations. We support the evolution and internationalization of the Internet governance system, based on the Geneva Principles through existing and future mechanisms, institutions and fora. It is our conviction that all stakeholders -- governments, the private sector, civil society and other interested parties -- should actively participate in Internet governance in a coordinated and balanced manner, commensurate with their respective roles and responsibilities. We recall that the main responsibility of all stakeholders is awareness raising, capacity building and to propose solutions to accelerate availability and affordability of Internet in developing world. In order to strengthen the global multistakeholder interaction and cooperation on public policy issues and developmental aspects relating to Internet governance we propose a forum. This forum should not replace existing mechanisms or institutions but should build on the existing structures on Internet governance, should contribute to the sustainability, stability and robustness of the Internet by addressing appropriately public policy issues that are not otherwise being adequately addressed (referred to in para....) excluding any involvement in the day to day operation of the Internet. It should be constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process to facilitate the exchange of information and best practices and to identify issues and make known its findings, to enhance awareness and build consensus and engagement. Recognizing the rapid development of technology and institutions, we propose that the forum mechanism periodically be reviewed to determine the need for its continuation. We also encourage the development of multistakeholder processes at the national and regional levels to discuss and collaborate on Internet expansion and dissemination and support development efforts to achieve Millenium Declaration goals and to support global processes. 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. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca Thu Sep 22 04:22:23 2005 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 04:22:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Chair's dicussion paper In-Reply-To: <4332651A.3070804@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <001901c5bf4e$c3524430$1bd96a9c@jgsnotebook> Subcommittee A: Thursday Sept 22- 10-13 hrs, RM XX Before session today the chair distributed a paper copy of the list of discussion points that was projected on the screen and discussed today: Handout: The Chair’s Discussion Paper (paper version of discussion agenda projected on screen and discussed yesterday) reads as follows: (English only) Preambular text Part 1: introduction - Geneva principles - WGIG mandate - Working Definition Part 2: Stakeholders - roles and responsibilities - coordination Part 3: Public policy issues relevant to IG 3a) infrastructure and management of critical internet resources 3b) use of internet - internet stability - spam - access to info and knowledge - freedom of expression - data protection and privacy rights - consumer rights - Intellectual property rights Part 4: Measures to promote development - capacity building - meaningful participation in global policy development - multilingualism - enabling environment Part 5: follow-up and future arrangements -approach: evolutionary / incremental -framework for interface between existing and future arrangement -possible governance/ oversight function: (four models) - possible forum -recommended mandate -structure- light/ heavy? Loose/ tight? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-= 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 Jeanette Hofmann Sent: September 22, 2005 4:03 AM To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Subject: [not_spam] [governance] Consensus on the forum issue Hi, although many of the active caucus members are here, there are obviously problems to meet. We have had two caucus meetings so far, both of them had lots of new attendees. While it is very good that other caucuses become interested in our work, it turns out to be difficult to discuss contested issues such as the forum. The fact that only a few WGIG members find the time to attend the caucus meetings doesn't exactly help. Having said that, I think we need to make an effort to clarify a number of things: 1. How far does consensus reach with regard to the forum? 2. What exactly do we disagree about? 3. How can we bypass this conflict? As far as I understand nobody opposes the idea of a forum in principle. Nobody supports the position of the business sector, which doesn't even recognize the need for a venue where Internet related issues can be discussed. What is more, we seem to agree that the forum should be open to anyone and composed in a multi stakeholder manner. From what I understand we disagree about the functions and the authority of such a forum. Some people think it should have only soft power without any decision making power. Others think we need a body that can make binding decisions. Another bone of contention might concern the so-called oversight function. Some people think this issue should be treated seperately from the forum, others think the role of the forum is related to that function. I would like to know if this is a correct description of our controversy? If so, I would like to suggest a possible compromise between these two differing views. The civil society statement has language to the effect that the forum can make decisions if all participating statekholders agree with this. (Former versions of Bill's statement included this clause. I think it only disappeared for the sake of brevity.) In other words, any extention of the forum's authority would have to be consensus-based and bottom up. The second common element I see has been pointed out by Avri. In her view, the forum has to earn its authority. It can only gain political authority if it is regarded useful by those who participante in the forum. Decision making authority for the forum would thus depend on two related if's: consensus among the participants and legitimate outcomes. This implies that the forum may grow over time. It would start in a very modest way with nothing but advisory functions but its authority could increase over time depending on its productivity and legitimacy. What do people think? Can we find a consensus along these lines? 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 klohento at panos-ao.org Mon Sep 26 14:53:31 2005 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (klohento at panos-ao.org) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:53:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Af Caucus contributions on some documents / contributions sur quelques documents Message-ID: <433843AB.5040601@panos-ao.org> Dear all/ Salut tous I'm sending you on behalf of the group two documents on which many people have worked on: - one is a document prepared jointly by the African Caucus and the Education and Research Caucus on multilingualism and education; in French only, sorry. It will be read by Cisse Kane in the coming minutes, to the Subcommittee A plenary (works on Internet Governance) Thanks to Alex Corenthin (among others). - the second is a comment of the African Caucus on the last internet governance document being presently discussed. This contribution was presented to the Civil Society Caucus on Internet Governance today and took into account some of the recommendations made; this document will be presented by Emmanuel Njenga to the subcommittee A plenary in some minutes. We took into account comments made by Mawaki and Anriette. We still have to prepare our contribution on internet governance mechanisms and follow-up. Thanks all Best --- Veuillez trouver attachés à ce message documents sur lesquels le Caucus a travaillé et qui seront exposés tout à l'heure en plénière du Sous-comité A qui travaille sur la gouvernance de l'internet. - le premier est un commentaire général sur le multilinguisme et l'éducation, élaboré par le Caucus Afrique et le Caucus Education et Recherche. Ce document sera présenté par Cissé Kane. (Merci à Alex Corenthin, entres autres) - le second est un commentaire du Caucus Afrique sur le dernier document sur lequel travaille le Sous-comité A et qui est actuellement en discussion. La contribution a été présenté en début d'après midi au Caucus gouvernance de la société civile et sera présentée au Sous-comité A dans les minutes qui suivent par Emmanuel N. Nous avons tenu compte de la contribution de Mawaki et d'Anriette. Ce document est en anglais seulement – désolé. Nous devons encore travailler sur la partie concernant les mécanismes futurs de la gouvernance de l’internet ainsi que sur le suivi. Cordialement et merci à tous Ken L -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Contribution_du_Caucus_Africain_sur_la_gouvernance_de_l-1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 24576 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Africa Civil Society Caucus input to Chairs paper.doc Type: application/msword Size: 36864 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Sep 19 12:17:11 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:17:11 -0300 Subject: [governance] First prepcom interventions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Adam, I am not sure how to handle this, but some of the statements are not necessarily caucuses' consensus nor may represent what civil society believes should be said in those precious 15 minutes -- although mostly CS will probably agree with them (but there are diverging views regarding at least one statement). How to express this in your opening statement without giving the impression we are a bunch of disorganized fellows? :) --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:29:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] First prepcom interventions > As you may have seen from Rik Panganiban's note to the plenary list > this morning, prepcom has so far focused on China and human rights > issues. Great fun and important stuff. Nice to see the US, UK (EU) > and Canada taking a bit of a stand on human rights. > > As far as Internet governance is concerned we hope sub-committee A > will start work this afternoon. > > One disturbing rumor (we will find out for sure later today) is that > observers will be given 15 minutes speaking time every 6 hours of > discussion. As sub-committee A meets for 3 hours each day, it seems > we may only be able to speak every other day. Will will argue > against this. > > Other civil society organizations have kindly agreed to give the IG > caucus the full 15 minutes speaking time today. Five of us will > speak: > > Speakers for Civil Society > Sub-Committee A (Internet Governance) > Monday, 19 September > > 1. Mr. Adam Peake, from GLOCOM, on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet Governance Caucus > 2. Ms. Magaly Pazello, from DAWN, on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet Governance Caucus > 3. Mr. William Drake, from CPSR, on behalf of the Civil Society > Internet Governance Caucus > 4. Mr. Milton Mueller, from the Georgia Institute of Technology, on > behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > 5. Ms. Jeanette Hofmann, from the Heinrich Boell Foundation, on > behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > > We had to prepare text for the interpreters, those files are > attached. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Fri Sep 23 06:08:20 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:08:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Chair's paper available In-Reply-To: References: <954259bd05092302225aaabae8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <131293a2050923030852d5a94a@mail.gmail.com> Adam Isn't this text the "agreed language " from Geneva? Since this phase is not supposed to renew debate on "agreed language" If it is in the document, it's open for debate, right? SO it should either be out totally, or the WGIG section on stakeholders be included? Jacqueline On 9/23/05, Adam Peake wrote: > Bertrand, thanks. > > A general comment is that the draft is only three and half pages. It > is missing sections describing follow-up issues (forum and > oversight), but even with those sections the total may only be about > 5 pages. This is helpful as it tells us that comments on specific > issues will be very short. Looking at sentences not paragraphs. > > The paragraphs that stands out as contentious reads: > > We strive to establish a transition to a new cooperation model > that helps up [us] implement the "Geneva principles" regarding the > role of the governments and all stakeholders. Institutional > arrangements for Internet governance should be founded on a more > solid democratic, transparent and multilateral basis, with stronger > emphasis on the public policy interests of all governments, and with > clarification of the relationships among different actors. > > Also, I don't like how CS is defined: > > Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, > especially at community level, and should continue to play such a > role. > > Avri has suggested replacement: > > Civil society has played an important role on Internet matters. > This role has ranged from capacity building at the community level to > the contribution of much of the technological innovation and to the > creation of much of the content that makes the Internet what it is > today. Civil Society should continue to play such a role. > > Adam > > > > > > At 11:22 AM +0200 9/23/05, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > >The Chair's paper in Group A (Internet governance) is now available > >on the official site at : > >http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1962|0 > > > >Bertrand > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >governance mailing list > >governance at lists.cpsr.org > >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com T&T Music and videos online _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Mon Sep 26 11:39:32 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:39:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement to be read by the Gender Caucus in Subcommittee A plenary 27/9 Message-ID: <131293a2050926083922adae23@mail.gmail.com> Hi Please find attached the final document for the GC statement for Tuesday morning. It will be read by Christine Butegwa, of FEMNET. -- Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com T&T Music and videos online -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GC Subcommittee A statement 27-9-2005.doc Type: application/msword Size: 28160 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Sep 27 08:55:09 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:55:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus coordination from today Message-ID: Deqar Adam have a safetrip and thank you very much for the great work, and you final statement this morning, which are very clear and excellent. I am sitting now in the CSB meeting and have to go back to the IG meeting. When and where will the caucus meet. Sory that I missed this info. w ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Adam Peake Gesendet: Di 27.09.2005 13:38 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] Caucus coordination from today I'm leaving Geneva. Been fun and I'm sorry to escape just as the real work begins :-) Jeanette needs support and Izumi's volunteered (forcibly :-) So with agreement and acclamation, I hope the caucus will accept Izumi taking over from me for the rest of prepcom. Hope all goes well and you are successful in getting into the drafting groups. We will hold a caucus meeting today. If you can't join, please let us know. People are spread very thin between all the meetings. 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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu Thu Sep 29 10:25:38 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:25:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] informal consultation with EU Message-ID: Vittorio, i agree, you are on the right track on how to play this, you should focus on the point of what the EU could/should do for CS, and not waste time having them reread their previously prepared text to you. Also, at this point CS SHOULD be acting like a player. So express disappointment that the EU has not as yet been of assistance to CS on these participation issues, ask for this to be a priority issue, of course lining up a friendly delegation or two in advance - I guess the Italians sound supportive from what you have said - to weigh in in support of CS. And, as a player, go ahead and say that CS feels the Canadian language is more acceptable, and suggest the EU adopt that in its own next iterations. (I haven;t read it yet in detail but the excerpts sound good). If CS is not enough of a player yet to have standing on the oversight issue, you don't have to admit that, they can ingore you. Only issue is that with all due respect, I still don;t see a position here (yet) that for sure really is in CS's interests. But as you say that may not matter since it will be governments weighing in that matters there - or not (yet : ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> "Vittorio Bertola" 09/29/05 9:50 AM >>> On Gio, 29 Settembre 2005 13:00, Izumi AIZU disse: > Vittorio suggested to have IGC consultation with EU this afternoon > and we approached them. They are postive, but the only challenge > is to find the time slot - 1:30 pm to 3 pm is drafting group, and > EU will have meeting with like-minded countries at 3 pm (closed). > We may have this consultation after that, say 4 or 4:30. > > We will report more when this is fixed. This is now settled ===> from 17:00 to 17:30 in room XI <=== with Martin Boyle from the UK (Presidency) delegation. From 17:30 to 18:00 in the same place they will meet with the private sector. At 18:00 in the same place there will be a (closed) EU Coordination meeting, which means that we might want to make sure (by explicitly asking) that some of our requests are reported to the member states then. Now, the first reason why I thought to ask for this meeting was to establish us as a player; also, since the EU could become the leader of the mediation, it could be very important to get their support on a few specific points that we might want to see in the final text. While we might want to ask for clarifications on the EU proposal (which is what the LikeMindedGroup is doing now, before negotiating), I doubt that that would be terribly useful, since I would guess that the only thing that the EU can say is the text that was agreed yesterday among the member states, and nothing more. I think it would rather be better to use the time to make some of our points clear and ask the EU to adopt/support them if possible. The first and foremost one, in my opinion, is that we would like to see some clear text in the Forum paragraph that ensures us that the forum works like the open WGIG consultations, and not like the WSIS PrepCom. Or, at least (as a fallback), that CS and PS would be considered as two "delegations" that can participate to drafting groups and plenaries on a peer basis with the delegation of one country. If this is too detailed, we might fall back onto some more generic, but still clear, wording. In general, the more I read it, the more I like the Canadian proposal (tnx Robert for forwarding it). I'm not sure about asking the EU to drop their proposed Forum paragraph and support the Canadian one instead, but we might consider doing this. Also, if we want, we might make a more general request that the EU formally supports our protest and asks for us to be allowed to participate in drafting groups, or at least discusses it; and to try to keep us in the loop, or at least regularly ask for reactions. I know many EU delegations would support this request, but as I understand until now, as the week evolved, it never came so high on the list of their priorities for any of them (included mine) to actually raise it in the Coordination meeting. About oversight, I really doubt that CS/PS can have a real impact on this. This will be hardly fought among governments and I doubt they will have the willingness and patience to take into account yet more views. In any case, we definitely want to restate our views. Anything else? -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Sep 19 15:41:21 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:41:21 -0300 Subject: [governance] First prepcom interventions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <432F1461.9040808@rits.org.br> Looks ok to me. --c.a. Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: >On 9/20/05, carlos a. afonso wrote: > > >>Adam, I am not sure how to handle this, but some of the statements are >>not necessarily caucuses' consensus nor may represent what civil society >>believes should be said in those precious 15 minutes -- although mostly >>CS will probably agree with them (but there are diverging views >>regarding at least one statement). How to express this in your opening >>statement without giving the impression we are a bunch of disorganized >>fellows? :) >> >> >> > > >Understood. > >We tried to take most of the language from the contribution we sent >for prepcom 3, but I expect new issues have probably slipped in. > >Will make sure it is clear that I say something along the lines of >"these statements offer a sense of civil society's opinion on the >issues but are not presented as consensus"? I'll think about it and >soften things. > >Thanks for bringing this up. We should talk about your (everyone's) >specific concerns. > >Adam > > > > >>--c.a. >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Adam Peake >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:29:43 +0900 >>Subject: [governance] First prepcom interventions >> >> >> >>>As you may have seen from Rik Panganiban's note to the plenary list >>>this morning, prepcom has so far focused on China and human rights >>>issues. Great fun and important stuff. Nice to see the US, UK (EU) >>>and Canada taking a bit of a stand on human rights. >>> >>>As far as Internet governance is concerned we hope sub-committee A >>>will start work this afternoon. >>> >>>One disturbing rumor (we will find out for sure later today) is that >>>observers will be given 15 minutes speaking time every 6 hours of >>>discussion. As sub-committee A meets for 3 hours each day, it seems >>>we may only be able to speak every other day. Will will argue >>>against this. >>> >>>Other civil society organizations have kindly agreed to give the IG >>>caucus the full 15 minutes speaking time today. Five of us will >>>speak: >>> >>>Speakers for Civil Society >>>Sub-Committee A (Internet Governance) >>>Monday, 19 September >>> >>>1. Mr. Adam Peake, from GLOCOM, on behalf of the Civil Society >>>Internet Governance Caucus >>>2. Ms. Magaly Pazello, from DAWN, on behalf of the Civil Society >>>Internet Governance Caucus >>>3. Mr. William Drake, from CPSR, on behalf of the Civil Society >>>Internet Governance Caucus >>>4. Mr. Milton Mueller, from the Georgia Institute of Technology, on >>>behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >>>5. Ms. Jeanette Hofmann, from the Heinrich Boell Foundation, on >>>behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >>> >>>We had to prepare text for the interpreters, those files are >>>attached. >>> >>>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 aizu at anr.org Sun Sep 25 05:44:11 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 18:44:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] Repsonse on procedural issue In-Reply-To: <7764E6EE-1D84-4D24-8B4D-8E667856AC89@acm.org> References: <50887.81.62.134.234.1127564440.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <7764E6EE-1D84-4D24-8B4D-8E667856AC89@acm.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050925184034.08710050@211.125.95.185> Good morning everyone in Geneva, I just came in last night and trying to catch up. I tend to agree with Avri that it is still to early and risky to withdraw from making any statements to SubComA slots, though I do note that we are put in a critical juncture and some very strong voices should be made to those governments who are trying to exclude the civil society and private sector from making the final report to Tunis. I also think we should prepare plan B, in addition to preparing alternative text, we should perhaps suggest to have alternative or informal meetings with governments and others in case they decide not to include us in drafting sessions. Just an idea yet. More later, izumi At 17:50 05/09/24 +0200, Avri Doria wrote: >There has been a suggestion that CS should cease to make spoken or >written contributions to the drafting and working groups should they >be defined as 'speak and leave' events. I disagree with this position. > >While I believe that we should make a very strong statement on the >procedural issue and that we should continue to fight the >governments' decision to exclude non governmental bodies from now >until the end of the prepcom, I do not believe that that we should >stop speaking at the meetings, even if CS is forced to speak and >leave. To do so, would in my opinion, be tantamount to cutting off >our noses to spite our own faces. We represent many causes and have >important postions that needs to be aired and considered. To turn >our backs on the speaking opportunities would be seen as a relief by >many of the governments for it would allow them to discount all of >the work, and progress, CS has achieved so far. I think it would be >preferable for caucuses to continue to continue making their points >both in person and in writing so that the governments have no excuse >for ignoring CS issues. I also think it would be good to agree on a >standard single line statement that would be included at the end of >every other statement the caucuses made that indicated the CS speaker >would be leaving under duress at the end of their speaking time and >indicating that the nature of the closed meetings threatened the >legitimacy of the entire enterprise. On finishing their individual >statement each speaker could then leave without waiting to be asked >to leave, thus making the protest ongoing and visible. > > >I do think we should also be working on documents that are parallel >to the governments' documents. In committee A I would recommend >taking the chair's outline and filling in the sections ourselves. So >that we would have a document with the same form but which was >written according to CS requirements. I am not tracking B all that >carefully, but I expect a similar strategy would also work there. > >thanks >a. > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Tue Sep 27 20:04:00 2005 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:04:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] draft text on political oversight In-Reply-To: <9F7C33F9-73C3-45ED-8314-89C89F5D0FA4@psg.com> References: <9F7C33F9-73C3-45ED-8314-89C89F5D0FA4@psg.com> Message-ID: Well, that is what it *claims* to be. And the board has historically been chosen for technical background, not for contracts knowledge or social policy views... On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 27 sep 2005, at 16.28, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law > wrote: > >> For that matter why should a technical body like ICANN attempt >> (incompetently!) to regulate matters of public policy? > > i do not understand in what way ICANN is a technical body. it is > perhaps technical policy, but it mostly all about policy and > contracts as far as i can tell. very little technology is done > there. i expect most of them don't have a clue about the technology > only about business models and contract details. > > a. > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's @#$% hot here.<-- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Sep 28 04:47:45 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 05:47:45 -0300 Subject: [governance] MODIFIED draft text on political oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In any global oversight mechanism ICANN would of course be overseen by it. What is not clear is if the form this would take is of a global oversight *forum*. Some proposals which vie for oversight have contributed to the confusion by combining all functions in a single broad mechanism (which is sometimes called a forum and should probably be called a *council* or something similar -- this is the case of the Brazilian proposal, for example). The way this will be organized will depend on the process, and in my view this will start with an advisory forum. In this case, proposals attributing to this "initial" forum oversight over ICANN or even over an ICANN transition to become global (as Milton suggests) would not be viable, unless the forum receives this as a task from a number of instances, one of which is, in the present arrangements, nothing less than the US government -- which, in any case, would have to be convinced to agree to the process of internationalizing ICANN in the first place. --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria To: Milton Mueller Cc: Governance Governance Caucus Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:30:56 +0200 Subject: Re: [governance] MODIFIED draft text on political oversight > Hi, > > I am afraid we are at an impasse. I cannot accept the notion of the > forum as an oversight body for ICANN. > > The idea of having an independent external review formed in > extraordinary cases, i.e. when the internal procedures of a more > developed ICANN (truly MSH etc) were unable to resolve an issue are > about as far as i could ever agree to. the idea of something like > the forum being the one to decide when the MOU conditions were met is > > inconceivable to me. > > i do admit that the piece we hurriedly wrote was inadequately > writen. i do not admit to their being too little thought put into > it. but of course i will happily agree that understanding the full > complexity of what will happen as time goes on is beyond any of us. > > an no, i will also not subscribe to a framework convention, which > would be controled by nations and where civil society (and the > private sector as well as the internet community) would have no voice > > in negotiations at all. personally, i think that would be a disaster > > on a par with model 4, which i think is an abomination. > > a. > > On 27 sep 2005, at 16.14, Milton Mueller wrote: > > > My proposed additions in ALL CAPS, deletes in [brackets] > > > > > >>>> Jeanette Hofmann 09/27/05 7:31 AM >>> > >>>> > > Political Oversight > > > > 62b: We recognize that the time has come for a change in the > political > > > > oversight of ICANN [the logical Internet infrastructure]. We do not > > recommend > > the creation of a new oversight organization for domain names and > IP > > addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with > regard > > to > > ICANN: > > > > 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its [pre-eminent > > role of > > ] > > stewardship OVER [in relation to] ICANN AND THE DNS ROOT and enters > > into > > an adequate host-country agreement for ICANN. > > > > 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation > on > > > > its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the > community > > > > of Internet users, private sector and governments. THE WSIS > > MULTISTAKEHOLDER FORUM WOULD DECIDE WHEN THIS MILESTONE HAD BEEN > > REACHED. > > > > 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. THE WSIS MULTISTAKEHOLDER FORUM WOULD DECIDE WHEN THIS > > MILESTONE HAD BEEN REACHED. > > > > 4. ICANN'S DECISIONS MUST BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH PUBLIC POLICY > > CONSTRAINTS NEGOTIATED THROUGH INTERNATIONAL TREATIES; E.G., WTO > TRADE > > RULES, HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES, CYBERCRIME CONVENTIONS, ETC. > GOVERNMENTS > > AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO INVOKE A > DISPUTE > > PROCEDURE WHEN IT BELIEVED ICANN ACTIONS VIOLATED THE TERMS OF > > ESTABLISHED INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC POLICY. > > [4. ICANN must establish a review process for its decisions in the > > form > > > > of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission, established > > on a > > > > case-by-case basis.] > > > > 5. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government > > transfers the IANA function to ICANN. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Sep 28 05:44:01 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:44:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] MODIFIED draft text on political oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <131293a2050928024454cafb7d@mail.gmail.com> Hi I think that we can have language that requires futher discussion re development of some of the more detailed points.I don't think that we need to thrash everything out in detail right now in a rush, once the concepts of MSF, reformed ICANN and independent review are agreed to and accepted. I agree that ICANN would need some sort of independent review body as a "last resort". I do not think it should be the Forum. I agree with Avri that this independent review would be already constituted before it is needed, and simply "turn on" to respond to requests for review on particular decisions. This could include the choosing of the panel members in advance. I also doubt that a framework convention is the way to go. Jacqueline On 9/27/05, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I am afraid we are at an impasse. I cannot accept the notion of the > forum as an oversight body for ICANN. > > The idea of having an independent external review formed in > extraordinary cases, i.e. when the internal procedures of a more > developed ICANN (truly MSH etc) were unable to resolve an issue are > about as far as i could ever agree to. the idea of something like > the forum being the one to decide when the MOU conditions were met is > inconceivable to me. > > i do admit that the piece we hurriedly wrote was inadequately > writen. i do not admit to their being too little thought put into > it. but of course i will happily agree that understanding the full > complexity of what will happen as time goes on is beyond any of us. > > an no, i will also not subscribe to a framework convention, which > would be controled by nations and where civil society (and the > private sector as well as the internet community) would have no voice > in negotiations at all. personally, i think that would be a disaster > on a par with model 4, which i think is an abomination. > > a. > > On 27 sep 2005, at 16.14, Milton Mueller wrote: > > > My proposed additions in ALL CAPS, deletes in [brackets] > > > > > >>>> Jeanette Hofmann 09/27/05 7:31 AM >>> > >>>> > > Political Oversight > > > > 62b: We recognize that the time has come for a change in the political > > > > oversight of ICANN [the logical Internet infrastructure]. We do not > > recommend > > the creation of a new oversight organization for domain names and IP > > addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard > > to > > ICANN: > > > > 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its [pre-eminent > > role of > > ] > > stewardship OVER [in relation to] ICANN AND THE DNS ROOT and enters > > into > > an adequate host-country agreement for ICANN. > > > > 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on > > > > its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the community > > > > of Internet users, private sector and governments. THE WSIS > > MULTISTAKEHOLDER FORUM WOULD DECIDE WHEN THIS MILESTONE HAD BEEN > > REACHED. > > > > 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. THE WSIS MULTISTAKEHOLDER FORUM WOULD DECIDE WHEN THIS > > MILESTONE HAD BEEN REACHED. > > > > 4. ICANN'S DECISIONS MUST BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH PUBLIC POLICY > > CONSTRAINTS NEGOTIATED THROUGH INTERNATIONAL TREATIES; E.G., WTO TRADE > > RULES, HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES, CYBERCRIME CONVENTIONS, ETC. GOVERNMENTS > > AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO INVOKE A DISPUTE > > PROCEDURE WHEN IT BELIEVED ICANN ACTIONS VIOLATED THE TERMS OF > > ESTABLISHED INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC POLICY. > > [4. ICANN must establish a review process for its decisions in the > > form > > > > of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission, established > > on a > > > > case-by-case basis.] > > > > 5. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government > > transfers the IANA function to ICANN. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com T&T Music and videos online _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 07:33:21 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:33:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] MODIFIED draft text on political oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/27/05, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I am afraid we are at an impasse. I cannot accept the notion of the > forum as an oversight body for ICANN. Agreed > > The idea of having an independent external review formed in > extraordinary cases, i.e. when the internal procedures of a more > developed ICANN (truly MSH etc) were unable to resolve an issue are > about as far as i could ever agree to. the idea of something like > the forum being the one to decide when the MOU conditions were met is > inconceivable to me. to me as well. > > an no, i will also not subscribe to a framework convention Agreed. -- 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 Wed Sep 28 11:32:38 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:32:38 -0300 Subject: [governance] oversight stmt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Avri, OK by me (there are two or three minor typos, but this will I am sure be caught when a final version is made). Beleza pura! Irado! Matou a pau! É o bicho! ...and other expressions in Brazilian Portuguese expressing happiness :) --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria To: Governance Governance Caucus Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:04:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight stmt > hi, > > i have added the some woring in 5 that i think we can reach agreement > > on. i also added a section 7 that may be more difficult for you to > swallow especially those who want an FC. > > i am wondering if there is any chance in this or any other world > where we can reach consensus on some text. the original text is > already on the record, so if we can reach agreement of better text, > that might be a good thing. > > if possible i would suggest that people recommend specific changes > that others can then discuss. > > a. > > > Political Oversight > > 62b: 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 oversight organization for domain names and IP > addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard > to > ICANN be implemented in a reasonable time frame: > > 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent role > of > stewardship in relation to ICANN. > > 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation > on > its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the > community > of Internet users, civil society, the technical community, private > sector and governments. > > 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. ICANN must establish a process for extraordinary appeal of its > decisions in the form of an independent multi-stakeholder review > commission, established on a case-by-case basis. Just to be clear, we > are not calling for an 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. > > 6. ICANN's decisions, and any host country agreement must be required > to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through > international > treaties, e.g in regard to human rights treaties, privacy rights, > trade > rules, and cybercrime treaties. Governement and International > organizations, > including NGOs, would have the right and repsonsibility of bringing > violations > of these requirements to the attention of ICANN and if satisfactory > resolution > cannot be reached using ICANN internal processes, would have the > right to > invoke the appeal process. > > 7. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government > transfers the IANA function to ICANN. > > 8. It is understood that achieving these > conditions will rely on negotiations between ICANN and the US > Government. It > is expected that the International multistakeholder community will > take part > in the process thought participation in ICANN process. It is also > expected > the the multistakeholder community will observe > and comment on the progress made in this process through the Forum. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Sep 28 11:37:44 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:37:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight stmt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <131293a20509280837446f95ec@mail.gmail.com> Good with me as IG Caucus. Is this and IGC statement or opening up for CS? JAM On 9/28/05, Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > i have added the some woring in 5 that i think we can reach agreement > on. i also added a section 7 that may be more difficult for you to > swallow especially those who want an FC. > > i am wondering if there is any chance in this or any other world > where we can reach consensus on some text. the original text is > already on the record, so if we can reach agreement of better text, > that might be a good thing. > > if possible i would suggest that people recommend specific changes > that others can then discuss. > > a. > > > Political Oversight > > 62b: 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 oversight organization for domain names and IP > addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard to > ICANN be implemented in a reasonable time frame: > > 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent role of > stewardship in relation to ICANN. > > 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on > its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the community > of Internet users, civil society, the technical community, private > sector and governments. > > 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. ICANN must establish a process for extraordinary appeal of its > decisions in the form of an independent multi-stakeholder review > commission, established on a case-by-case basis. Just to be clear, we > are not calling for an 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. > > 6. ICANN's decisions, and any host country agreement must be required > to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through > international > treaties, e.g in regard to human rights treaties, privacy rights, trade > rules, and cybercrime treaties. Governement and International > organizations, > including NGOs, would have the right and repsonsibility of bringing > violations > of these requirements to the attention of ICANN and if satisfactory > resolution > cannot be reached using ICANN internal processes, would have the > right to > invoke the appeal process. > > 7. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government > transfers the IANA function to ICANN. > > 8. It is understood that achieving these > conditions will rely on negotiations between ICANN and the US > Government. It > is expected that the International multistakeholder community will > take part > in the process thought participation in ICANN process. It is also > expected > the the multistakeholder community will observe > and comment on the progress made in this process through the Forum. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com T&T Music and videos online _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Sep 28 13:02:59 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:02:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Updated version of oversight stmt. In-Reply-To: <5DBA869A-6BCD-4C57-B7F4-460CFF952A7F@acm.org> References: <5DBA869A-6BCD-4C57-B7F4-460CFF952A7F@acm.org> Message-ID: <433ACCC3.4010104@wz-berlin.de> I find this new version ok. jeanette Avri Doria wrote: > I have attempted to combine Milton and Karen's comments with my concerns. > does this work? > > we need, if at all possible to reach closure tonight if we want this > statement to be > included for consideration. > > almost last call folks. > > a. > > ---- > > Political Oversight > > 62b: 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 in 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 structure of the community > of Internet users, national governments, civil society, the technical > community, > business associations, non profit organizations and non-business > organizations. > > 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, and trade rules. 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. > > 7. Once all of the above conditions are met, the US Government > shall transfer the IANA function to ICANN. > > 8. It is expected that the International multistakeholder community > will take part in the process through participation in the ICANN process. > It is also expected that the multistakeholder community will observe and > comment on the progress made in this process through the proposed Forum. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 04:07:40 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:07:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight stmt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: AD, On 9/29/05, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Actually I have two reasons: > > In a sense what i tried to put in the text was nothing that would > make someone want to balk. So yes, it may be a minimal agreeable > position (with a few abstentions), but it was the best I could pull > off under these time constraints. This does not mean that I don't > see reason to further develop our position. It is not like the > dialogue will finish tomorrow or the day after. As it is, I think we > have the beginnings of what might a good middle way - between the > model 1/3 fans and the 'no change ever ever' folks. 1. Many Thanks and well done on the potential compromise position. 2. I don't think there is anyone in the caucus who stands for "no change ever ever" In my industry, we adapt or die. IG is constantly evolving. An example of this is this week's traffic from ARIN PPML. BTW, where do you stand on IPv6 PI? -- 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 Thu Sep 29 05:49:21 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:49:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight stmt In-Reply-To: <2CF62B3F-775B-40CB-8F0F-C2A105E3C797@acm.org> References: <2CF62B3F-775B-40CB-8F0F-C2A105E3C797@acm.org> Message-ID: On 9/29/05, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > 2. I don't think there is anyone in the caucus who stands for "no > > change ever ever" > > i did not mean that those positions existed in the IGC, but rather > among the nations. and there is at least one 'no change ever ever' > govt. I understand now. I also think this porcess may have driven to this harder line. > > > > > In my industry, we adapt or die. IG is constantly evolving. An example > > of this is this week's traffic from ARIN PPML. > > did not see that. can you send a ptr? http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2005_1.html > i find Tony's arguments intriguing. i tend to support it > technically (anything to make the routing table smaller) but am not > sure about it from a policy perspective. > > so what do you think of it. swamp=bad idea. Tony is prolly smarter than me, as I don't have the foresight to see how v6 deployment will shake out. I can't support 2005-1. I can wait for shim6 to pull a rabbit out of it's hat before I make such a fundamental change. You have to be already v6 multihomed/have100,000 devices seems arbitrary, etc. Then the size, why give /44's out in even a limited fashion, when folk want /32 to avoid current and future filtering. I also think the HD ratio is far too generous, but that is another policy proposal. ;-) -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Fri Sep 30 05:49:46 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:49:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Forum/oversight: Middle Ground proposal In-Reply-To: <5832C700-226C-47AB-BE3A-B88E032DC4C6@psg.com> References: <50751.195.186.231.20.1128069318.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <5832C700-226C-47AB-BE3A-B88E032DC4C6@psg.com> Message-ID: <131293a20509300249oedb29cey164c55bc81f22e8@mail.gmail.com> Hey avri IF you are drafting a response, can you add my favorite point? Equal participation. Jacqueline On 9/30/05, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I am not necessarily comfortable with all you write below, though in > some cases it may just be a matter or understanding. > > I certainly support making a statement about the need to add msh > wording. > > i think that if we make a statement it should be a positive one that > adds to the the proposal as opposed to tearing it apart. > > quick comments on some of the points: > > > On 30 sep 2005, at 10.35, William Drake wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Some notable things about the > > Canada/NZ/Aus/Switzerland/US/Singapore/Argentina/Uruguay 'middle > > ground' > > proposal. > > > > 1. If the USA is indeed on board with it, the USA has endorsed the > > creation of a forum. I thought they'd hold out longer, but the EU > > oversight proposal has brought things to a head, so cards are being > > played > > now. > > > > 2. The framing of the forum is not desirable. > > > > *There is no mention of it being multistakeholder, much less peer- > > level > > and open to unaffiliated individuals as participants. > > > > this should be added if it not there, but i think it is. at least in > what i read last night. > > > *There is no mention of it having a mandate to do much of what the IG > > caucus has proposed in terms of functions. > > > > and the ambiguity of the forum is what allows it to happen. plus as > you know i have always supported the mimimalist start to the forum > with it gaining more function as it proves itself. > > > *There is no mention of where and in what form it would be > > constituted; we > > have suggested that outside of but related to the UN would be > > preferable. > > We certainly don't want it based in an existing institution, i.e. ITU. > > has some conversations on this. following a wgig model it could be > just a light weight secretariat that enables, with that secretariat > arranging for the forum to be hosted by existing organizations; e.g. > undp one year, isoc another and yes even itu getting a chance. > > > > > *The language about it being non-duplicative and focusing on issues > > not > > otherwise being addressed adequately elsewhere could very well be > > deployed > > by the US, private sector, and others to say that, inter alia, the > > forum > > should not talk about any intellectual property issues because we have > > WIPO for that, nor trade aspects because we have WTO for that, nor > > interconnection costs or spam because we have ITU for these, nor > > privacy > > and "information security" because we have the COE Cybercrime > > Convention > > for these, and on and on. But the way these bodies have "handled" > > these > > issues is not that desirable. As we all know, many of the existing > > bodies > > do not allow participation, or meaningful participation, by CS; are > > controlled by particular industry coalitions and government > > agencies with > > specific and limiting missions; and accordingly produce outcomes > > that are > > not in tune with public interest considerations. Presumably, talking > > about how those organizations function would also be off limits. This > > would eliminate what Avri referred to at the CPSR panel as the > > "gadfly" > > function of the forum---raising issues and concerns not being raised > > within these bodies, pushing them, calling for solutions that are in > > keeping with WSIS principles, etc. > > this becomes a matter of defining the context in which something is > considered. again i don't see anyone stopping a forum from talking > about these issues if that is what it decides to talk about. > > > > > I hope these concerns will be raised in our interventions if the > > opportunity arises. > > i guess we have a difference of opinion here. i would not care to > raise most of these, but would rather focus on the addition of MSH > and peer participation and inclusion especially a focus on > development issues. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com T&T Music and videos online _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Sep 30 06:04:54 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:04:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Forum/oversight: Middle Ground proposal In-Reply-To: <5832C700-226C-47AB-BE3A-B88E032DC4C6@psg.com> References: <50751.195.186.231.20.1128069318.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <5832C700-226C-47AB-BE3A-B88E032DC4C6@psg.com> Message-ID: <433D0DC6.1080101@wz-berlin.de> 3 quick comments (I cut out the rest) > > > and the ambiguity of the forum is what allows it to happen. I agree with this. Vague language is a precondition for any consensus right now. > >>*There is no mention of where and in what form it would be >>constituted; we >>have suggested that outside of but related to the UN would be >>preferable. >>We certainly don't want it based in an existing institution, i.e. ITU. > > > has some conversations on this. following a wgig model it could be > just a light weight secretariat that enables, with that secretariat > arranging for the forum to be hosted by existing organizations; e.g. > undp one year, isoc another and yes even itu getting a chance. Makes a lot of sense to me. Sounds like a feasible solution to jumpstart the forum. > > >>*The language about it being non-duplicative and focusing on issues >>not >>otherwise being addressed adequately elsewhere could very well be >>deployed >>by the US, private sector, and others to say that, inter alia, the >>forum >>should not talk about any intellectual property issues because we have >>WIPO for that, nor trade aspects because we have WTO for that, nor >>interconnection costs or spam because we have ITU for these, nor >>privacy >>and "information security" because we have the COE Cybercrime >>Convention >>for these, and on and on. But the way these bodies have "handled" >>these >>issues is not that desirable. As we all know, many of the existing >>bodies >>do not allow participation, or meaningful participation, by CS; are >>controlled by particular industry coalitions and government >>agencies with >>specific and limiting missions; and accordingly produce outcomes >>that are >>not in tune with public interest considerations. Presumably, talking >>about how those organizations function would also be off limits. This >>would eliminate what Avri referred to at the CPSR panel as the >>"gadfly" >>function of the forum---raising issues and concerns not being raised >>within these bodies, pushing them, calling for solutions that are in >>keeping with WSIS principles, etc. > > > this becomes a matter of defining the context in which something is > considered. again i don't see anyone stopping a forum from talking > about these issues if that is what it decides to talk about. I don't agree on this one. I find it crucial that the forum is seen as a body that addresses issues in a cross-cutting manner despite other organization's mandates and authorities. If we don't get this right from the beginning, a lot of time and energy will be wasted on discussing whether or not it is appropriate for the forum to adress certain topics. jeanette > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Sat Sep 24 22:37:33 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 22:37:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? Message-ID: Hi everyone, And hi Laina, been a while. And, nice job Wolfgang reviewing how we got here, if others haven't they should read Wolfgangs piece to remind themselves of the background. My views medium term are close to yours, but that is not the main point of this note. Instead let me try to offer some advice from my stateside cheap seats to the weary and snubbed (by governments) CS IG warrior/diplomats in Geneva, and also to other online participants wherever you may be, both on tactics/document preparation and on my interpretation of what's really happening: 1) First to the Geneva crew, Avri's suggestion on how to constructively engage while still making clear this is under procedural protest seems like the only way to go. Odds of the governments getting it right without CS help are about zero, so since you are there you have an obligation to pitch in to the extent permitted. 2) The suggestion that the commentary/suggestion document mirror the 'non-paper' -was that Ian? - also seems the easiest way to structure things into bite size bits even diplomats might understand and be able to use. Wolfgang's outline may be more logical but would take more processing for the diplomats, which I don't think you or they have time for. 3) If that draft cannot be brought to the point of a CS consensus document, then it should be turned into an instant statement of like-minded CS folks as Bill suggests. Since we need not fall back to that point just yet, offers of technical assistance would also be premature, but I am sure several groups including the Internet Governance Project could step in swiftly if needed - but that's assuming we don't all agree on the One True Way to do oversight and manage the forum function, which we don;t know just yet, so we can hold off on that choice for a few days. Someone has to start taking a stand first. Gee I guess that's me : ) So... 4) Jeanette's note of a few days ago on the forum function I suggest can be the start of that piece of the doc; this keeps things flexible and might show to confiused or reluctant governments how new 'oversight' functions could spin out of the Fourm if collectively agreed to, eg for spam or some other hot-button area, but also reassure those who would pay the bills that this is not foreordained to be a massive standing thing, in the first instance just a lightweight occasional talk shop; 5) Then, we/you extract from Wolfgang's piece the suggestion of a continuation of the trust-based system that we have presently for root server management, with the removal of US gov involvement. Govt rights to choose what to do with their ccTLD should be explicitly acknowledged again. That is, the CS position is technical folks who trust each other make the thing work and let's leave them alone to the extent possible and not mess up the innovation engine. And the techies promise they will listen to governments choices for their own ccTLDs, which maybe could be put in writing via ICANN, with CS and GAC both involved in monitoring but not touching the DNS. Full stop. 6) finally, or firstly, as Laina and everyone else notes, it's important to keep one;s eye on the multistakeholder process prize which has been won so far, and lost so easily in Prepcom by a few governments overplaying their hands. (It's amusing to see from the cheap seats how easily the USG went so fast from being the bad guy of IG to the champion of global civil society's rights - and sad how my good Brazilian friends set themselves up as the not ready for primetime global Internet poltics players - but I digress on who's winning this hand in the poker game). 7) So if the UN and governments don't want to play by the Internet's rules, they don;t have to, but they don;t get to muck up the root either. In fact they don't even get to have an oversight function since they have just shown themselves incapable of doing so with the 'trusted' parties consent. Oops. 8) So the best/only face-saving outcome available for the losers of the Prepcom poker game (they may not realize yet they have just lost, but they have by throwing you all out of the room) and by extension Tunis, is to get the US to bail them out (ouch!) by agreeing to a multistakeholder study of what to do next. Since even if the USG agrees that the process shoudl change in time, now it's not ICANN that needs to show maturity on how to manage the net, it's the rest of the world's diplomats showing they even understand how the current system operates, and whom they should not antagonize in a network of networks based on trust and voluntary consent to interconnect. Duhhh... 9) Then in the end, in another who knows how many years, we probably get to the point Wolfgang suggests as the logical minor change to the actual root zone authorization system. So get some sleep, and start drafting tomorrow - the forecast is for heavy weather, and slow progress! As usual I can't offer much time beyond this note/outline, hopefully someone else in the appropriate timezone can start putting the pieces together amd surprise the Geneva crew with a morning present/first draft when they get up - perhaps minus my side commentary/wiseguy remarks! Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> "Laina Raveendran Greene" 09/24/05 6:52 PM >>> I tend to agree with Avri that we need to be sure what we are fixing. Although I do feel that oversight by US is the only issue here. ICANN is controversial to many actors, not just governments, as they do not feel it to be truly "multistakeholder", with clear transparency and legitimacy. If you recall, the Dept of Commerce under Ira Magaziner did try to "give over" oversight by calling for the Green Paper and White Paper process of consultation from all actors around the world, including gov. For those of you involved then, you will recall ITU, EU, some Asian governments, etc were all active during that "multistakeholder" process. We also had the International Forum for the White Paper process which tried to bring the process even further to develop clear models (4 were finally submitted through the process), but in the end things were hijacked by vested interests lobbying in DC, and also using the argument that no good alternative existed from any of these models proposed. All the clear principles of the White Paper on accountability, legitimacy, checks and balances through the at-large group etc were hijacked in the end through the closed process of coming up with ICANN. Many are still not implemented. Yes, things need to be done to fix this oversight issue by the US but as you can see, this issue was discussed as way back as 1996 onwards and involves more than this. ICANN started on the wrong foot i.e. without clear legitimacy and mandate from the open consultative process. (Resurrecting the White Paper will show you some of the history to what the Dept of Commerce were themselves proposing back then and the models the rest of the world proposed as solutions. )Not trying to defend the US, it is still worthwhile keeping in mind though that it was the US who initiated the process of internationalising their oversight function in the first place back in 1996. In any case, until there is a clear and better alternative, the US can continue to use that as the excuse for not doing anything more than it has done with ICANN not being perfect either. Trying to fix what is not working in ICANN could help allay some of the concerns of gov and other actors who feel the ICANN is not working too. How we do this with ICANN willing to do this, is another matter and we could use WSIS to put pressure on US to reform ICANN. Just a thought. Whatever it is, we need to understand the ramifications of any solution adopted. Working out solutions for how this should work will take time (we will definitely not solve this here at PrepCom 3). I agree with WGIG that clear mandate and timeline to have a WG to ensure this happens will be more constructive to help move things forward. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 12:21 AM To: Governance Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? On 24 sep 2005, at 23.23, Ian Peter wrote: > The only other situation likely to be simple enough to satisfy would > be a "more power to GAC" one. Let GAC have a right of veto on root > zone policy issues. I know its not ideal to everyone, but is it more > acceptable than nothing happening or some ridiculous government > top-heavy structure being established for this purpose? > I don't think one has to go as far as giving the GAC a veto. I think there are intermediate steps that could achieve a similar effect. e.g. give the GAC, and some CS oriented ICAN entity, perhaps the ALAC, or something with wider inclusion of users or at least domain holders, seat(s) on the board and give the GAC the ability to cause a full review of any ccTLD (and perhaps other issues related to national policies though this is somewhat more difficult to define) decision. what I do agree with is the proposition that ICANN could go a long way to having a greater degree of multistakeholder control, and that this needs to be achieved during the year approaching the end of the MOU, when one can only hope that the US will live up to its obligation to set the mature and self regulating organization free. this is, btw, implicit in my understanding of option 2, as i will argue during the Tuesday forum on the issue. 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 Mueller at syr.edu Tue Sep 27 17:43:22 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:43:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] MODIFIED draft text on political oversight Message-ID: >>> Avri Doria 09/27/05 5:30 PM >>> >I am afraid we are at an impasse. I cannot accept the >notion of the forum as an oversight body for ICANN. I didn't propose that MSF be an "oversight" body. I merely pointed out that someone (not ICANN) has to decide when ICANN meets the conditions you specify to be granted the full control of the root. Obviously. And that is either the USG (which is the situation now) or....someone else. It seems to me that MSF is the least objectionable option here, but I agree it is not a good one. The problem highlights the major problems with your proposal. >The idea of having an independent external review formed in >extraordinary cases, i.e. when the internal procedures of a more >developed ICANN (truly MSH etc) were unable to resolve an issue are >about as far as i could ever agree to. Whenever there is a big and important dispute, the worst thing you can possibly do is construct the dispute resolution mechanism, rules and decision makers ex post. That is just so fundamental to institutional design it hardly bears repeating. The burden of doing this will be so great that almost no review of ICANN Decisions will ever be possible, because accepting a dispute would plunge everyone involved into so much work and uncertainty that they will do anything to avoid it. >an no, i will also not subscribe to a framework convention, which >would be controled by nations and where civil society (and the >private sector as well as the internet community) would have no voice >in negotiations at all. Huh? CS and PS can have a voice if govts agree to give them one. Which is right where we are now, eh? How is it that you trust governments to give you a voice in WSIS but not in a framework convention? In both cases, governments have the same formal powers. In both cases, if CS is to be included it will be becaiuse governments agree to give them that role. Reliance on a FC per se doesn't change anything. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Wed Sep 28 09:28:41 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:28:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] MODIFIED draft text on political oversight Message-ID: For all practical purposes, Avri's position amounts to this: status quo plus forum. That is, the US government would decide (unilaterally) when and under what conditions to fully privatize (give to ICANN) the root; ICANN and USG would settle on some review mechanism which, based on past performance, is likely to be perfunctory. As Stephane B. said, let's be factual about this. Describing the option in this way is not necessarily a criticism - compared to other models, this option may be better - but it is an attempt to be perfectly honest and clear about what is being proposed. I also seriously doubt that there is consensus on this within CS, not to mention among governments. But as a default for CS it is not all bad, given governments' propensity to exclude. >>> Jacqueline Morris 09/28/05 5:44 AM >>> Hi I think that we can have language that requires futher discussion re development of some of the more detailed points.I don't think that we need to thrash everything out in detail right now in a rush, once the concepts of MSF, reformed ICANN and independent review are agreed to and accepted. I agree that ICANN would need some sort of independent review body as a "last resort". I do not think it should be the Forum. I agree with Avri that this independent review would be already constituted before it is needed, and simply "turn on" to respond to requests for review on particular decisions. This could include the choosing of the panel members in advance. I also doubt that a framework convention is the way to go. Jacqueline On 9/27/05, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I am afraid we are at an impasse. I cannot accept the notion of the > forum as an oversight body for ICANN. > > The idea of having an independent external review formed in > extraordinary cases, i.e. when the internal procedures of a more > developed ICANN (truly MSH etc) were unable to resolve an issue are > about as far as i could ever agree to. the idea of something like > the forum being the one to decide when the MOU conditions were met is > inconceivable to me. > > i do admit that the piece we hurriedly wrote was inadequately > writen. i do not admit to their being too little thought put into > it. but of course i will happily agree that understanding the full > complexity of what will happen as time goes on is beyond any of us. > > an no, i will also not subscribe to a framework convention, which > would be controled by nations and where civil society (and the > private sector as well as the internet community) would have no voice > in negotiations at all. personally, i think that would be a disaster > on a par with model 4, which i think is an abomination. > > a. > > On 27 sep 2005, at 16.14, Milton Mueller wrote: > > > My proposed additions in ALL CAPS, deletes in [brackets] > > > > > >>>> Jeanette Hofmann 09/27/05 7:31 AM >>> > >>>> > > Political Oversight > > > > 62b: We recognize that the time has come for a change in the political > > > > oversight of ICANN [the logical Internet infrastructure]. We do not > > recommend > > the creation of a new oversight organization for domain names and IP > > addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard > > to > > ICANN: > > > > 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its [pre-eminent > > role of > > ] > > stewardship OVER [in relation to] ICANN AND THE DNS ROOT and enters > > into > > an adequate host-country agreement for ICANN. > > > > 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on > > > > its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the community > > > > of Internet users, private sector and governments. THE WSIS > > MULTISTAKEHOLDER FORUM WOULD DECIDE WHEN THIS MILESTONE HAD BEEN > > REACHED. > > > > 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. THE WSIS MULTISTAKEHOLDER FORUM WOULD DECIDE WHEN THIS > > MILESTONE HAD BEEN REACHED. > > > > [4. ICANN must establish a review process for its decisions in the > > form > > > > of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission, established > > on a > > > > case-by-case basis.] > > > > 5. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government > > transfers the IANA function to ICANN. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com T&T Music and videos online _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Wed Sep 28 09:40:12 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:40:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] MODIFIED draft text on political oversight Message-ID: One aspect of my response to Avri/Jeanette political oversight statement is significant but has not attracted any comment: > > 4. ICANN'S DECISIONS MUST BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH PUBLIC POLICY > > CONSTRAINTS NEGOTIATED THROUGH INTERNATIONAL TREATIES; E.G., WTO TRADE > > RULES, HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES, CYBERCRIME CONVENTIONS, ETC. GOVERNMENTS > > AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO INVOKE A DISPUTE > > PROCEDURE WHEN IT BELIEVED ICANN ACTIONS VIOLATED THE TERMS OF > > ESTABLISHED INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC POLICY. There is all this talk about how governments need to be involved in the "public policy" decisions. Basically, this approach calls their bluff. It says, "ok, when governments have actually decided among themselves what the policy is, and can produce specific rules and procedures embodying that policy, then they can intervene - otherwise they cannot. This is an idea that deserves widespread consideration. Unfortunately, what many governments seem to have in mind when they talk about their authority over "public policy" is a desire to intervene at will in ICANN or other processes whenever they ex post facto deem something as being of policy interest - .xxx being a case in point. But governments do not have, and should not have, a right to make up "public policy" on the fly, following no rules or procedures. This idea binds them to intervening in cases when there are known public policies established through legitimate processes. I note that it also fits in well with the statement of Rikke Joergenson of the human rights caucus calling for Internet-related organizations to be compliant with established human rights norms. I may not have found the best way to implement this idea, but please help me move forward on it. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Wed Sep 28 11:49:43 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:49:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight stmt Message-ID: Avri and all: Below, I edit Avri's text in line with my suggestions: ADDITIONS IN CAPS, [deletions in brackets] Some of these changes are corrections of typos and needed for clarification. Others are substantive. I will send a separate message explaining the changes. ========================================== Political Oversight 62b: 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 in 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 structure by the community of Internet users, civil society, the technical community, private sector and governments. 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. Just to be clear, we are not calling for an INTERGOVERNMENTAL 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 SURE TO RETAIN THOSE ASPECTS OF ITS CALIFORNIA INCORPORATION THAT ENHANCE ITS ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE GLOBAL INTERNET-USING PUBLIC 6. ICANN's decisions, and any host country agreement must be required to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through international treaties, e.g in regard to human rights treaties, privacy rights, trade rules, and cybercrime treaties. Government, INDIVIDUALS and international organizations, including NGOs, would have the right and repsonsibility 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. 7. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government SHOULD transfer the IANA function to ICANN. [8. It is understood that achieving these conditions will rely on negotiations between ICANN and the US Government. It is expected that the International multistakeholder community will take part in the process THROUGH participation in ICANN process. It is also expected THAT the multistakeholder community will observe and comment on the progress made in this process through the Forum.] _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Wed Sep 28 13:07:22 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:07:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Updated version of oversight stmt. Message-ID: I can live with this. Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> Avri Doria 09/28/05 12:54 PM >>> I have attempted to combine Milton and Karen's comments with my concerns. does this work? we need, if at all possible to reach closure tonight if we want this statement to be included for consideration. almost last call folks. a. ---- Political Oversight 62b: 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 in 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 structure of the community of Internet users, national governments, civil society, the technical community, business associations, non profit organizations and non-business organizations. 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, and trade rules. 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. 7. Once all of the above conditions are met, the US Government shall transfer the IANA function to ICANN. 8. It is expected that the International multistakeholder community will take part in the process through participation in the ICANN process. It is also expected that the multistakeholder community will observe and comment on the progress made in this process through the proposed Forum. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Fri Sep 30 03:52:28 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:52:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Canada's proposal on IG forum - its COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE Message-ID: <50674.195.186.231.20.1128066748.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, Parminder is right. Upon inspection, it is entirely an ICT4D proposal, building on programs and approaches Canada/IDRC have supported previously---generally useful but not at all what WGIG or CS previously had in mind. All capacity building for developing countries, seemingly to fit in to the topography of existing IG mechanisms, not dialogue, analysis, trend monitoring, soft law making as necessary with an eye toward improving them. Capacity building is of course critically important, but the other functions are needed. The caucus statement is much better that the Canadian, which makes no mention of the functions and foci we specified, listed below. If we get the chance to take the floor today, I hope the caucus will reiterate support for its own position and diplomatically note the comparative limitations of the Canadian one, which many parties do seem to be flocking toward, perhaps because it is the most detailed language from a government. They should read CS language too... Bill -------- IG Caucus List of Forum Functions a. inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for peer-level interaction where appropriate, for example in Birds of a Feather, working groups, study groups, plenaries, etc. b. comparative, cross-sectoral analysis of governance mechanisms, with an eye toward "lessons learned" and best practices that could inform individual and collective institutional improvements c. assessment and monitoring of horizontal issues applicable to all Internet governance arrangements, e.g. the promotion of transparency, accountability, inclusion, and other guidelines for "good governance,” such as the WSIS principles; d. identification of weaknesses and gaps in the governance architecture, i.e. "orphaned" or multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly within the ambit of any existing body; e. identification of potential tensions between separately developed mechanisms, and possibly efforts to promote enhanced coordination among them; f. promotion of decentralized convergence among positions and initiatives, where possible; g. pre-decision agenda setting that could, inter alia, feed into the work of other bodies; h. provide a clearing house for coordination, resource mobilization, identification of new needs and gaps, in relation to supporting meaningful developing country participation and capacity building i. promote the usage of ICTs to allow remote participation in Internet governance processes; j. release recommendations, best practices, proposals and other documents on the various Internet governance issues. > -----Original Message----- > From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On > Behalf Of Parminder > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 11:06 PM > To: plenary at wsis-cs.org > Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Canada's proposal on IG forum - its > COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE > > > > > > Hi All, > > I am sorry to use the the already crowded plenary list to state > these views on > matters in front of sub-committee A , but I am not subscribed on > the IG CS > list and I really wanted to share this with all. > > I found a lot of enthusiasm in CS content and themes meeting on > the Canadian > proposal on the forum. Most of the support came because canadian proposal > seems strong on the MSP priciple. That’s great, but we need the > 'substance' > too - perhaps that may be more important. > > And if we look at the canadian proposal on the forum from 'substance' > or 'content;' angle, it is abysmal (excuse my use of strong language). > > It completely transforms the very purpose and agenda of the > 'forum' as was > nicely laid out by WGIG reports points 43 to 47 - it was > supposed to be a > global IG policy deliberation space. But the canada proposal > makes it into a > capacity building body for developing countires etc- badly > reeking of WIPO's > technical assistence programs which suppose that 'they' know > everything and > the those with poor capacities (read, developing counteries)need to > be 'taught' what the right frameworks and concepts are. > > The canadian proposal (cut-pasted at the end of the email) opens in this > fashion -- > > >>>We commit to establishing a new forum mechanism, dedicated to > >>>enhancing the > capacity of all stakeholders, particularly those from developing > countries, to > participate fully and effectively in all forums relevant to Internet > governance. >>> > > Were we looking for a forum for this purpose, I thought we wanted it for > policy deliberation, advise, taking new issues (see WGIG report, > pt.s 43 to > 47).... Capacity building is only one of the functions of the > forum, and it > comes way down on the list....... > > Why is there an attempt to cut out such needed global policy > spaces by subtly > substituting them with 'capacity building' bodies. And why should > the CS be in > a hurry to accept that - do we have such aversion to global public policy > deliberations and policy development. > > This is a very status quo-ist view..... Things are fine as they > are..... And > lets obfuscate and confuse substantial policy issues, since developing > countires in any case have poor capacities, and are liable to miss the > subterfuge. > > CS need not be enthused about it just because MSP principle is > promised - MSP > for what....... > > I thought CS always wanted a forum as proposed by WGIG - the > canadian proposal > is NOT about the same 'forum'. And if anyone has some doubt, see > the fact that > canada has even proposed to move the 'forum' section to the part 4 of the > working document. This section deals with development aspects of > Internet. So > the forum is now about building capapcity of developing countires > - on issues > already decided and firmly established..... It is about > development (building > capacities of developing countires to adopt to dominant paradigms)and not > about the the 'way forward' (which would put the 'forum' in part > 5 on the 'way > forward'). Pl see canadian proposal below... > > In stating the above, I don’t mean dis-respect for any one's > views. This is > how I see the whole thing..... I may not have followed the IG > debate well, And > I will be glad to be corrected on the issues I have put here...... > > Regards > > Parminder > _____________________________________________ > > Canada's proposal > > Proposed Terms of Reference for Forum on Internet Governance To > be inserted > either in section 4 (Development), or section 5 (The Way Forward) > > ================ > NEW PARAGRAPH (# to be determined) > > We commit to establishing a new forum mechanism, dedicated to > enhancing the > capacity of all stakeholders, particularly those from developing > countries, to > participate fully and effectively in all forums relevant to Internet > governance. Recognizing the rapid development of technology and > institutions, > we propose that the forum mechanism periodically be reviewed to > determine the > need for its continuation. Further, we propose that it be > constituted as a > neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process chiefly to > facilitate the > exchange of information and best practices and to identify issues > that are not > otherwise being adequately addressed. > The forum mechanism should be viewed as a continuation of > the "multistakeholder" approach of the WSIS, building on the > valuable lessons > learned in the WSIS and WGIG processes, in particular I the open WGIG > consultations. > > We call upon all stakeholders to engage in and fully support this > important > new mechanism. The forum mechanism should be established in a > timely fashion > to: > . Strengthen and enhance stakeholders' engagement in existing > and future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly for those from > developing countries; > . Develop capacity to participate in discussions and decisions > on pertinent topics under consideration in relevant institutions; > . Encourage the full involvement and participation of all > stakeholders and experts engaged in Internet governance to > benefit from their > expertise, including those of the academic and scientific communities, to > facilitate coordination and collaboration, and to avoid duplication; > . Make full use of the tools of the information society to > conduct capacity building activities, minimizing the need for > conferences and > face-to-face meetings; and > . Establish ongoing electronic forums on pertinent topics and, > when appropriate, create a permanent on-line record for future > use in capacity > development activities, and to continue to add value over time. > > > - > > Parminder > > www.ITforChange.net > IT for Change > Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat Sep 17 16:35:28 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:35:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance : CS Declaration / TunisDeclaration Message-ID: Bertrand has made some valuable suggestions and I look forward to discussing them here and on the list. I wish to make two broader observations: 1. WGIG Report as basis for negotiations I am disturbed by the apparent passive acceptance of the demand by the US that the WGIG report should not be the basis of negotiations. To me, this represents an obvious contradiction of the intent of the WG in the first place, and an enormous setback for our cause(s). I have trouble understanding how other governments, much less CS, have let this happen. 2. Principles and Conventions I know I will sound like a broken record here, but it is becoming clear that WSIS/WGIG's attempt to jump straight from a Summit to detailed organizational and procedural changes in Internet governance will not work - and could never have worked. A framework convention, or some other way to get governments to agree to start negotiating on basic principles of Internet governance without committing themselves to anything, will have to come first. Perhaps we (IGP) were wrong that we were ready to go directly to a FC from WGIG, but it is also manifest that you are not going to create new organizations or specific changes in root server oversight until the key state actors have agreed to first negotiate about what principles and norms are going to guide those changes. I wish to amplify Bill Drake's warnings about the GAC. There is a real danger that instead of deliberate, negotiated agreements on principles and norms, we will get some kind of ad hoc empowerment of ICANN's GAC. As I have pointed out in several writings, the GAC is potentially a very dangerous animal, because it has NO defined procedures and in insulated from ICANN's already weak accountability structures. And if it achieves influence over ICANN its decisions cannot be ignored by governments that don't accept them. If enforced via ICANN's control of the root, its decisions apply to every country. >>> Bertrand de La Chapelle 09/17/05 4:01 PM >>> Dear Wolfgang and all, I am indeed in favor of a CS declaration on Internet Governance at Tunis. But that does not mean we should not get involved now in the drafting process of the Tunis Declaration part dedicated to Internet Governance. This is the purpose of my 10 questions. If Bill has taken the time to read them, they are not a reopening of the WGIG debate and they are right on the topic of the proposed structure of Amb. Khan. The key issue of PrepCom3 is NOT yet the drafting of an alternative declaration (although it is worth discussing there its principle and general outline depending on how negociations evolve). It is not only to discuss the issues addressed by the WGIG in more detail. The purpose IS to monitor closely the discussions on the text the governments are drafting an try to have an impact. How do we want it to be structured, what are the minimal elements and the things we do not want ? How do we plan to lobby ? who are the allies, on what topics ? To be more concrete, I do believe that governments will not agree in PrepCom3 and probably not even during the Summit on substantive aspects and probably not even on more than a multi-stakeholder principle and the need to continue discussing this question. Using amb. Khan's structure as guide for the moment, I believe they will agree on : 1) an introduction on : - the mandate of WGIG and a note of its report (suggestion of Brazil) - a reiteration of the Geneva Principles (multilateral , etc ...) This is where my question 3 comes : should we ask for the replacement of multilateral by multi-stakeholder ? - the affirmation of security, stability, etc..of the Internet as a common objective/guiding principle This is where my question 4 comes : inserting the notion of "shared responsibility" ? I would add : should we ask to have this paragraph moved one level up, before the principles ? 2) a definition of Internet Governance : this is where my question 2 comes : do we endorse the WGIG's definition ? 3) separating infrastructure and management of critical internet resources [Part 4a)], (that is : ICANN), from other Policy issues [part 4b)], without getting in detail in the substance of the latter. This is where my questions 5, 6 and 7 come in. 4) a part devoted to "development-related issues" This is where my question 8 comes in Very open questions will be : - the relationships between governments and ICANN : I do not believe there will be any possible agreement there before Tunis among governments. the only option (last minute compromize like last time) will probably be to address this question after Tunis in the general framework of the follow-up to the present ICANN MoU. This is related to my questions 5 and 6 : what should be the framework for the discussion of the follow-up to ICANN's MoU ? how should it associate all stakeholders ? - the establishment of a Forum [resp Fora] : there the devil is in the details and the key question is what form/procedures should such mechanism(s) adopt ? This is my questions 9 and 10. Question 10 in particular is of great importance, as it addresses the possible relationship between different parts of the draft Tunis Document and could allow to get on one side (implementation) what is not obtained on the other (Internet Governance). So, sorry to insist, but these questions are very operational and down to the point. Add other if you want - they are very welcome - but if you don't address them, don't complain afterwards that CS positions are not taken into account. Most diplomats in the room are not like us all, passionate about Internet Governance. Apart from the general US-China battle on oversight, most of them don't care a damn about these issues - if they understand them -. In four months, most of them will not even think about the information society and this summit any more. All they want is to be offer their heads of state an agreement in Tunis, even if it is only to set up a specific mechanism to address these issues further. Let's help them in a way that sets the future activities in a proper balance. Looking forward to seeing you soon. Best Bertrand For clarity, I reproduce below the 10 questions of my previous mail : 1) is Amb. Khan's document STRUCTURE appropriate as a starting point ? if not, what would we like ? 2) is the working definition of Internet Governance in the WGIG report something we can live with ? (I personnally can and commend the work of the group on that point, but others may differ) 3) can we manage / should we try to replace the formulation "multilateral, transparent and democratic with the full involvement of all stakeholders" by "multi- stakeholder, transparent and democratic", arguing that the second part of the present formulation is always dropped ? 4) can we / should we insert - as some government delegations including Salvador are also requesting - a notion that the security, stability, continuity and development of the Internet as a Global facility is the "shared responsibility" of all stakeholders ? 5) should the issues listed in Part 4a) be placed in the general framework of the revision of ICANN's MoU ? I suppose this issue will not find its solution within WSIS but that, like in the first phase, WSIS may call for the establishment of a broad debate / work group on the reform of ICANN : should we support/propose such an exit route if it offers enough guarantees of multi-stakeholderism ? 6) on the role of governments - and not simply the so- called "oversight function" - what do we really accept / support / wish ? 7) should a mechanism be proposed for the identification of new issues in addition to the ones listed in Part 4 b) ? Are the existing ones appropriate ? 8) what formulations can be proposed to avoid that Part 5 on measures to promote development have substance and do not become a simple reiteration of the formulations of the Geneva DoP and PoA ? 9) do we want a new multi-stakeholder Forum or the guarantee that all fora (existing or new ones) function on the basis of true and effective participation of all stakeholders, with a minimal set of agreed rules (Governance Protocol) and coordination mechanisms ? 10) last - but not least - is there / should there be any articulation between the fora mechanisms dealing with Internet Policy issues that this Chapter 3 addresses and the "policy debate" section of the newly proposed Chapter one on follow-up ? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Mon Sep 19 10:51:53 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:51:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] First prepcom interventions In-Reply-To: <432EC9CA.1030304@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <432EC9CA.1030304@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <432ED089.4090803@wz-berlin.de> Ralf, there are more opportunities in the coming days to address specific issues. I think it would be good if you prepared a statement that focuses on privacy and perhaps consumer rights. Besides, even it is not that obvious, my part is to point out those issues in the report that are lacking or not treated adequately :-) Also, we have send the statements to the translaters two hours ago. I would not like to make changes unless absolutly crucial. Hope that's ok. jeanette Ralf Bendrath wrote: > Thanks for these contributions. I am pleased to see part of the WGIG > comments of the Privacy & Security WG in Jeanette's statement. The > International Conference of Data Protection Commissioners that took > place in Montreux last week has also referred to the summit and sent a > strong message in its final declaration. > > > We should pick up on this, in order to use its momentum (tactical > details over a coffee, some of them are involved in national delegations > here and should be supported). > > Therefore my suggestion: If there are 30 Seconds left, could you please > add the last sentence below to this part? > > Existing text: > < discussions around privacy. Now, we all have to make sure that they are > integrated in any documents adopted at the Tunis Summit. Privacy and > data protection are too important in the Information Society to be > forgotten in the struggles over the core technical resources of the > Internet.>> > > New, to be added at the end: > < not far from here last week also has emphasized this and has sent a > respective message to the WSIS in its Montreux declaration.>> > > Thanks! > > On another matter: > > Adam Peake wrote: > >> One disturbing rumor (we will find out for sure later today) is that >> observers will be given 15 minutes speaking time every 6 hours of >> discussion. As sub-committee A meets for 3 hours each day, it seems >> we may only be able to speak every other day. Will will argue against >> this. > > I am not sure about this. I understood that here they count the overall > working hours, not per subcommittee. So if they start to have evening > sessions, we might even get two interventions per day. > > Best, Ralf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Sep 27 04:51:31 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:51:31 +1000 Subject: [governance] compilation of comments on Khan's paper on IG online In-Reply-To: <4338FA5A.20805@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <20050927085504.725A27400A@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Thanks for drawing attention to that Ralph. Lots of good stuff, sometimes from surprising sources. But the section on follow up and future arrangements looks particularly weak and going nowhere. I think CS should submit something. As stands the only thing (on comments received) that might have legs structurally is a transition to internationalisation of root. Karen was drafting something - I don't know the status, but maybe something should be submitted soonest. Those on the ground can read the climate better than I can, but what I would like to see added would include A clause taken from WGIG report supporting forum as a means to address issues. A clause urging further examination of governance models. Carlos suggested and there seemed to be general agreement about "Agreement now on the immediate need of an advisory forum (with as many additional functions as it is possible to negotiate -- and these might happen in steps after the forum is created), and on the forms of funding this forum to ensure pluralist participation from all regions and sectors. - Immediate establishment of the process towards an international Internet governance convention, deriving from it the oversight functions and mechanisms needed " Avri suggested, and there seems to have been no opposition, that "Give the GAC, and some CS oriented ICANN entity, perhaps the ALAC, or something with wider inclusion of users or at least domain holders, seat(s) on the board of ICANN and give the GAC the ability to cause a full review of any ccTLD (and perhaps other issues related to national policies though this is somewhat more difficult to define) decision". Maybe that's too specific but something like "an enhanced role for governments in ICANN" might cut. I realize I am too remote here to talk about tactics, but perhaps this summary of some of the points raised recently on which there seems to be general agreement might prompt someone to come up with some suitable statements. 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 Ralf Bendrath > Sent: Tuesday, 27 September 2005 5:53 PM > To: wsis-cs-plenary; WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: [governance] compilation of comments on Khan's paper on IG online > > Just out this morning, and very nice again, with our language submissions > next to the governments's proposals. :-) > > Ralf > > ------------------------ > > http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1998|0 > > Document WSIS-II/PC-3/DT/14 E > Compilation of comments received on the Chair’s Paper (DT/10), > Chapter Three: Internet Governance > 27 September 2005 > > This document contains a compilation of comments on Chapter Three: > Internet Governance, Chair’s Paper (DT/10) received between the > publication of the paper on 23 September and 26 September. The complete > text of all the contributions received is available at: > http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/listing.asp?lang=en?&c_event=pc2|3&c_typ > e=co|sca. > > > This is a working document that will be updated as additional comments are > submitted. > Please send comments and addition contributions to > wsis-contributions at itu.int. > _______________________________________________ > 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: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005 > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Sep 30 03:32:24 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:32:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Fwd: Canada's proposal on IG forum - its COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE In-Reply-To: <433C627A.5020204@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <433C627A.5020204@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <3039.156.106.224.63.1128065544.squirrel@156.106.224.63> On Gio, 29 Settembre 2005 23:54, Ralf Bendrath disse: > From the planary list for those of you who are not on it. Parminder is > not subscribed here, but maybe should... He has some good points. FYI, the same points were made to me informally by some EU governmental delegates, after we said we like it: "why in the hell do you want to support a proposal that deprives the forum of any substantial value and role?" -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Sep 23 05:53:51 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:53:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] Chair's paper available In-Reply-To: <954259bd05092302225aaabae8@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd05092302225aaabae8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Bertrand, thanks. A general comment is that the draft is only three and half pages. It is missing sections describing follow-up issues (forum and oversight), but even with those sections the total may only be about 5 pages. This is helpful as it tells us that comments on specific issues will be very short. Looking at sentences not paragraphs. The paragraphs that stands out as contentious reads: We strive to establish a transition to a new cooperation model that helps up [us] implement the "Geneva principles" regarding the role of the governments and all stakeholders. Institutional arrangements for Internet governance should be founded on a more solid democratic, transparent and multilateral basis, with stronger emphasis on the public policy interests of all governments, and with clarification of the relationships among different actors. Also, I don't like how CS is defined: Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role. Avri has suggested replacement: Civil society has played an important role on Internet matters. This role has ranged from capacity building at the community level to the contribution of much of the technological innovation and to the creation of much of the content that makes the Internet what it is today. Civil Society should continue to play such a role. Adam At 11:22 AM +0200 9/23/05, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >The Chair's paper in Group A (Internet governance) is now available >on the official site at : >http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1962|0 > >Bertrand > > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Tue Sep 27 13:08:27 2005 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:08:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] need for a host country agreement? In-Reply-To: <43396329.804@lextext.com> References: <43396329.804@lextext.com> Message-ID: A host country agreement for a private corporation doesn't seem that sensible to me. There is some precedent for domestic legislation giving some private companies with international aspects a special status. Examples are the IOC and (I forget which) either INTELSAT or COMSAT. Neither is a very attractive model, especially the IOC which has been so mired in scandal due to its lack of transparency and the absence of any form of oversight. On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Bret Fausett wrote: > In calling for an adequate host country agreement for ICANN, please keep > in mind that California law provides a number of protections for > Directors, corporation members and the public in general that are in the > interests of both civil society and Internet users. To the extent that > the "host country agreement" is intended to provide privileges and > immunities to ICANN from local law, remember the Auerbach v. ICANN > lawsuit, backed by EFF, which ensured that a single Director was > entitled to review the corporation's records against a claim by the > President, General Counsel and a majority of the Directors that the > records were private. That unfettered right to review ICANN's corporate > records was guaranteed by California law. This is just one among many > important provisions of California law that might be lost by insulating > ICANN from local law. A host country agreement might make ICANN more > international, but it also could have the unpleasant side effect of > making ICANN more closed and less transparent. > > Bret Fausett > _______________________________________________ > 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 @#$% hot here.<-- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Tue Sep 27 16:23:27 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:23:27 +0300 Subject: [governance] need for a host country agreement? In-Reply-To: <43396329.804@lextext.com> References: <43396329.804@lextext.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050927232308.02b20058@193.200.15.187> Bret, Thank you for the wise words. People tend to forget things, which are obvious. veni At 08:20 27-09-05 -0700, you wrote: >In calling for an adequate host country agreement for ICANN, please keep >in mind that California law provides a number of protections for >Directors, corporation members and the public in general that are in the >interests of both civil society and Internet users. To the extent that >the "host country agreement" is intended to provide privileges and >immunities to ICANN from local law, remember the Auerbach v. ICANN >lawsuit, backed by EFF, which ensured that a single Director was >entitled to review the corporation's records against a claim by the >President, General Counsel and a majority of the Directors that the >records were private. That unfettered right to review ICANN's corporate >records was guaranteed by California law. This is just one among many >important provisions of California law that might be lost by insulating >ICANN from local law. A host country agreement might make ICANN more >international, but it also could have the unpleasant side effect of >making ICANN more closed and less transparent. > > Bret Fausett >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.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 Sep 27 17:16:08 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:16:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] need for a host country agreement? In-Reply-To: <43396329.804@lextext.com> References: <43396329.804@lextext.com> Message-ID: <8AC2AB01-9640-465C-9B1B-B4DE5A9F845F@psg.com> Hi, as I understand it, in a host country agreement, the conditions are negotiated between the entity and the host country. the purpose is not to escape local labor laws or local financial governance, but rather to avoid being subject to national laws that might restrict ICANN's behavior in the international arena; i.e. be forced to follow a political boycott. so if the host country where to be negotiated in the US and in California, I would expect that most laws dealing with corporate operations and labor could very well remain the same. but, you are right in one respect, it is a matter of negotiation. and of course one must always be careful what they wish for. even if that wish is for remaining a US corporation. a. On 27 sep 2005, at 17.20, Bret Fausett wrote: > In calling for an adequate host country agreement for ICANN, please > keep > in mind that California law provides a number of protections for > Directors, corporation members and the public in general that are > in the > interests of both civil society and Internet users. To the extent that > the "host country agreement" is intended to provide privileges and > immunities to ICANN from local law, remember the Auerbach v. ICANN > lawsuit, backed by EFF, which ensured that a single Director was > entitled to review the corporation's records against a claim by the > President, General Counsel and a majority of the Directors that the > records were private. That unfettered right to review ICANN's > corporate > records was guaranteed by California law. This is just one among many > important provisions of California law that might be lost by > insulating > ICANN from local law. A host country agreement might make ICANN more > international, but it also could have the unpleasant side effect of > making ICANN more closed and less transparent. > > Bret Fausett > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.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 Sep 28 03:59:58 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:59:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] need for a host country agreement? In-Reply-To: <43396329.804@lextext.com> References: <43396329.804@lextext.com> Message-ID: <433A4D7E.7060802@wz-berlin.de> Bret, I remember unpleasant side-effects of Californian law: http://www.icann.org/santiago/membership-analysis.htm It took me a long time to understand what a derivative lawsuit actually is. From a non american point of view it seemed bizarre that it prevented a membership organization in ICANN. best, jeanette Bret Fausett wrote: > In calling for an adequate host country agreement for ICANN, please keep > in mind that California law provides a number of protections for > Directors, corporation members and the public in general that are in the > interests of both civil society and Internet users. To the extent that > the "host country agreement" is intended to provide privileges and > immunities to ICANN from local law, remember the Auerbach v. ICANN > lawsuit, backed by EFF, which ensured that a single Director was > entitled to review the corporation's records against a claim by the > President, General Counsel and a majority of the Directors that the > records were private. That unfettered right to review ICANN's corporate > records was guaranteed by California law. This is just one among many > important provisions of California law that might be lost by insulating > ICANN from local law. A host country agreement might make ICANN more > international, but it also could have the unpleasant side effect of > making ICANN more closed and less transparent. > > Bret Fausett > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.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 Mon Sep 19 13:12:57 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:12:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] First prepcom interventions Message-ID: Nothing against our good friends at Georgia Tech, but can we at Syracuse reclaim Milton, thanks. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Jeanette Hofmann 09/19/05 12:53 PM >>> Carlos, could you be more specific, please? We have gained some time due to the fact that our interventions have been postponed to tomorrow. We can deliver edited versions (not new statements!) by tomorrow morning. Corrections and improvements can be suggested right now. But, please, keep in mind that each statement should not be longer than 300 words. Suggestions that only make the statements longer are not helpful. jeanette carlos a. afonso wrote: > Adam, I am not sure how to handle this, but some of the statements are > not necessarily caucuses' consensus nor may represent what civil society > believes should be said in those precious 15 minutes -- although mostly > CS will probably agree with them (but there are diverging views > regarding at least one statement). How to express this in your opening > statement without giving the impression we are a bunch of disorganized > fellows? :) > > --c.a. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:29:43 +0900 > Subject: [governance] First prepcom interventions > > >>As you may have seen from Rik Panganiban's note to the plenary list >>this morning, prepcom has so far focused on China and human rights >>issues. Great fun and important stuff. Nice to see the US, UK (EU) >>and Canada taking a bit of a stand on human rights. >> >>As far as Internet governance is concerned we hope sub-committee A >>will start work this afternoon. >> >>One disturbing rumor (we will find out for sure later today) is that >>observers will be given 15 minutes speaking time every 6 hours of >>discussion. As sub-committee A meets for 3 hours each day, it seems >>we may only be able to speak every other day. Will will argue >>against this. >> >>Other civil society organizations have kindly agreed to give the IG >>caucus the full 15 minutes speaking time today. Five of us will >>speak: >> >>Speakers for Civil Society >>Sub-Committee A (Internet Governance) >>Monday, 19 September >> >>1. Mr. Adam Peake, from GLOCOM, on behalf of the Civil Society >>Internet Governance Caucus >>2. Ms. Magaly Pazello, from DAWN, on behalf of the Civil Society >>Internet Governance Caucus >>3. Mr. William Drake, from CPSR, on behalf of the Civil Society >>Internet Governance Caucus >>4. Mr. Milton Mueller, from the Georgia Institute of Technology, on >>behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >>5. Ms. Jeanette Hofmann, from the Heinrich Boell Foundation, on >>behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >> >>We had to prepare text for the interpreters, those files are >>attached. >> >>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 wdrake at cpsr.org Wed Sep 21 16:25:39 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:25:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponement oftoday'scaucus meeting Message-ID: <63519.62.203.135.6.1127334339.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi Carlos, My presentation was based on the following data points, all of which have been discussed here before (I'm very tired and don't want to dig through the list archive, so please forgive any imprecision): 1. The caucus first expressed it support for something like a forum (think we called it an observatory) in our input to the CS alternative declaration to the December 2003 Summit in Geneva. In the pre-WGIG period to follow, Wolfgang, myself, and perhaps others, don't remember, wrote and distributed pieces and gave talks along the same lines in settings where caucus people were present, meetings and online, and I don't recall anyone contesting the idea that there should be a multistakeholder mechanism for dialogue, analysis, and trend monitoring of the IG "broad agenda". 2. The idea was subsequently taken up in WGIG. CS people played a prominent role in driving the discussion. My understanding was that all of us supported it. I don't recall you arguing against it, may have missed a language nuance. I never heard anyone else in our group indicate that the concept was contested among us. If I remember correctly, the Brazilian model you circulated called for a new body to oversee ICANN, but I never understood this to mean you opposed the forum, which is not about ICANN oversight and is hence a separate matter. 3. The WGIG report was released. At the release event, members in attendance drafted language saying we strongly supported the WGIG's proposal. We sent it to the list, and a couple of people---Vittorio, I think Danny, think there was another person---expressed various reservations, i.e. Vittorio wanted particular design parameters to be specified if we were going to endorse it. So we changed the language from "strongly support" to "support" and sent that back to the list. Perhaps given the press of events on the ground, I believe this compromise was deemed acceptable, or at least did not engender further objections. 4. Weeks later, with no contestation in between, the revised and softened release event language on the forum was then included and specified a bit in a draft reply to the WGIG report. This was circulated and debated on the list for a week or so (?), with various people offering inputs and edits. A couple people offered additions to the list of functions it might perform. The caucus response was finalized and submitted to the ITU and put online. At no point along the way do I recall you or anyone else saying no, stop, we should not support the forum concept. 5. Now, more than a month later, I gave a presentation making the same points as in the previously agreed text: the caucus "supports" the forum, the forum would help be based on inclusive peer level MS participation, should not be anchored in any existing specialized international organization, should not negotiate binding instruments, etc. Folks here in Geneva rushing to assemble statements thought it was fine. I'm not aware that Adam saw his introductory statement as indicating that mine was nonconsensual, as you suggest. I had no idea you objected because I don't recall you ever objecting. I don't think that's just me; if someone here had known you objected, I suspect they'd have said so, and we'd have discussed what to do then. 6. Given the process summarized above, I don't think it's accurate to say that the presentation was based on "a vision which is not shared by many civil society organizations." In fact, looking beyond the caucus, I don't recall anyone contesting the concept on the broader plenary list, either. Perhaps "by not many CSOs" you mean the Brazilian groups you mention, which to my knowledge have not been involved in the caucus and have not made any statements here opposing it. Again, I think if someone else had known there were CS groups that felt this way, it'd have come up before. Or maybe you yourself could have said it, before rather than attacking me after the fact. 7. These process points aside, on substance, if I understand the below, you're viewing this issue through the lens of ICANN oversight. The WGIG report specified the forum as a dialogue etc body dealing with the broad agenda of IG, and *separately* put forward four options for oversight. The texts that have been around for a couple months and included in the caucus response to the report are also clear that the forum is not seen as an ICANN oversight body. But I guess you want a new and strong oversight body, and think it should also fulfill the forum function---I thought we opposed one entity for all issues and functions, but whatever---and on this latter basis see the forum as an undesirable and weak alternative. Fine, and variations of this are certainly the first preference of various developing country governments (well, the second preference, after having the ITU do everything). But it is also fair to say that that is a far more contentious idea than the forum, including I suspect, here. If there's a groundswell of support in the caucus for major intergovernmental involvement in ICANN oversight, this is certainly not reflected in our texts, either. Finally, there's one other difference between the forum concept and the uber-body I guess you want. The forum has a 60% chance of happening if opposition from the USG, certain other governments, and the business community can be overcome. As such, I think it's in CS' interest to try to make sure that it is configured in a manner that is consistent with the points previously agreed in the caucus text. Fraternal regards, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of carlos a. afonso > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:51 PM > To: Jeanette Hofmann; WSIS Internet GovernanceCaucus; Robert Guerra; > Adam Peake > Cc: magaly at greatvideo.com; wdrake at ictsd.ch > Subject: Re: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponement > oftoday'scaucus meeting > > > People, > > Sorry for not being physically more present -- trying to work with the > Brazilians as the events unravel at subcommittee A, which is the reason > of my earlier arrival in Geneva. > > I would like to express my concern (which is the concern of the > Brazilian NGOs working on Internet/ICT governance issues as well, like > INDECS, the Digital TV civil society caucus, CDI-PE, Rits, the > Softwarelivre.org group, several other members of the CRIS-Brasil > campaign and so on) that, contrary to what the caucus managed to present > in subcomm B (a unified statement built by a consensus effort, albeit in > a rush, thanks to the great work of the Ralf-Bertrand duo among others), > our presentation in subcomm A was piecemeal and the specific part on > Internet governance mechanisms not based on consensus. > > I am afraid the presentation by Bill Drake is based on a vision which is > not shared by many civil society organizations. We understand we do not > want a "revolution" -- and this is mostly consensus -- but we need some > significant changes in the mechanisms, first, to consider the set of > priority issues which are not in the current ICANN-based system, and > second, to take into account the need for practical actions regarding > paragraph 48 of the WGIG report, among other reasons. If we endorse the > statement as a consensus, we are in practice almost doing what ICANN > wants us to do, ie., defend the creation of an innocuous > consultative/advisory forum which might never be really taken seriously. > > I understand the opening statement by Adam tried to show this did not > represent consensus, but I did a survey later on among Southern > delegates (Brazil, India, Iran, Cuba among others) and most of them > understood otherwise. Many of these delegates also wrongly associate > model 2 of the WGIG report with the civil society caucus -- we must > recall model 2 was built under the influence of ICANN-related people and > business reps in the WGIG. Do we really want this perception to stay? > What will be our consensus position? > > Just to make clear, my position (to which the Brazilian position has > basically converged) was expressed in my "parallel" paper written during > the last months of the WGIG. What are the other positions in the caucus > on this which we could analyze and try to build a consolidated/consensus > position? > > Or we just leave things as they are? > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Sep 14 12:20:01 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 12:20:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] Report of the Open consultation on Internet Governance Message-ID: <131293a205091409202f8c6649@mail.gmail.com> Please find enclosed the report on the Informal Consultation on Internet Governance, convened by Ambassador Khan on 6 September 2005. The Food for Thought document is available at: www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/consultations/6sep/food-for-thought.doc. Open consultation on Internet Governance 6 September 2005 Ambassador Khan from Pakistan, Chairman-designate of PrepCom-3 Sub-Committee A, first made a short presentation of the « Food for thought » document. The purpose of this paper was to give guidance to all stakeholders, and the approach at this stage was only to raise questions. This was not an official document and was not part of the WSIS negotiation process. He later on reminded that the two bases for negotiations for Chapter 3 on Internet Governance would be the Geneva Principles and the WGIG report, since the text on Internet Governance would have to facilitate the implementation of the Geneva principles. The USA delivered a series of general comments on the procedural aspects of this consultation and questioned the overly technical content of the Food for Thought paper, as well as the fact that the WGIG report should not be considered as a basis for negotiations. This was reiterated a second time by the US delegation later on during the discussion. The UK, on behalf of the EU, only recognized that the structure of this paper was a good base for negotiations. However both delegations would give more comments during PrepCom-3. Further to a question from Greece, Dr. Tim Kelly clarified that the WSIS ES received so far more than 300 pages of comments, so that the compilation had been made in a selective way to set down a readable and useful document. The compilation also included some contributions from non accredited entities, such as CS caucuses. Geneva principles Nicaragua, on behalf of GRULAC, said that the information society should focus on people and that WSIS opened an excellent opportunity to make progress in building the Information Society through the Internet. Internet Governance needs to be transparent, democratic and multi-stakeholder oriented, in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Declaration. Pakistan, on behalf of the Asian Group, underlined that the discussion on basic IG principles agreed in Geneva should in no way be reopened in Phase 2. Security and stability of the internet should be only considered as one of the eight principles agreed in Geneva, as also supported later on by Brazil (who also asked what the difference between the Geneva Principles and the Guidance principles was), Iran and El Salvador. Honduras argued that security and stability of the internet should not prevail over the other principles, such as access for all and an equitable distribution of resources. Internet Governance working definition Pakistan stated that the democratic and transparent nature of IG should be clearly highlighted in the working definition adopted in Tunis, which should not be limited to its descriptive aspects. Iran added that the prescriptive part of the definition should also be retained. El Salvador stressed that the text to be adopted in Tunis should guarantee that this definition, which was a very good basis, is not definitive. Bertrand de la Chapelle (www.wsis-online.net) mentioned that the working definition represented a significant progress, and gave a practical framework including national and regional dimensions. Stakeholder participation Pakistan stressed the need to deal with stakeholder involvement in accordance with the Geneva principles. Iran proposed that mention be given to the shared responsibility of all stakeholders, including corporate responsibility to create an enabling environment for the development of ICTs. Mr. de la Chapelle underlined the need to mention precisely the principle of a shared responsibility of all stakeholders in the definition of IG. In addition, as based on the principles agreed in Geneva, any mechanisms adopted should be multi-stakeholder based. The Internet Society stressed the importance that internet users participate in this process. Policy issues Nicaragua stressed that questions related to funding, access for all, security and stability of the Internet, as well as multilingualism and accountability should also be strong elements of IG. Francis Muguet (ENSTA) regretted that the scientific community had not been included enough in the WGIG report. This was, he said, the reason why many issues were ignored or misunderstood in the document, such as the question of free software, technical aspects of DNS, or a scientific approach to security and stability of the Internet, including spam. Israel pointed to the need to prevent religious intolerance on the Internet, as well as to combat the use of the Internet by terrorist networks. Multilingualism should also be strongly promoted. The Internet Society asserted that Section 4-a., on infrastructures and management of critical internet resources, did not include a positive language yet (e.g. Internet Society's response to the WGIG report). Development issues Brazil stressed the specific needs of developing countries, which are looking for a better access to knowledge. Egypt welcomed the content of the document in terms of development issues, noting that discussions on other stakeholder comments had been very fruitful. However, Egypt added that other elements contained in the WGIG report should be retained in Chapter 3, such as access for all. Forum function Nicaragua briefly underlined the need for a constructive and open debate on the IG-related work after Tunis. Pakistan, noting that none of the four proposed forum models enjoyed any consensus, proposed more detailed consideration of the issue. Brazil urged Member States to take a decision to fix up and improve the IG system, which does not work up to its full capacity under its current organization. Technical expertise, to be provided by ICANN, and political guidance should both be developed in the Internet governance system. Developing countries also need a better access at the decision-taking level. Chairman Khan answered that the discussion on how to fix the IG system should be more specific (such as the creation of an international organization, or new relations between ICANN and the GAP, etc.). Brazil later on clarified its position, stressing the need to establish a global internet forum to address policy issues, giving the example of religious intolerance or the .xxx domain name. The Tunis outcome document should therefore give a precise guidance to establish such a forum. Iran stressed that the four IG models developed by the WGIG report were articulated around a "Forum+" arrangement, while the Food For Thought document only referred to a forum in isolation. Participation of States should be guaranteed at the international policy level to prevent the IG model to be jeopardized by domestic interests. Based on the conclusion that the scientific community was not included enough in the WGIG report, Francis Muguet (ENSTA) emphasized that IG required an international legal framework for a multi-stakeholder internet governance forum which could effectively work. Bertrand de la Chapelle supported that the framework for IG follow-up should rather be related to the global WSIS framework. The GFC definition of follow-up provided three elements, but the policy dimension was still in a void in the GFC proposal, in which a multi-stakeholder forum framework for policy debate was still missing. The definition of principles for multi-stakeholder participation in the IG Forum would be one of the major concerns of all during PrepCom-3. Working methods for Sub-Committee A on Internet governance According to Brazil, there would be two ways to go ahead: the first one is to follow and pick some elements of the Chair's proposal as a basis for negotiations; the second option is that the Tunis Summit would take note of the WGIG report and would take further decision. CCBI raised several questions about procedures and working methods during PrepCom-3 with Sub-Committee B on IG, proposing that the speaking time for business entities be more flexibly distributed, for more productive contributions from observers to the process. CCBI also requested that business entities could participate in the work of the drafting groups. Ambassador Karklins answered that the allocation of speaking slots for observer entities would be at the discretion of the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, provided that it would fit with the 15 minutes as decided. ICANN underlined as well that the participation of NGOs and of other stakeholders was an important element in the on-going negotiations, in order to maximize their expertise in the process. By closing the meeting, Chairman Khan encouraged stakeholders to have formal and informal discussion on IG, to continue to send contributions and to submit joint statements. -- Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com T&T Music and videos online _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Mon Sep 19 12:53:48 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:53:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] First prepcom interventions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <432EED1C.10606@wz-berlin.de> Carlos, could you be more specific, please? We have gained some time due to the fact that our interventions have been postponed to tomorrow. We can deliver edited versions (not new statements!) by tomorrow morning. Corrections and improvements can be suggested right now. But, please, keep in mind that each statement should not be longer than 300 words. Suggestions that only make the statements longer are not helpful. jeanette carlos a. afonso wrote: > Adam, I am not sure how to handle this, but some of the statements are > not necessarily caucuses' consensus nor may represent what civil society > believes should be said in those precious 15 minutes -- although mostly > CS will probably agree with them (but there are diverging views > regarding at least one statement). How to express this in your opening > statement without giving the impression we are a bunch of disorganized > fellows? :) > > --c.a. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:29:43 +0900 > Subject: [governance] First prepcom interventions > > >>As you may have seen from Rik Panganiban's note to the plenary list >>this morning, prepcom has so far focused on China and human rights >>issues. Great fun and important stuff. Nice to see the US, UK (EU) >>and Canada taking a bit of a stand on human rights. >> >>As far as Internet governance is concerned we hope sub-committee A >>will start work this afternoon. >> >>One disturbing rumor (we will find out for sure later today) is that >>observers will be given 15 minutes speaking time every 6 hours of >>discussion. As sub-committee A meets for 3 hours each day, it seems >>we may only be able to speak every other day. Will will argue >>against this. >> >>Other civil society organizations have kindly agreed to give the IG >>caucus the full 15 minutes speaking time today. Five of us will >>speak: >> >>Speakers for Civil Society >>Sub-Committee A (Internet Governance) >>Monday, 19 September >> >>1. Mr. Adam Peake, from GLOCOM, on behalf of the Civil Society >>Internet Governance Caucus >>2. Ms. Magaly Pazello, from DAWN, on behalf of the Civil Society >>Internet Governance Caucus >>3. Mr. William Drake, from CPSR, on behalf of the Civil Society >>Internet Governance Caucus >>4. Mr. Milton Mueller, from the Georgia Institute of Technology, on >>behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >>5. Ms. Jeanette Hofmann, from the Heinrich Boell Foundation, on >>behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >> >>We had to prepare text for the interpreters, those files are >>attached. >> >>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 apeake at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 14:53:52 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 03:53:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] First prepcom interventions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/20/05, carlos a. afonso wrote: > Adam, I am not sure how to handle this, but some of the statements are > not necessarily caucuses' consensus nor may represent what civil society > believes should be said in those precious 15 minutes -- although mostly > CS will probably agree with them (but there are diverging views > regarding at least one statement). How to express this in your opening > statement without giving the impression we are a bunch of disorganized > fellows? :) > Understood. We tried to take most of the language from the contribution we sent for prepcom 3, but I expect new issues have probably slipped in. Will make sure it is clear that I say something along the lines of "these statements offer a sense of civil society's opinion on the issues but are not presented as consensus"? I'll think about it and soften things. Thanks for bringing this up. We should talk about your (everyone's) specific concerns. Adam > --c.a. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:29:43 +0900 > Subject: [governance] First prepcom interventions > > > As you may have seen from Rik Panganiban's note to the plenary list > > this morning, prepcom has so far focused on China and human rights > > issues. Great fun and important stuff. Nice to see the US, UK (EU) > > and Canada taking a bit of a stand on human rights. > > > > As far as Internet governance is concerned we hope sub-committee A > > will start work this afternoon. > > > > One disturbing rumor (we will find out for sure later today) is that > > observers will be given 15 minutes speaking time every 6 hours of > > discussion. As sub-committee A meets for 3 hours each day, it seems > > we may only be able to speak every other day. Will will argue > > against this. > > > > Other civil society organizations have kindly agreed to give the IG > > caucus the full 15 minutes speaking time today. Five of us will > > speak: > > > > Speakers for Civil Society > > Sub-Committee A (Internet Governance) > > Monday, 19 September > > > > 1. Mr. Adam Peake, from GLOCOM, on behalf of the Civil Society > > Internet Governance Caucus > > 2. Ms. Magaly Pazello, from DAWN, on behalf of the Civil Society > > Internet Governance Caucus > > 3. Mr. William Drake, from CPSR, on behalf of the Civil Society > > Internet Governance Caucus > > 4. Mr. Milton Mueller, from the Georgia Institute of Technology, on > > behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > > 5. Ms. Jeanette Hofmann, from the Heinrich Boell Foundation, on > > behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > > > > We had to prepare text for the interpreters, those files are > > attached. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Sep 21 07:25:07 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:25:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponement oftoday's caucus meeting In-Reply-To: References: <433130D0.8060908@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: Hi Carlos, Nice to finally meet you yesterday. On 9/21/05, carlos a. afonso wrote: > > paragraph 48 of the WGIG report, among other reasons. If we endorse the > statement as a consensus, we are in practice almost doing what ICANN > wants us to do, ie., defend the creation of an innocuous > consultative/advisory forum which might never be really taken seriously. a. How do you know what ICANN wants you to do? b. Why do you think a Forum (function) wouldn't be taken seriously? > > understood otherwise. Many of these delegates also wrongly associate > model 2 of the WGIG report with the civil society caucus -- we must > recall model 2 was built under the influence of ICANN-related people and > business reps in the WGIG. Do we really want this perception to stay? Well Model 2 is the one that gives CS the greatest voice. If CS supports model 2 more than any of the other models, why spend cycles on caring about perception? -- 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 Thu Sep 22 09:10:05 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:10:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponement oftoday's caucus meeting In-Reply-To: References: <433130D0.8060908@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: ,Hi Carlos, On 9/21/05, carlos a. afonso wrote: > > Specifically regarding McTim questions, we all know that ICANN wants to > survive fundamentally as it is -- I bet you know that too. :-) Certainly, any org wants to survive. I also know they are undergoing a series of reform processes that began a long time ago (pre-WGIG). I am confident ICANN will survive, but also confident the reforms will mean more transparency and inclusiveness. Now we need more CS participation in those processes. -- 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 Tue Sep 27 06:52:11 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:52:11 -0300 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments at plenary - Sept 27 AM In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Too good to be true... it seems Brazil is insisting on the position of keeping drafting groups closed, contrary to the impression I got yesterday from talking to one in the delegation... :( --c.a. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272 - sexto andar 22270-060 Rio de Janeiro Brasil tel +55-21-2527-5494 fax +55-21-2527-5460 http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: "carlos a. afonso" To: plenary at wsis-cs.org, "Wolfgang Kleinwächter" , governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:46:02 -0300 Subject: RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments at plenary - Sept 27 AM > Amazing developments! After reading a draft statement from CS to > protest > on blocking our access, I went straight to one of the Brazilian reps > to > check if the BR delegation was supporting this idea -- he seemed > surprised, indicating no one will be and is not blocking anything as > far > as his delegation knows. Bertrand's and Wolf's messages seem to > confirm > this, or even better! > > --c.a. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter > > To: plenary at wsis-cs.org, governance at lists.cpsr.org, > plenary at wsis-cs.org > Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:21:50 +0200 > Subject: RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments at plenary - Sept 27 AM > > > [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, > > > > just now, in the ifnormal IG Negotiation Group on Para. 52 ff. a > > remarkable event happend: > > > > 1. the chair treated all the languge from CS and PI euqally in the > > negotiation. > > 2. Other governments refered to the language proposed by the Human > > Rights Caucus# in the same way they refered to language proposed by > > governments and nobody objected. > > 3. when it cam to para 54 on authetifiaction, Ralph took the floor > > and a. said that he knows that he has no negotiation right but he > > wants to explain the Cuacus position and he did without being > stopped > > by the chair. > > 4. when he ended, the chair asked Ralph some questions and asked > also > > whether #he can agree# with the new labgiage. and Ralph said yes. > > 5. After an other intevention by Israel the CCBI rep took the floor > > and said that CCBI supports the position of the previous speaker > and > > also explained the CCBI language proposal for the para. And also > CCBI > > was not stopped. De fact, both itnerventiopn (Ralph and Heather( > were > > treated equally to the governmental interveenttion. > > 6. After a short break, China, Saudi Arabia, Israel challenged > this > > procedure refering to the #agreed rules of procedure#. UK/EU, US, > > Norway supported the involvement of observers in the very > > constructive dialogue. \7. The chair from Norway said th at there > has > > been no agreement on the concrete procedure for informal groups so > > far and he has no instruction. He would need further consultations > > with the chair of the Subcommittee, thenpl;enary and the executive > > secretariat. The remaining time was 90 minutes so he prposed to > > continue as before but to give the observers onlt a right to answer > > questions from governmdnts and not to intervene on their own > behalf. > > This got the consensus by all parties in the room. > > > > My impression is that this is a remarkable development and proofes > > that we should not push to aggressive for a #clear and final > > statement# about the rules but shouyld accept a playing field with > > gliding barriers on a case by case basis. > > > > Best > > > > wolfgang > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org on behalf of Adam Peake > > Sent: Tue 9/27/2005 10:52 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org > > Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments at plenary - Sept 27 AM > > > > > > > > [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! > > _______________________________________ > > > > I read some text this morning. As the CS plenary decided that we > > should not present the draft discussed in content and themes and > > various CS lists, we dropped that text for now. What I think I > said > > (pretty on the fly) was: > > > > Good morning Mr. Chair > > > > Thank you for your personal efforts to ensure transparency and > > inclusion, your efforts since the publication of the WGIG report > are > > much appreciated. > > > > However, Civil Society is disappointed that we will not be able to > > participate fully in the drafting groups. And that the rules and > > procedures for this prepcom now seem unclear to all. > > > > Could you explain the situation regarding drafting groups? > > > > We note your new compilation document of comments received, and are > > pleased to see that some civil society comments have been included. > > But also note some have not been included. For example last Friday > > we made comments about 43c. These comments were also mentioned by > a > > government in sub committee yesterday. But they are not mentioned > in > > your new document, nor were they mentioned during the drafting > group > > meeting that discussed 43 yesterday. Did we have rights to speak > in > > that drafting group? Could we have reminded the group that we had > > already submitted comments and those comments were already on the > > prepcom3 website. > > > > I think you can understand our confusion. Can we join and speak in > > drafting groups? Are our comments made to sub-committee A being > > taken into consideration? > > > > We would appreciate clarity on this. We were expecting some > > resolution yesterday. > > > > Thank you. > > > > END. > > > > Izumi has sent some notes with the chair's response you should > > already have seen. > > > > I think bad precedence is being set. Above was read in my name and > > that of GLOCOM and on behalf of the IG caucus so is my > > responsibility, I thought something had to be said. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > _______________________________________________ > > Plenary mailing list > > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Sep 28 13:18:59 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:18:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] nomination of Anriette Esterhuysen Message-ID: <433AD083.7060905@wz-berlin.de> Hello, the Internet Governance caucus nominates Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director of APC, as a plenary speaker. regards, jeanette hofmann _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Fri Sep 23 09:07:48 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:07:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Chair's paper available In-Reply-To: References: <954259bd05092302225aaabae8@mail.gmail.com> <131293a2050923030852d5a94a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <131293a20509230607242618ec@mail.gmail.com> Well, if we want to go with some "semi-agreed text" - the WGIG report has the following in Para32 (kind of long, but we can include some of the text? : Civil society. The roles and responsibilities of civil society include: • Awareness-raising and capacity-building (knowledge, training, skills sharing). • Promoting various public interest objectives. • Facilitating network-building. • Mobilizing citizens in democratic processes. • Bringing perspectives of marginalized groups, including, for example, excluded communities and grass-roots activists. • Engaging in policy processes. • Contributing expertise, skills, experience and knowledge in a range of ICT policy areas. • Contributing to policy processes and policies that are more bottom-up, people-centred and inclusive. • Research and development of technologies and standards. • Development and dissemination of best practices. • Helping to ensure that political and market forces are accountable to the needs of all members of society. • Encouraging social responsibility and good governance practice. • Advocating for the development of social projects and activities that are critical but may not be "fashionable" or profitable. • Contributing to shaping visions of human-centred information societies based on human rights, sustainable development, social justice and empowerment. On 9/23/05, Danny Butt wrote: > On the CS definition, it'd be good to get an answer in terms of > Jacqueline's procedural question, which might determine what gets used. > > But if there needs to be a new one, Avri's is an improvement on what > exists. I would also like to see a sentence to the effect that > reflects the role of CS in promotion of human rights and the > interests of actors who are not necessarily represented by states or > the private sector (e.g. women, indigenous groups). The language from > the WGIG background report para. 270 might be useful: > > 270. While there is no unanimously agreed definition of civil society > a working > definition, which draws on several United Nations documents, includes: > "Organizations – including movements, networks and other entities – > which > are autonomous from the State, are not intergovernmental or do not > represent > the private sector, and which in principle, are non-profit-making, > act locally, > nationally and internationally, in defense and promotion of social, > economic > and cultural interests, defense of human rights, promotion of > development > objectives and for mutual benefit." > > If that's too long, adding something like: > > "Civil society have also been important in the promotion of human > rights and the social, economic and cultural interests of those not > always represented by nation-states or the private sector." > > Regards, > > Danny > > -- > http://www.dannybutt.net > > On 23/09/2005, at 8:08 PM, Jacqueline Morris wrote: > > > Adam > > Isn't this text the "agreed language " from Geneva? Since this phase > > is not supposed to renew debate on "agreed language" If it is in the > > document, it's open for debate, right? SO it should either be out > > totally, or the WGIG section on stakeholders be included? > > Jacqueline > > > > On 9/23/05, Adam Peake wrote: > > > >> Bertrand, thanks. > >> > >> A general comment is that the draft is only three and half pages. It > >> is missing sections describing follow-up issues (forum and > >> oversight), but even with those sections the total may only be about > >> 5 pages. This is helpful as it tells us that comments on specific > >> issues will be very short. Looking at sentences not paragraphs. > >> > >> The paragraphs that stands out as contentious reads: > >> > >> We strive to establish a transition to a new cooperation model > >> that helps up [us] implement the "Geneva principles" regarding the > >> role of the governments and all stakeholders. Institutional > >> arrangements for Internet governance should be founded on a more > >> solid democratic, transparent and multilateral basis, with stronger > >> emphasis on the public policy interests of all governments, and with > >> clarification of the relationships among different actors. > >> > >> Also, I don't like how CS is defined: > >> > >> Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, > >> especially at community level, and should continue to play such a > >> role. > >> > >> Avri has suggested replacement: > >> > >> Civil society has played an important role on Internet matters. > >> This role has ranged from capacity building at the community level to > >> the contribution of much of the technological innovation and to the > >> creation of much of the content that makes the Internet what it is > >> today. Civil Society should continue to play such a role. > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> At 11:22 AM +0200 9/23/05, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > >> > >>> The Chair's paper in Group A (Internet governance) is now available > >>> on the official site at : > >>> >>> 0>http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1962|0 > >>> > >>> Bertrand > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> governance mailing list > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> governance mailing list > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Jacqueline Morris > > www.carnivalondenet.com > > T&T Music and videos online > > > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Thu Sep 22 08:14:07 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:14:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Use of SMTP server at the Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050922121407.GA22528@nic.fr> On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 11:59:46AM +0000, Dave Kissoondoyal wrote a message of 22 lines which said: > I have noticed that in the meeting email clients like MS outlook > or outlook express cannot be used to send emails. This is because ITU does not like HTML email and Microsoft ads at the end of the message :-) > I have been using my company's SMTP server in Mauritius for > sending emails. While I am here, I am unable to connect to our > SMTP server. It is extremely common, for local networks such as ITU's, to prevent direct access to port 25 (SMTP) of outside servers. This is an obvious anti-virus and anti-spam measure, to make more difficult for Windows infected boxes to send email. You typically have to go through a local (ITU) SMTP server (not on your machine, since it is not authorized) or use Mail Submission (port 587). Details should be asked to the ITU support team (who knows better and does not have to guess), not to this list. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Thu Sep 22 08:14:19 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:14:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Use of SMTP server at the Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: port 25 seems to blocked in such a way that only the itu smtp server can be used. if you use a vpn, or secure smtp (port 465) then it works regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 22-Sep-05, at 1:59 PM, Dave Kissoondoyal wrote: > Dear All, > > I am sorry if the following should not be addressed if this list. > > I have noticed that in the meeting email clients like MS outlook or > outlook express cannot be used to send emails. > I have been using my company's SMTP server in Mauritius for sending > emails. While I am here, I am unable to connect to our SMTP server. > At first I though that ITU has implemented this to prevent SMTP > relay. However when I am running my own SMTP server on my laptop > (through MS IIS), I can send my emails. However the emails do not > reach the recipients. > I have done various tests to confirm same. > > Here the issue arrises as follows: > > Is it a measure from ITU to prevent people from sending spam mails? > However, what for genuine cases like me who wants to legitimately > send emails? I am sure there are many cases like me. > > If somebody has a solution please do mention to me. In the mean > time I am using mail2web and webmails for sending my emails. > > Thanks > > Dave > > > > > > Get the great new Windows Desktop Search - MSN Search Toolbar FREE > download! > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Thu Sep 22 07:05:24 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:05:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Consensus on the forum issue Message-ID: Jeanette, I composed a more cryptic but similarly framed message yesterday and then decided not to send without time to ensure it would help clrify than confuse, but yes what you characterize as a possible compromise is I believe both correct and the only way the forum gets launched; however we know others wish for more directive, 'hard-power' authority - which may or may no be desirable, but isn't happening now. In my as usual always humbe opinion. So yes you are on track, and I sympathize with you for adding education of newbies at the 11th hour to your tasks - but that will be a recurring phenomenon, also in the (future) forum - so get used to it! : ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> McTim 09/22/05 6:45 AM >>> Hi Jeanette, On 9/22/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > As far as I understand nobody opposes the idea of a forum in principle. Just to clarify, we are still speaking of the forum function when we say "forum", correct? If so, I am not opposed (in principle). > Nobody supports the position of the business sector, which doesn't even > recognize the need for a venue where Internet related issues can be > discussed. Probably because they support lots of open, transparent, bottom up venues already? > > I would like to know if this is a correct description of our controversy? > sounds about right to me. > If so, I would like to suggest a possible compromise between these two > differing views. > The civil society statement has language to the effect that the forum > can make decisions if all participating statekholders agree with this. > (Former versions of Bill's statement included this clause. I think it > only disappeared for the sake of brevity.) In other words, any extention > of the forum's authority would have to be consensus-based and bottom up. Hmm > > The second common element I see has been pointed out by Avri. In her > view, the forum has to earn its authority. It can only gain political > authority if it is regarded useful by those who participante in the forum. > Decision making authority for the forum would thus depend on two related > if's: consensus among the participants and legitimate outcomes. This > implies that the forum may grow over time. It would start in a very > modest way with nothing but advisory functions but its authority could > increase over time depending on its productivity and legitimacy. > What do people think? Can we find a consensus along these lines? I could buy into this if there were well defined limitations about the roles it could NOT grow to encompass. Maybe. Thanks for your hard work. It is a creative idea. -- 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 karenb at gn.apc.org Wed Sep 28 08:41:08 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:41:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [Africa-CS-WSIS]Intenet Governance: Follow-up and Possible Future Arrangements] In-Reply-To: <433A8C66.6090402@apc.org> References: <433A8C66.6090402@apc.org> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928134039.04c07870@pop.gn.apc.org> hi njenga and all I've submitted this text to the WSIS/ITU secretariat karen >Hello all, > >Just forwarding the following text for contribution to the Chair of >Subcommittee A on Internet Governance Section 5 (Follow-up and possible >future arrangements). > >The text was prepared by the Africa civil society drafting committee >(including Ken Lohento, Fatou Jagne-Senghor, Emmanuel Njenga). Please send >in your comments and remarks/endorsements by tomorrow morning (28 Sept >05). The drafting committee consulted with a number of civil society >representatives present in Geneva. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Wed Sep 28 09:16:50 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:16:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] need for a host country agreement? Message-ID: Jeanette: California law did not "prevent" making ICANN into a membership organization, ICANN's management did. The management feared being made accountable to members via derivative lawsuits. To be sure, there were some legitimate budgetary concerns, but those could have been dealt with. >>> Jeanette Hofmann 09/28/05 3:59 AM >>> Bret, I remember unpleasant side-effects of Californian law: http://www.icann.org/santiago/membership-analysis.htm It took me a long time to understand what a derivative lawsuit actually is. From a non american point of view it seemed bizarre that it prevented a membership organization in ICANN. best, jeanette Bret Fausett wrote: > In calling for an adequate host country agreement for ICANN, please keep > in mind that California law provides a number of protections for > Directors, corporation members and the public in general that are in the > interests of both civil society and Internet users. To the extent that > the "host country agreement" is intended to provide privileges and > immunities to ICANN from local law, remember the Auerbach v. ICANN > lawsuit, backed by EFF, which ensured that a single Director was > entitled to review the corporation's records against a claim by the > President, General Counsel and a majority of the Directors that the > records were private. That unfettered right to review ICANN's corporate > records was guaranteed by California law. This is just one among many > important provisions of California law that might be lost by insulating > ICANN from local law. A host country agreement might make ICANN more > international, but it also could have the unpleasant side effect of > making ICANN more closed and less transparent. > > Bret Fausett > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 06:14:32 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:14:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] draft text on political oversight In-Reply-To: References: <9F7C33F9-73C3-45ED-8314-89C89F5D0FA4@psg.com> Message-ID: Hi, On 9/28/05, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > Well, that is what it *claims* to be. And the board has historically been > chosen for technical background, not for contracts knowledge or social > policy views... What ICANN/IANA does is the administration of technical resources (amongst other things of course, but in the context of this thread, that's what they "do"). To that end, it is helpful for folks who are technically knowledgeable to be in some of the decision making roles. -- 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 Fri Sep 30 07:18:52 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:18:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Fw: e-copy of paper] Message-ID: <433D1F1C.20606@wz-berlin.de> fyi, -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Fw: e-copy of paper Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 07:01:28 -0400 From: Graham, Bill: DIT To: , Here is the paper tabled by Argentina. 10 countries + likely the African group behind it. If forwarding, please remove txt below, which I cannot do onm Blackberry. -------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net) -----Original Message----- From: Webmail: Graham, Bill To: 'jcsolines at jasolnet.com ' ; 'jcsolines at yahoo.com ' CC: Graham, Bill: DIT Sent: Thu Sep 29 18:43:59 2005 Subject: FW: e-copy of paper <> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Alternate_minded_v1.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 28160 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Sep 23 03:54:57 2005 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:54:57 +0300 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponement oftoday'scaucus meeting In-Reply-To: <4333B156.7050702@rits.org.br> References: <63519.62.203.135.6.1127334339.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <4333A7F0.9030304@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.1.2.2.20050923100949.030e8380@193.200.15.187> <4333B156.7050702@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050923104516.03d9aff8@193.200.15.187> At 04:40 23-09-2005 -0300, Carlos Afonso wrote: >Yes, Veni, starting with taking it away from the governator and the >federal administration and turning it into a true global pluralist >organization... it might even remain in Marina del Rey for the ones >who enjoy that rich paradise :), but under a serious host country >agreement. Now *that* will be an improvement! There's something about the policy making here, or am I reading you wrong? If we have to talk frankly, then we must say things the way they are. A serious host country agreement... in most cases people believe that should be under the UN umbrella, and mainly because they are concerned about litigations in the US courts. Well, part of the answer why the Internet became such a tool, is that it was let on the market. Today, 12 years after the www, we are trying to regulate the access to the Internet, the way people behave there, etc., etc. Now, that's a little bit strange - we can't solve the problems within our own societies, but we want to solve them on the Internet. Do you believe this may happen? Another topic - the way the Internet is being "governed" today. It's obvious that for some this is the wrong way, and for others it's even controlled more than necessary. So, whatever the decions is, there will be about half of the people who will not be happy. But if you go to the end users and ask them what model they prefer, the vast majority wouldn't care even to respond. That's the truth - the users are not interested if it's ICANN, or the UN running the root management and the DNS and IP address allocation. They care that Google works, that they have connectivity, and that there are no viruses to ruin their (net)work. As for ICANN, I also believe there's what to improve, and I believe it is happening.... may be slower than some would have expected, but better late than never. veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From db at dannybutt.net Fri Sep 23 04:23:52 2005 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:23:52 +1000 Subject: [governance] it ain't broke In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050923104516.03d9aff8@193.200.15.187> References: <63519.62.203.135.6.1127334339.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <4333A7F0.9030304@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.1.2.2.20050923100949.030e8380@193.200.15.187> <4333B156.7050702@rits.org.br> <6.2.3.4.2.20050923104516.03d9aff8@193.200.15.187> Message-ID: <4ECFFF81-19B4-4EB8-9008-8714A6CDFA46@dannybutt.net> Veni, with due respect, this is a non argument. Of course - no one cares about any kind of policy. They just want to improve their standard of living. If you ask them what economic policy they prefer, the vast majority wouldn't care even to respond, etc. But that doesn't mean that any governance structure shouldn't be improved when it is the underpinning for who controls who gets to use resources and how. And in particular, governance structures for critical infrastructure can and should be made more effectively responsive to all stakeholders. You don't say well, the average electricity user doesn't care about who provides their power, so we shouldn't be talking about governments being involved in it. To pretend that Internet Governance is fine because what we had 12 years ago led to rapid uptake of the technology is surely unrealistic when it's a totally different animal, and that attitude is the reason why ICANN has not reformed itself into the responsive organisation many of its initial supporters in the AP region had initially hoped, and why there is so little faith in it. Is it just me, or are the disagreements on the list, alongside the sombre mood of the (excellent, thanks!) reports from prepcom, suggestive that the WGIG report hasn't made as much of an impact in aligning people's concepts of IG as we might have hoped? Regards, Danny -- Danny Butt db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net On 23/09/2005, at 5:54 PM, veni markovski wrote: > But if you go to the end users and ask them what model they prefer, > the vast majority wouldn't care even to respond. That's the truth - > the users are not interested if it's ICANN, or the UN running the > root management and the DNS and IP address allocation. They care that > Google works, that they have connectivity, and that there are no > viruses to ruin their (net)work. > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Sep 23 05:06:15 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:06:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Chair's paper Message-ID: <4333C587.7060300@wz-berlin.de> FYI, the chair distributes a "chair's paper" on Chapter 3: Internet Governance. It should be up on the ITU website any minute. Only english version available yet. jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Sep 23 06:05:33 2005 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:05:33 +0300 Subject: [governance] it ain't broke In-Reply-To: <4ECFFF81-19B4-4EB8-9008-8714A6CDFA46@dannybutt.net> References: <63519.62.203.135.6.1127334339.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <4333A7F0.9030304@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.1.2.2.20050923100949.030e8380@193.200.15.187> <4333B156.7050702@rits.org.br> <6.2.3.4.2.20050923104516.03d9aff8@193.200.15.187> <4ECFFF81-19B4-4EB8-9008-8714A6CDFA46@dannybutt.net> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050923125559.05680b00@193.200.15.187> At 18:23 23-09-2005 +1000, Danny Butt wrote: >But that doesn't mean that any governance structure shouldn't be >improved when it is the underpinning for who controls who gets to use >resources and how. Actually the European way is to control less and less, and only what's limited or dangerous for the health. I don't believe the domains, the IP addresses or the root servers are any of those. And for the sake of argument, electricity is not the same in every country, for every user. And if you plug in you 110 V adapter into the European grid, you know what will happen. >responsive to all stakeholders. You don't say well, the average >electricity user doesn't care about who provides their power, so we >shouldn't be talking about governments being involved in it. To Actually the electricity *is* dangerous for the health, but that's comparing apples to oranges. Internet is not electriciy. You could compare, if necessary, to telecommunications. >it's a totally different animal, and that attitude is the reason why >ICANN has not reformed itself into the responsive organisation many >of its initial supporters in the AP region had initially hoped, and >why there is so little faith in it. Faith? I hope we don't relay on faith to make an organization working. I want to see all stakeholders included in the work of ICANN - after all the easiest is to say, "I don't like how it's working", and not do anything to change it. Also, do you believe that your vision about the way Internet is governed is similar to the vision of all the others, who are involved in the Internet? Because if it isn't, you will either not find a solution of the issue, or will have people lose their faith in your solution.... >Is it just me, or are the disagreements on the list, alongside the >sombre mood of the (excellent, thanks!) reports from prepcom, >suggestive that the WGIG report hasn't made as much of an impact in >aligning people's concepts of IG as we might have hoped? The WGIG report can give some guidelines; it can't offer an ultimate solution. There's no ultimate solution. Some people (countries) are not happy with ICANN being in the US, some are happy. Some people want change, some - don't. To have 100 % agreement, brings us back to those times, where I used to live until 1989 in East Europe. But, seeing how things are changing in the last 15 years, may be the West today is what the East was yesterday. Ironic. veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Sep 23 11:53:20 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:53:20 +0300 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponementoftoday'scaucus meeting In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050923192104.08b279a0@211.125.95.185> References: <63519.62.203.135.6.1127334339.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <4333A7F0.9030304@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.1.2.2.20050923100949.030e8380@193.200.15.187> <4333B156.7050702@rits.org.br> <6.2.3.4.2.20050923104516.03d9aff8@193.200.15.187> <6.2.3.4.2.20050923192104.08b279a0@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050923184530.03760ed8@193.200.15.187> At 00:39 24-09-2005 +0900, Izumi AIZU wrote: >Being involved with ICANN AtLarge from its inception in 1998, >I would like to counter to what Veni wrote above. Even if majority >of the average end users today are not interested in such details as who is >managing the DNS, IP Address and root servers, that does not mean >that the work of ICANN as a whole is not of the interest of the end users. Actually, Izumi, I don't think we have an argument here. It's rather an issue of two non-native English speakers writing things:) What I say is that the work of ICANN is *in* the interest of the end-users. But are *they* interested in ICANN's work is a different issue. You never call your phone company to say, "Hey, thanks, my phone is working". But if it stops working, you call them, and only then you think about it (well, besides the phone bill:). So, why would users want to know what ICANN is? Actually if they never find out that ICANN exists, that would be the best grade for what ICANN's doing. I just think ICANN was put on the scene, under the lights, not because it watned that. >This process made several civil society groups dis-interested in participating Yes, I know. At this time I was also going to ICANN meetings with the NCDNHC. >not quite. The host kindly invited you to come into the garden, >enjoy the flowers, but not inside the room where the best dishes >are there. That is the status of ALAC in summary. Before I read the last sentence, I was thinking you are talking about the civil society and the WSIS. But, let's try to figure out how to better involve all users. >So, does ICANN need direct users involvement in its policy development >process or not? That is the core question, and if not, then I guess >many governments will start to intervene more on behalf of the public >they reprsent. I prefer direct participation than government dectation. I can't talk on behalf of ICANN, but as a plain user, I'd say that ICANN must have both! Direct users involvement in the policy development and governmental participation; how to make it happen is the challange. The easiest thing is to say, "let the governments take it over, yet - they are chosen by the people". veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ronda at panix.com Fri Sep 23 12:12:37 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:12:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponementoftoday'scaucus meeting In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050923184530.03760ed8@193.200.15.187> References: <63519.62.203.135.6.1127334339.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <4333A7F0.9030304@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.1.2.2.20050923100949.030e8380@193.200.15.187> <4333B156.7050702@rits.org.br> <6.2.3.4.2.20050923104516.03d9aff8@193.200.15.187> <6.2.3.4.2.20050923192104.08b279a0@211.125.95.185> <6.2.3.4.2.20050923184530.03760ed8@193.200.15.187> Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Veni Markovski wrote: > At 00:39 24-09-2005 +0900, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> Being involved with ICANN AtLarge from its inception in 1998, >> I would like to counter to what Veni wrote above. Even if majority >> of the average end users today are not interested in such details as who is >> managing the DNS, IP Address and root servers, that does not mean >> that the work of ICANN as a whole is not of the interest of the end users. > (...) > > I can't talk on behalf of ICANN, but as a plain user, I'd say that > ICANN must have both! Direct users involvement in the policy > development and governmental participation; how to make it happen is > the challange. The development of online newsgroups, mailing lists, etc make it clear that if there were a response to what users desire, and user input welcomed, they would be participating. Many have tried, only to have it made clear that their input wasn't welcomed by the structure, and form of ICANN. > The easiest thing is to say, "let the governments take it over, yet - > they are chosen by the people". Unfortunately most governments these days are *not* chosen by the people. Witness people in Germany who don't want the legislation that takes away their unemployment insurance (Hartz IV) and instead ushers in "liberalization". Other countries show similar disconnect between what is the people want and what governments are offering them. The New Orleans disaster in the US shows the kind of result that comes from the current neoliberal policies that dominate most governments since the pressure of big corporations has been foisted on them. The Internet provides for grassroots processes, it was built by grassroots processes. That is why it is a model for the future, not the kinds of neoliberal policies that are dominant in business circles and also many government circles these days. > > veni > Ronda Take a look at our book "Netizens" if you ever have a chance. http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Fri Sep 23 12:34:49 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:34:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance - subcomittee notes - Sept 23 Message-ID: <36077BFB-9056-4484-A21F-2F6557CC56B0@lists.privaterra.org> Internet Governance - subcomittee notes - Sept 23 -- 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 avri at acm.org Sat Sep 24 11:50:02 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:50:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] Repsonse on procedural issue In-Reply-To: <50887.81.62.134.234.1127564440.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <50887.81.62.134.234.1127564440.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <7764E6EE-1D84-4D24-8B4D-8E667856AC89@acm.org> There has been a suggestion that CS should cease to make spoken or written contributions to the drafting and working groups should they be defined as 'speak and leave' events. I disagree with this position. While I believe that we should make a very strong statement on the procedural issue and that we should continue to fight the governments' decision to exclude non governmental bodies from now until the end of the prepcom, I do not believe that that we should stop speaking at the meetings, even if CS is forced to speak and leave. To do so, would in my opinion, be tantamount to cutting off our noses to spite our own faces. We represent many causes and have important postions that needs to be aired and considered. To turn our backs on the speaking opportunities would be seen as a relief by many of the governments for it would allow them to discount all of the work, and progress, CS has achieved so far. I think it would be preferable for caucuses to continue to continue making their points both in person and in writing so that the governments have no excuse for ignoring CS issues. I also think it would be good to agree on a standard single line statement that would be included at the end of every other statement the caucuses made that indicated the CS speaker would be leaving under duress at the end of their speaking time and indicating that the nature of the closed meetings threatened the legitimacy of the entire enterprise. On finishing their individual statement each speaker could then leave without waiting to be asked to leave, thus making the protest ongoing and visible. I do think we should also be working on documents that are parallel to the governments' documents. In committee A I would recommend taking the chair's outline and filling in the sections ourselves. So that we would have a document with the same form but which was written according to CS requirements. I am not tracking B all that carefully, but I expect a similar strategy would also work there. thanks a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Fri Sep 30 05:48:14 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:48:14 +0900 Subject: [governance] last intervention for Subcom A In-Reply-To: <3083.156.106.224.63.1128072113.squirrel@156.106.224.63> References: <50674.195.186.231.20.1128066748.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <3083.156.106.224.63.1128072113.squirrel@156.106.224.63> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050930184341.0846f8d0@211.125.95.185> We like to make our final statement at the coming Plenary seession starting at 3 pm. (not Subcom A, unless they change the schedule, but that could happen). Internet Governance Caucus plans to make one final statement and will discuss about that at 1:30 pm meeting in Room E1058 - not on the 3rd floor we were using, but on the 1st floor. Thanks, izumi _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Fri Sep 30 06:04:26 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:04:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] Forum/oversight: Middle Ground proposal In-Reply-To: <131293a20509300249oedb29cey164c55bc81f22e8@mail.gmail.com> References: <50751.195.186.231.20.1128069318.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <5832C700-226C-47AB-BE3A-B88E032DC4C6@psg.com> <131293a20509300249oedb29cey164c55bc81f22e8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050930105904.047e97a0@pop.gn.apc.org> hi - do we need to speak to the canadian forum proposal? (which is weak, but at least references a few principles and working methods we like) - or is it now supercded by the 'western' proposal - or, is it implied to form a complementary part of the 'middle ground' proposal karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Fri Sep 30 07:11:17 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 20:11:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] CORRECTION: Today's IG Caucus meeting 1:30 pm -2:30pm @E1058 In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050930120022.0586c930@pop.gn.apc.org> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050930165743.08c33d50@211.125.95.185> <6.2.0.14.0.20050930105129.047addd0@pop.gn.apc.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20050930190312.0acba850@211.125.95.185> <6.2.0.14.0.20050930120022.0586c930@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050930200934.0e005d10@211.125.95.185> So the room is E1058. On subcom A or plenary - SubcomA is still wondering around... Plenary will be held from 8 pm today. Subcom A may happen in the afternoon, the Chair said, but not announced the exact time yet. izumi At 12:01 05/09/30 +0100, you wrote: >hi izumi > >sorry about that - i think as the number was exactly the same, just wanted >to clarify that it was indeed the right number.. > >and on subcommittee - can you clarify? > > >>and, i heard that subcom will meet from 3-6 and plenary will reconvene at > >>7pm.. > >karen > >At 11:05 30/09/2005, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >NO, It will be E1058, I spoke with Phillip and other lady > >this morning during CS plenary face to face and they > >clearly told me that this is not the same room as we had > >before. > > > >E3056/58 has been reserved for the whole two weeks > >from 14:30 to 16:30, but NOT for other time, that is > >why we need to change the room. > > > >Unless, Karen, you made another change this remains > >to be E1058. > > > >Sorry for the confusion. > > > >izumi > > > >At 10:53 05/09/30 +0100, karen banks wrote: > >>hi izumi > >> > >>Room E3056/58 - behind room XX (not room E1058, which i'm sure was a typo ;) > >> > >>and, i heard that subcom will meet from 3-6 and plenary will reconvene at > >>7pm.. > >> > >>any confirmation? (ccing congo staff who seemed to know) > >> > >>karen > >> > >>At 08:57 30/09/2005, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> >Internet Governance Caucus will meet this afternoon, > >> >1:30 - 2:30 pm, at Room E1058. > >> > > >> >We need to "wrap up" this PrepCom3 activities and discuss, > >> >if possible and necesarry, about the next course of actions > >> >to Tunis. > >> > > >> >Of course, the final plenary will begin from 3 pm and it is > >> >unlikely for them to reach any tangible conclusion today, > >> >we may not have clear sense of direction this afternoon, > >> >but let's see. > >> > > >> >izumi > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >_______________________________________________ > >> >governance mailing list > >> >governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > >> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>governance mailing list > >>governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Thu Sep 15 09:44:52 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:44:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Internet Governance event at Tunis? => book Message-ID: <1606.80.63.183.67.1126791892.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hello, Yes,I am organizing a side event at Tunis. Thought I'd mention it closer to the date but can do so now instead. I am editing a book for the WGIG secretariat called "Reforming Internet Governance: Reflections from the UN WGIG." It will comprise about two dozen chapters by WGIG alumni and secretariat staff on various IG topics of their choosing, and will be published either by the UN or the WGIG secretariat itself, TBA. This is still in process, chapters are dribbling in a bit late, and then it will be a mad rush for Markus and the UN to find a printer in NYC who can turn the manuscript into a book in like a month's time. Not sure it will work, we'll see. So in light of this, CPSR in collaboration with the WGIG secretariat submitted a proposal to hold a side event in Tunis by the same name with some WGIG alumni/authors as panelists. If the book is available, it will be a book release event (i.e. free copies). If instead the publisher has not managed to get the thing out in time, it will be a pre-release event, at which attendees presumably would be able to get a form to request a copy when the book is out not long thereafter. And as Robert says, it will be held Nov 16 11:00-13:00. We thought a room for 100 would be enough, but if not I'm sure we'll manage. Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Robert Guerra > Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 10:39 AM > To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Internet Governance event at Tunis? > > > Izumi: > > I believe Bill Drake requested a side event panel on IG. A room for > the session is confirmed, but it only has a capacity for 100! > > details: > > Reforming the Internet Governance, Nov 16 > 11:00-13:00 > > > regards, > > Robert > > -- > Robert Guerra > Managing Director, Privaterra > > > > > > On 13-Sep-05, at 10:22 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > From what I see and hear, there seems to be NO standing event/panel > > on Internet Governance at the coming Tunis summit. > > > > Are there any such event where members of our caucus have been > > already involved, or likely to be? > > > > It will be bit strange that no IG event is organized at the summit > > where it is one of the highlight of the summit. > > > > Or am I too naiive? > > > > izumi > > > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Thu Sep 15 10:04:59 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:04:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] PrepCom3 Side events on IG Message-ID: <1657.80.63.183.67.1126793099.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, Since Izumi raised the subject of Tunis side events, I should mention two others for the PrepCom. Traveling and forgot, sorry. Since the large plenary sessions will hardly be the most conducive environment in which to have serious, focused, and open interactive discussions on IG reform issues raised by the WGIG report, and since it didn't appear that anything else along these lines was happening, CPSR and the Third World Institute (ITeM)in Montevideo grabbed two slots for cosponsored side events during PrepCom 3. These are as follows: "The Internet Governance Forum Function," Wed. Sept. 21 13:00-15:00 in Room XVI. ""The Internet Governance Oversight Function," Wed. Sept. 28 13:00-15:00 in Room XVI. The listing currently on the conference website at http://www.itu.int/wsis/preparatory2/pc3/parallel/index.html reflects a prior formulation in which we'd thought of doing two sessions on the Forum. Hopefully this will be updated soon. We need more speakers willing to offer boot up remarks on these two topics. A few folks have already volunteered, but there are a few slots still available. The room will be equipped for Power Point presentations if anyone feels ambitious. If you are interested in making some initial panel remarks, please send a note to myself and to Pablo Accuosto of ITeM. Our addresses are above. And of course, otherwise everyone is very much encouraged to attend and participate in the discussions. 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 wdrake at cpsr.org Fri Sep 16 15:34:42 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:34:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Internet Governance : 10 questions for PrepCom3 Message-ID: <55318.83.78.97.3.1126899282.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi Bertrand, Thanks for the interesting thoughts. I guess my view would be that a) there's really no need to spend time rethinking elements of the WGIG report which, as you note, will not be the basis for negotiations, and b) given the usual difficulties of building consensus among people on site and on list in the midst of a fast moving negotiation, sorting through ten questions might be a bit of a challenge. To me, the really pressing items that we should concentrate on are three-fold: 1) the forum, 2) NTIA and the zone file, and 3) the liklihood that there will be a real press on the part of various parties--and importantly, not just from the developing world---to see GAC turned into an intergovernmental organization, or something like it, that would have the ability to instruct the ICANN board in certain instances to be defined. The caucus has previously endorsed 1), which I'd guess has a 70% chance, more if the USG refuses to consider the others. 2) CS people have put forward some interesting ideas about this in the past, e.g. a custodianship relationship via MOU or whatever, but I don't think we've ever really tried to come to a clear position on a new model. 3) would probably be as divisive here as it is elsewhere, but I'd think we have to come to a clear position, and just saying no, if that's the most broadly shared view, won't be very compelling to the governments---an argument would be needed as to how one can get greater accountability etc. within the existing framework, which I doubt many governments will accept. Since the USG probably will not go for 2, 3 might be harder to take off the table than one would have thought. Of course, they could just go Bolton; Gallaghar will be attending for at least the first few days in the second week. It could be lively. Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Bertrand de LA > CHAPELLE > Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 8:49 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Internet Governance : 10 questions for PrepCom3 > > > Dear all, > > PrepCom3 is probably the last real opportunity to influence > drafting of the Tunis Document : even if there is a last > minute compromise session three days before the summit > itself, it will be in Tunis, with probably no access for > civil society to the drafting committees, worse than last > time in Geneva. Two weeks of PrepCom may seem long but they > will fly quickly and there is a need to focus on the > essentials of what can be achieved. > > PrepCom3 is about two major elements : > - follow-up / implementation > - Internet Governance > > I believe Internet Governance is going to be the major > fighting ground among governments up to the summit. In that > context, we must list the key questions we want to see > addressed. I propose 10 below as a starting point to help > move forward. > > INTERNET GOVERNANCE WILL BE CENTRAL IN PrepCom3 > > The open meeting on Sept 6 clearly demonstrated that > governments : > - care less about implementation than about Internet > Governance (judging by the very different attendance of > ambassadors in the morning and the afternoon) > - care less about general governance issues than about the > obvious root server question (ie ICANN evolution). > > We can therefore expect an easy watering down of text on > implementation and a progressively more heated debate on > Internet Governance. > > The reason for this situation is probably as follows : > > - on implementation, no government really supports a strong > implementation framework : developped countries by fear > (sincere or pretended) of creating a "new bureacracy" and > some developing ones by fear of seeing others mingling with > their sovereign right to prevent the emergence of an open > society; as a result, the wording in the GFC report has > already been toned down from previous documents, as Ralf and > Parminder have noted (and even more in the very last > version, as identified in my review of modifications sent to > the Plenary list); the risk is only to see this trend > accelerate; still there could be ways to leverage the > present formulations in a positive way. > > - on Internet Governance, things are different. China, > Brazil, India or South Africa devote most of their attention > and efforts to the ICANN question, because it is an > opportunity to oppose the US and affirm their status of > major Regional Digital Power. This focus has two additional > benefits : first, it is also a way to try and reinstall the > paradigm of the primacy of governments in the only field > where they are the ones knocking at the door to enter; and > second, this debate distracts attention from other > unpleasant issues such as freedom of expression or > censorship. (By the way, the fact that in this whole > process, the United States have managed to let themselves > become the country under fire on such an specific point as > oversight of the root server when there are so many > violations of freedom of expression and so many denials of > access to the internet and information in general in > oppressive regimes is beyond my comprehension.) > > So Internet Governance - our main issue of interest on this > list - is going to be central during PrepCom3. In particular > I suspect we will soon see the .xxx question used > systematically to counter the "if it ain't broken, don't fix > it" theme used repetitively by the US representatives. > Governments such as Brazil see this as an example of > something that needs to be fixed (I don't want to open here > the discussion on the substance of that point). > > WHAT WILL / SHOULD THE TUNIS DOCUMENT CONTAIN ? > > The only important question at that stage is : what will get > into the final Tunis Text ? And what do CS actors want ? One > thing is sure : no detailed formulation is on the table yet > and the "food for thought document" of Ambassador Khan, a > mere proposal for a structure, was not even accepted as > formal input document for PrepCom3. In addition, his > reference to specific paragraphs of the WGIG report was > strongly opposed by the US delegation and the drafting will > start from a clean slate. > > Some urgent questions for the IG Caucus are therefore (non > exhaustive list) : > 1) is Amb. Khan's document STRUCTURE appropriate as a > starting point ? if not, what would we like ? > 2) is the working definition of Internet Governance in the > WGIG report something we can live with ? (I personnally can > and commend the work of the group on that point, but others > may differ) > 3) can we manage / should we try to replace the > formulation "multilateral, transparent and democratic with > the full involvement of all stakeholders" by "multi- > stakeholder, transparent and democratic", arguing that the > second part of the present formulation is always dropped ? > 4) can we / should we insert - as some government > delegations including Salvador are also requesting - a > notion that the security, stability, continuity and > development of the Internet as a Global facility is > the "shared responsibility" of all stakeholders ? > 5) should the issues listed in Part 4a) be placed in the > general framework of the revision of ICANN's MoU ? I suppose > this issue will not find its solution within WSIS but that, > like in the first phase, WSIS may call for the establishment > of a broad debate / work group on the reform of ICANN : > should we support/propose such an exit route if it offers > enough guarantees of multi-stakeholderism ? > 6) on the role of governments - and not simply the so- > called "oversight function" - what do we really accept / > support / wish ? > 7) should a mechanism be proposed for the identification of > new issues in addition to the ones listed in Part 4 b) ? Are > the existing ones appropriate ? > 8) what formulations can be proposed to avoid that Part 5 on > measures to promote development have substance and do not > become a simple reiteration of the formulations of the > Geneva DoP and PoA ? > 9)do we want a new multi-stakeholder Forum or the guarantee > that all fora (existing or new ones) function on the basis > of true and effective participation of all stakeholders, > with a minimal set of agreed rules (Governance Protocol) and > coordination mechanisms ? > 10) last - but not least - is there / should there be any > articulation between the fora mechanisms dealing with > Internet Policy issues that this Chapter 3 addresses and > the "policy debate" section of the newly proposed Chapter > one on follow-up (see separate mail) ? > > > I hope this will help structure discussions during PrepCom3 > and allow the IG Caucus to have a significant impact on the > final drafting. > > Looking forward to seeing those of you that will be in > Geneva next week - I will miss the others. > > Best > > Bertrand _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Sat Sep 17 11:17:39 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:17:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] PrepCom Internet Governance Parallel Events Message-ID: <57976.195.186.225.161.1126970259.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hello, For anyone attending, below is what I was able to pull together quickly based on the previously circulated CFP etc. The line-ups could evolve a little more depending on circumstances at the time. Best, Bill --------- PrepCom 3 Parallel Events on Internet Governance Organized by Computer Professional for Social Responsibility (CPSR) www.cpsr.org The purpose of these events is to facilitate focused, open, multistakeholder discussions on two major issues that were discussed in the report of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and are prominent on the WSIS agenda for PrepCom-3 and beyond: 1) the possible creation of a new Forum for Internet governance dialogue, monitoring, and analysis; and 2) the possible reform of the current arrangements for Oversight of the Internet’s core resources (e.g. the root zone file and ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee). All attendees are very much welcome to participate in these discussions. The Internet Governance Forum Function Wednesday, 21 September, 13:00-15:00, Room XVI Chairperson: William Drake, President, CPSR; Geneva (former WGIG member) Speakers: ·Peng Hwa Ang, Dean, School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University; Singapore (former WGIG member) ·Karen Banks, Networking and Advocacy Coordinator, Association for Progressive Communications; Director, GreenNet; London (former WGIG member) ·Avri Doria, Research Consultant; member, CPSR; Providence, Rhode Island (former WGIG member) ·Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, Professor, International Communication Policy and Regulation, University of Aarhus; Aarhus (former WGIG member) ·Milton Mueller, Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies; Partner, Internet Governance Project; Syracuse, New York The Internet Governance Oversight Function Wednesday, 28 September, 13:00-15:00 Room XVI Chairperson: William Drake, President, CPSR; Geneva (former WGIG member) Speakers: ·Carlos Afonso, Director of Planning, Information Network for the Third Sector; Member, Brazil's Internet Steering Committee; Rio de Janeiro (former WGIG member) ·Izumi Aizu, Deputy Director, Institute for HyperNetwork Society; Secretary, Internet Governance Task Force of Japan; Tokyo ·Avri Doria, Research Consultant; member, CPSR; Providence, Rhode Island (former WGIG member) ·Raul Echeberria, Executive Director/CEO, Latin America and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry; Montevideo (former WGIG member) ·Jeanette Hofmann, Researcher, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung; Co-Facilitator, WSIS Internet Governance Caucus; Berlin ·Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, Professor, International Communication Policy and Regulation, University of Aarhus; Aarhus (former WGIG member) Schedule of parallel events: http://www.itu.int/wsis/preparatory2/pc3/parallel/index.html _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Sat Sep 17 11:37:59 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:37:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Internet Governance : 10 questions for PrepCom3 Message-ID: <57986.195.186.225.161.1126971479.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Wolfgang, A short IG declaration for Tunis is a good idea. Whether this could be from the caucus or endorsed more generally we'd have to see. No doubt we will have plenty to react to by then... Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Wolfgang > Kleinwächter > Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 9:27 AM > To: wdrake at ictsd.ch; Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Internet Governance : 10 questions for > PrepCom3 > > > Hi Bertrand, > > I share more or less Bill´s view. He also singled out the three > main points. We as IG CS Caucus should be realistic. This is an > intergovernmental endgame and we will have only little impact, > even if our input is well drafted and has all the good arguments > on its side. As you said correctly, this is part of a bigger > power struggle and I do not expect, that there will be a > solution. Even the potential threat of a fragmentation of the > Internet which could harm everybody, is not so strong that > somebody in DC or MDR would get nervous. Did you hear a new > statement from China the last couple of days? > > But this does not mean that we should not go ahead with your > questions for our own discussion. What I propose is that we are > going towards an own Civil Society internet Governance > Declaration for Tunis. (Like we had the "big declaration" in > Geneva). In such a document, we can > a. formulate our principles, based on the Geneva language and the > WGIG report, but a little bit more specific, in particular with > regard to multilateral/multistakeholder and freedom of > expression, privacy etc. > b. make clear proposals for i. the Forum, ii. the oversight, iii. > the GAC reform, iv. the continuing ICANN reform and v. the need > to open other IGO (ITU etc.) for multistakeholderism. > > Such a document should be no longer than three or four pages, > maximum. It could be drafted during PrepCom3, discussed until > Tunis and launched with a special event during the Summit. This > would guarantee also some media coverage. > > See you tomorrow > > Best > > wolfgang > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Thu Sep 22 04:28:59 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:28:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] ICT4Peace meeting and draft report Message-ID: <64980.83.76.136.227.1127377739.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hello, Over the past year I've been working on a project for the Swiss government with Daniel Stauffacher (Swiss WSIS ambassador) and others on the use of ICT in (military) conflict management, humanitarian relief, and peacebuilding operations, www.ict4peace.org. The final report of the first project phase will be released at the Tunis Summit, where we'll also do a parallel event with Former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari etc. If anyone is interested in these issues, there will be a short parallel event on the project tomorrow Friday 23rd, 13.00 – 14.00 hours, Palais des Nations, room XXIII, Presentation of the ICT4Peace Report by Ambassador Stauffacher, Mr. William Drake, Mr. Paul Currion and Ms. Julia Steinberger. The event is organized by the Swiss Executive Secretariat for the WSIS. The draft report is now online at the following rather unfortunate URL: http://www.ict4peace.org/fs-search/download/ICT4Peace%20report,%20Sept%2019%202005.doc?version_id=8952 Best, Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development www.ictsd.org Geneva, Switzerland http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche ******************************************************* _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Fri Sep 23 04:46:01 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:46:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponement oftoday'scaucus meeting Message-ID: <50477.195.186.236.155.1127465161.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi v, > Actually, there are people (me included) who think that the mission of > the forum should go beyond "dialogue, analysis, and trend monitoring", > and include starting up open working groups and drafting policy > recommendations with a non-binding status, that could become "de facto > binding" over time if the forum gained sufficient credibility and > support to make so happen. Then you should be happy, since this is exactly what the caucus response to the WGIG report that was debated and collectively revised here says. It also says, as Jeanette pointed out, that in exceptional circumstances where all parties agree, it might be sensible for the forum to have a constitutional provision allowing for the development of hard agreements. If you've not seen it, this is the language that was agreed, with no expressions of dissension: "The forum should not have a mandate to negotiate hard instruments like treaties or contracts. However, in very exceptional circumstances when the parties all agree that such instruments are needed, there could be a mechanism that allows for their establishment. Normally, the forum should focus on the development of soft law instruments such as recommendations, guidelines, declarations, etc." So I'm not clear---are you disagreeing with the statement's agreement with your position? I assume that Carlos is not opposed to the forum *function*---multistakeholder dialogue, analysis, trend monitoring, and development of soft law agreements, or to the suggestion that in special circumstances where all agree harder agreements could be contemplated. As far as I can make out, the only issue here is that Carlos and Brazil don't think that's enough; they want one body that would perform both the forum function and the oversight function. There are two issues with that. First, there is zero consensus within the caucus in support of a formulation in which governments would collectively have decision making control over ICANN. Accordingly, the caucus response to the WGIG reports says (and I didn't write this): "The caucus finds model one to be unworkable and not in keeping with the inclusive processes recommended throughout the WGIG report. We also find certain aspects of Model 4 to be not in keeping with the WGIG recommendations. Model two is clearly the most workable as a starting point, and is favored by most civil society participants. However, aspects of model 3, particularly the importance of a host nation agreement and provisions for tackling developmental issues, merit greater attention." Second, there is no prospect of international consensus on this point. A few of us had a long talk with NTIA people the other day and it's clear, as has been noted here before, that the US (not just NTIA and State, but the White House) and the business community are absolutely opposed. A number of other industrialized countries are of the same view. The EC would like to see agreement on Model 3, and seems to imagine that its principles could be implemented in the form of an evolution of GAC into an IGO with a substantively limited but defined authority relationship to ICANN. But EU member states are not in agreement on this, either. And it's not at all the Brazilian model, in any event. It's also notable that Brazil is leading a "like minded group" on the Forum that includes the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, China, South Africa and Malaysia. One assumes this could result in a joint push for an uber-body that does both forum and authoritative oversight, since most of these governments---almost all of which went on record yesterday that CS should be locked out of the drafting groups----have supported some version of that previously. Plays right into the hands of those who are reluctant about the forum and opposed to intergovernmental oversight. Hopefully they don't reject both in tandem. Best, Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Sat Sep 24 08:20:40 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 14:20:40 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? Message-ID: <50887.81.62.134.234.1127564440.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Adam, Jeanette, everyone, While I recognize that everyone here in Geneva is getting frazzled and is pretty preoccupied with the procedural fighting caused by Brazil and the "like minded" developing countries wanting to lock CS and the private sector out of the drafting groups, I do think we need to turn our attention ASAP to the big ticket item on which, unlike the forum, the caucus has not previously agreed a clear position: oversight. Can't be avoided. Even if we were to decide, as has been suggested, that we will not use any little SubCom speaking slots they deign to give us as an act of protest, if possible it would still make sense to have a brief written statement in response to the like minded proposals on oversight that presumably will be unveiled next week. In our response to the WGIG report, we said, "The caucus finds model one to be unworkable and not in keeping with the inclusive processes recommended throughout the WGIG report. We also find certain aspects of Model 4 to be not in keeping with the WGIG recommendations. Model two is clearly the most workable as a starting point, and is favored by most civil society participants. However, aspects of model 3, particularly the importance of a host nation agreement and provisions for tackling developmental issues, merit greater attention. Civil Society believes that it is clear that oversight is a significant issue that needs further discussion. To this end, we would support the establishment of a multi-stakeholder working group (under auspices of the Chair of Sub-Committee A) to explore approaches mutually acceptable to all stakeholders in the lead up to the WSIS summit. We also indicate our willingness to work with all stakeholders, and as a caucus, towards evolution and acceptance of an effective and transparent global public policy and oversight processes." The first paragraph is not a terrifically sharp position as is, and what will be proposed may well be a new model in some respects, rather than one of the WGIG models. In this case, we could not just recycle the above and expect that to suffice, and anyway there'd be a need to go into greater detail than "we do/don't like it." The second paragraph is now irrelevant in the near-term, since we are not to be allowed to participate in the development of any oversight options. Small problem: based on all the discussions here on the list over the past three years, the discussions on the ground in WSIS and WGIG, and just knowing people's personal views, I am profoundly skeptical that we can reach any consensus on precisely how a) zone file edits and b) ICANN oversight might be better organized. While we haved generally agreed that everything should be multistakeholder with CS participation, beyond that, the discussion hits a wall. Many of us simply have divergent views on the role of government, singularly or collectively. Moreover, there's no way to know when proposals will be tabled, but if we intend to react to them, we'd need to respond quickly, while including people not in Geneva. So I think we are in a real bind here. To have any ability to react, we'd need a) some text for people to respond to, like yesterday, and b) some way of working toward agreement on it or its revision, very quickly. And with regard to the latter, I suspect we wouldn't get there with everyone on board. Another option, were we to have text, or texts, would be to do what Milton did with respect to his .xxx statement. Rather than trying to have a unified caucus position, we could do a sign-on (or sign ons, if we want to advance alternatives). This would have the real virtue of avoiding the whole who speaks for whom dynamic, it'd be clear and uncontestable in whose name any statement(s) would be issued. Of course, we'd need for someone to put up the web page for sign ons etc.... Thoughts? 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 wdrake at cpsr.org Sun Sep 25 05:09:33 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 11:09:33 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? (four decision points) Message-ID: <52110.83.79.111.91.1127639373.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, Helpful note Lee. I think there are four issues on which it'd be helpful to see if we could agree to say something collectively. If we can't, then either we fudge things and take no specific stances, or else pursue the opt-in approach. > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Lee McKnight > Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 4:38 AM [snip] > 4) Jeanette's note of a few days ago on the forum function I suggest > can be the start of that piece of the doc; this keeps things flexible > and might show to confiused or reluctant governments how new 'oversight' > functions could spin out of the Fourm if collectively agreed to, eg for > spam or some other hot-button area, but also reassure those who would > pay the bills that this is not foreordained to be a massive standing > thing, in the first instance just a lightweight occasional talk shop; You're folding together two dimensions here: a) whether there should be some constitutional provision for the forum to make binding agreements in exceptional circumstances when all agree, and b) whether the scope of substantive issues this should entail includes oversight of core resources. Let me separate. I think a) is somewhat unproblematic, which may be why nobody argued with its inclusion in the caucus response to the WGIG report. Or at least, it is unproblematic with regard to outcomes---since as with any such instrument everyone would have to agree to sign and ratify for it to take effect globally, the US or anyone else could block really misguided or dangerous agreements. It would be less unproblematic with regard to process, in that you could get governments demanding that energies be spent on negotiations toward such agreements, and there is obviously great reluctance to open the door to that. Particularly post-WSIS, the idea that there could be multi-year negotiations involving millions of dollars of expenditure and person hours of participation on topics where there is absolutely no prospect of universal consensus does give one pause. In any event, I think it is clear that while we included this option in the caucus statement to try to accommodate all tastes, the reality is that the industrialized countries probably will not accept any formulation in which the forum can adopt "hard" instruments, and I suspect the business community would be implacably opposed. So possible merits notwithstanding, it's probably dead, and insisting on it would provide a nice opening to those who are opposed to any forum for any reason. Ask for everything, we could get nothing. b) is even more obviously unviable. Every conversation I've had or other sign I've seen indicate that the industrialized countries and global business absolutely will not accept a forum that has oversight vis ICANN or the zone file, full stop. If Brazil and the other like minded developing countries insist that this is the only kind of forum they'd be interested in, the others will say fine, so there's not going to be a forum. Unless the developing countries dialed back from that in the pre-Tunis crisis negotiations, we would all go home and return to the status quo ante. Indeed, I've had EU people tell me that they wouldn't even want the forum to be able to *discuss* or analyze these issues; they want a carve out from the mandate. I don't think that makes sense, since substantively the issues are often intertwined to the point that the forum could not meaningfully analyze or debate the broader agenda with everything related to core resources off the table. The OECD debates, analyzes, and makes recommendations on these issues and it hasn't had any negative impact, so I don't see why a forum couldn't do the same if it's not making binding agreements. In light of these realities, and in the absence of a really strong case for doing both in one place, I personally would favor the caucus saying clearly that binding oversight should not be in the forum. Our WGIG report response did not list oversight as a function appropriate for the forum, and nobody argued against that at the time, but Carlos' response demonstrates that I shouldn't have assumed everyone was clear on and ok with the implication. So I suggest we discuss and see if we can have consensus on this, issue #1. IF there is separation, the question is then where and how could one reform oversight. WGIG Model 2 says that in tandem with a forum there could be a reform or upgrade of GAC. In her post, Avri suggests what she calls an intermediate step, giving GAC the ability to cause a full review of any ccTLD. This *might* be acceptable to the US and business, although it'd be a hard sell. However, it would not in any way satisfy the developing countries, some continental EU countries, or, I suspect, the EC. These players simply will not accept that government authority be limited to an advisory body within a problematic US-based corporation under US law. "Like minded" developing countries want an uber-body, forum + oversight, binding authority, while in Europe there is interest in keeping the forum and oversight separate but making GAC an intergovernmental organization of some sort with the ability to instruct the ICANN board. If caucus members agree that the answer to #1 is separation, then the constitutional form of GAC---remaining within the ICANN nexus, or being pulled out and given authority over ICANN---would be issue #2. Whether reconstituting GAC as an IGO could be sensible depends at least in part on over which issues specifically GAC could instruct ICANN. If this is construed broadly, the US, some other industrialized countries, and business will never agree. If it could be narrowly circumscribed, e.g. making sure that agreed procedures are followed, compelling at least the review of gTLD decisions, then maybe this would look less threatening to at least some proponents of the status quo. I asked NTIA people whether they could imagine the US ever agreeing to make GAC an IGO if the scope of its authority were narrowly and precisely circumscribed, and they just mumbled. I think this is so far off their radar that they couldn't get their heads around the question. Imagine the US would resist to the bitter end, and would not agree to anything along these lines by Tunis. Whether afterwards they'd consider it if it seemed the only way to lower the heat and avoid net fragmentation, hard to say, but it'd be an awful hard sell to the White House, Capitol Hill, and business. Anyway, this is issue #3, closely intertwined with #2. My own view is that if #3 could be precisely bounded, it is at least worth discussing the potential costs and benefits of #2, but that if the former is impossible the latter is as well. > 5) Then, we/you extract from Wolfgang's piece the suggestion of a > continuation of the trust-based system that we have presently for root > server management, with the removal of US gov involvement. Govt rights > to choose what to do with their ccTLD should be explicitly acknowledged > again. That is, the CS position is technical folks who trust each other > make the thing work and let's leave them alone to the extent possible > and not mess up the innovation engine. And the techies promise they will > listen to governments choices for their own ccTLDs, which maybe could be > put in writing via ICANN, with CS and GAC both involved in monitoring > but not touching the DNS. Full stop. Zone file edits are issue #4. I asked NTIA people about this and they said internationalization sounds nice but they can't see where you could put the authority and ensure a *greater* level of security and stability (which is setting the bar rather high, but they insist that an *equivalent* level would be impossible to sell in Washington, since why do anything if it's not going to be better---somewhat lame excuse to avoid the bother of spending political capital, in my view). In other words, unless there's a concrete and operationally viable option, the principle carries no weight. I tried out several possibilities on them regarding where to put it and they just shook their heads. Of course, this was a discussion of existing bodies;if there was a GAC IGO, that'd be another option. I also asked about the alternative posed by Wolfgang and in Milton's SubCom statement, making a formal declaration to the world that the USG will be a good custodian of the global public trust and not do anything on political grounds, and they insisted that they already did this in Gallagher's "four principles" statement (which, BTW, they said came from the White House). I said it didn't seem that anyone took it as such and they might consider being more explicit, got a mumbled response. This might be something to push. To my knowledge, caucus members are the only participants to put this compromise solution on the table to date. Securing agreement on it would be an undeniable and identifiable CS contribution to cutting a deal that would bolster our position. I'd favor this if nothing else can be agreed, but I suspect that others here would say it's not enough, the US must relinquish control to an as yet unnamed entity. Enough, already. Best, Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Sun Sep 25 11:21:18 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 17:21:18 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IAMCR: Announcing the International Researchers Charter Message-ID: <52557.83.79.111.91.1127661678.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Recirculating, as I don't think Divina's on this list and haven't seen Wolfgang online today. -----Original Message----- From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On Behalf Of Meigs Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 4:51 PM To: CS Plenary; Edu Mailinglist Cc: iamcr-wsis-taskforce; iamcr.board Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] IAMCR: Announcing the International Researchers Charter IAMCR (the International Association for Media and Communication Research) will hold a side-event at prepcom 3, Monday the 26th, "Announcing the International Researchers Charter". The side event will take place from 17 to 18 pm in room XXII of Palais des Nations. It will be presided and moderated by William Drake, President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility and Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. Marc Raboy, Wolfgang Kleinwachter and Divina Frau-Meigs will be members of the panel, to present the IAMCR and the context and content of the International Charter. You are most welcome to join the ensuing discussion on the status of research and researchers in WSIS and on the follow up mechanisms after Tunis. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Mon Sep 26 04:53:59 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:53:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? Message-ID: <53499.83.78.102.199.1127724839.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> McTim, As you are a recent arrival, this may not be apparent to you, but the global digital divide and access were dealt with extensively in WSIS Phase I. This was the overarching focus of the ITU secretariat and governments at the outset of the process, although the agenda subsequently broadened, including in response to the CS push for a people-centered approach, as well as the widely accepted need to address policy matters, including policy dimensions of governance. Even now, the parallel debates on financial mechanisms as well follow up and implementation are heavily informed by and oriented toward GDD related concerns. Alas, there have been very very few new commitments of resources to do anything on the part of the industrialized countries or business community, which has helped feed developing country and CS frustrations. It also adds juice to the focus on governance. So sorry, it's just not true that the GDD and capacity building have not been talked about, they have, and still are, but this has resulted in little action, which is transparent to all. Which is part of why the current ISOC/CCBI campaign is so misguided and besides the point. We just listened to both organizations' reps speak in SubCom A from essentially the same script (groupthink, or taking a page from US Republicans?)---forget all this governance talk, work through the existing organizations which are all fine, focus instead on the GDD and capacity building. This effort to redirect the conversation away from what everyone else wants to talk about is not going to work, full stop. It just makes ISOC and CCBI look out of touch with reality, and like they want to stop something in the 11th hour that has three years of accumulated wind in its sails. The time to do this would have been three years ago, when ISOC wasn't engaging WSIS seriously and seemed to think the whole exercise was beneath it. Oops. I hope you will read this in the spirit in which it's intended, as loyal opposition from yet another frustrated and disenfrachised ISOC member. Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of McTim > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 9:48 AM > To: Ian Peter > Cc: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? > > > Morning Ian (morning in Geneva at least), > > On 9/25/05, Ian Peter wrote: > > McTim, let's separate the issues here. > > > > There is a digital divide issue being addressed at WSIS. > > No, in fact it is NOT being addressed, this is my point. > > > > > There is also an Internet governance issue being addressed. > > This "sexy" topic gets more attention than all others put together. > > I am now in the African Caucus (governmental), and IG is (and has > been) the only topic on the agenda. > > > > > > WE have no disagreement about the importance of the first > issue. Addressing > > this appropriately is important. However, this does not > distract from the > > importance of the second issue. They are separate and will both be > > addressed. > > I am afraid you are incorrect. I am quite sure of it in fact. > Sad, but true. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Mon Sep 26 11:45:10 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:45:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] Drafting seession ongoing now Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050927004431.08c35d60@211.125.95.185> I just came to Room XVI where governments are now negotiating as drafting group on "3. Public Policy Issues" with Saudi Arabia who proposed the new strucutre charing the session. Noone questioned the presense of non-governmental people thus there are more than 10 such people I can see in the room. Here follows is my rough memo of ongoing debate. Discussing the order and flow of 45 51... US The proposed change by Sandi do not include recognition of current arrangement which are working fine assumign that exisiting system is broken and proposing the new system Chair (Saudi) Canada We need to think all with Chap 5 Brazil What does it mean “legitimacy” 13th century of UK King started Parliament South Africa Sequence support Saudi proposal Legitimacy - support Uganda proposal to include “legitimacy” soverign right of states and their involvement Issues of stakeholder participation Role of governments Other stakeholders roles be better addressed in Chapter 5 US Still have problem with the meaning of "oversight" - we insist to take it into []. ------ and the session went stuck and then adjurned. izumi _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Mon Sep 26 12:35:58 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 01:35:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] SubcomA is now ongoing Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050927013339.0681b340@211.125.95.185> Sub-Commitee A has started the session already in Room XX from around 6 pm and there are very few CS people, naturally, since most of us are at Content and Theme discussion. I was told by the secretariat that we will be given the equal opportunity to give statements in this session, too. I asked him to go to Content and Theme meeting room now. They are discussing about the document, Chap 3, Public Policy issues, with new para 49 etc. izumi _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Tue Sep 27 07:06:57 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:06:57 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Forum gets big wind in its sails Message-ID: <62288.195.186.224.205.1127819217.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, Pretty interesting session of SubCom 3 on the Forum. Only speaker against the forum was Colombia, which sounded more unsure than opposed. EU finally put down its marker and supported the forum, using language that is almost entirely consistent with ours. Only partial exception was their statement that there should be a time limit on its mandate, a point on which we did not try to get agreement. Other industrialized countries in agreement: Japan, Canada, and previously Switzerland and Norway. Only USA has not taken a stand, but I think they will reluctantly agree in the end and get finicky over the precise details. Most interesting was the shift in developing country approaches. Brazil came out for the forum, stating that this should be separate from the oversight function, on which it would like to see a new Council. South Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia, all agreed. Some of these previously had said informally that they don't want a forum, they want one body that does it all. This is a change. The question going forward is whether they will accept the forum when the industrialized countries say nyet to the Council. Suspect they will. Also supporting were Uruguay and Uganda. Even CCBI is smelling the coffee and getting in the game. Their first statement in the morning was to the effect that everything should be handled through existing bodies, don't need a new and duplicative body, etc. Art's statement this time spun it differently: any new body must not threaten stability; must promote development; must follow on full stakeholder; should be sensitive to financial and human resources. Will look at texts in this light. Believe this will happen. We played a role in developing and pushing the idea and should view these developments accordingly, methinks. Best, Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development www.ictsd.org Geneva, Switzerland http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche ******************************************************* _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Wed Sep 28 13:49:44 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:49:44 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Updated version of oversight stmt. Message-ID: <63141.83.78.97.7.1127929784.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, Comments in bracketed CAPS. > Political Oversight > > 62b: We recognize that the time has come [TO BEGIN THE TRANSITION TO A MORE INCLUSIVE GLOBAL FRAMEWORK FOR OVERSIGHT OF THE LOGICAL INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE, CUT REST OF SENTENCE. ] 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 > [add:with]in 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. [I'M NOT CLEAR HERE. 7 BELOW SAYS IANA GOES TO ICANN, BUT OTHERWISE THE US ROLE VIS ICANN JUST ENDS AND THAT'S IT? WHILE THEY ONLY ADMIT IT IN PRIVATE, THIS IS FOR MANY GOVERNMENTS THE WORST SCENARIO. THEY'D RATHER HAVE THE US CONTINUE AS STEWARD THAN HAVE AN ICANN WITH NO STEWARD SUBJECT ONLY TO ADVICE FROM GAC. IS THAT WHAT WE'RE COMING OUT FOR? JUST CHECKING...] > > 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on > its Board[add,] and throughout its organizational > structure[add:s,] of the > community > of Internet users, national governments, civil society, the technical > community, > business associations, non profit organizations and non-business > organizations. > > 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[add:,] must be > required to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through > international treaties in regard to, inter alia, human rights treaties, > privacy rights, and trade rules. [COMMENT: I UNDERSTAND MILTON'S THINKING, BUT WE CANNOT CHERRY PICK POLICY FRAMEWORKS WE LIKE, E.G. HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTIONS; INTER ALIA ENTAILS MUCH MORE. MANY OF ICT POLICY REGIMES ARE DEEPLY PROBLEMATIC. WHY NOT SAY WIPO'S RULES, WHICH ARE FREQUENTLY A PUBLIC INTEREST DISASTER, AND ARE PERHAPS ABOUT TO GET WORSE WITH THE WEBCASTING TREATY? WHY NOT THE ITU'S INTERNATIONAL TELECOM CONVENTION? EQUALLY THE ITU'S INTERNATIONAL TELECOM REGULATIONS, WHICH MANY MEMBER STATES WANT TO RENEGOTIATE SOON, INTER ALIA TO ENCOMPASS THE INTERNET, VOIP, ETC? HOW ABOUT THE CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATING COE TREATY? ONE COULD GO ON. THIS IS A CAN OF WORMS, NO?] > karenb: not that important, but wonder if we should break 6. into > two paras > - one on compliance, one on right to invoke binding appeals > process - also, > a long para and easier to read if broken up > > 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. > > 7. Once all of the above conditions are met, the US Government > shall transfer the IANA function to ICANN. > > 8. It is expected that the International multistakeholder community > will take part in the process through participation in the ICANN process. > It is also expected that the multistakeholder community will observe and > comment on the progress made in this process through the proposed Forum. [I WOULD PREFER WE NOT MENTION THE FORUM HERE. I DONT' SEE THE ADVANTAGE, AND THERE ARE KEY GOVERNMENTS WHO WANT TO SEE A WALL BETWEEN THE TWO. WHY ENTANGLE THINKING ABOUT THE FORUM IN THINKING ABOUT OVERSIGHT AT THE OUTSET? COULD SCREW UP THE FORUM DISCUSSION. THIS CAN COME LATER IF NEED BE] TWO CENTS, BD _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Wed Sep 28 14:03:06 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:03:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Nomination: APC/Anriette Esterhuysen Message-ID: <63149.83.78.97.7.1127930586.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, I agree with vittorio, with respect to extension, Anriette (for the Plenary, right?) and having at least one person, preferably someone who's actively contributed to the caucus effort over the years, addressing IG if there's an amenable slot (I don't remember the topical list that was circulated). I could happily back any of the obvious suspects but think Wolfgang, being one of caucus founders, would be particularly apt. Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 7:32 PM > To: karen banks > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Nomination: APC/Anriette Esterhuysen > > > Support the nomination, support the request for extension, think that, if > we can get Anriette nominated elsewhere, perhaps we should use our slot > (assuming that it works by caucus slots, I must confess I didn't > understand the process in the end) to nominate some "Internet people": it > would be odd to have a Summit in which the hot issue will be Internet > governance, and not to have any civil society speaker from the Internet > community (either one of us, or a well-known Internet guru that we might > find fit to the purpose). > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... > > On Mer, 28 Settembre 2005 16:34, karen banks disse: > > dear internet governance caucus list > > > > I would like to nominate Anriette Esterhuysen, APC's Executive Director, > > as > > a speaker for the Summit. > > > > I would like to have the IG caucuses support for the nomination > (though we > > can probably try to nominate through other caucuses also). > > > > Many of you know anriette, she is a powerful speaker, always provocative > > and insightful and greatly respected in the broad ICTD community > > generally, > > and specifically in africa. > > > > I will try to find a cv also. > > > > karen > > ps.. i think we should ask the CSB to get an extension on this process > > until at least friday no? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Wed Sep 28 14:03:26 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:03:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] Updated version of oversight stmt. Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928185955.051018c0@pop.gn.apc.org> hi > 6. ICANN's decisions, and any host country agreement[add:,] must be > required to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through > international treaties in regard to, inter alia, human rights treaties, > privacy rights, and trade rules. bill said: [COMMENT: I UNDERSTAND MILTON'S THINKING, BUT WE CANNOT CHERRY PICK POLICY FRAMEWORKS WE LIKE, E.G. HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTIONS; INTER ALIA ENTAILS MUCH MORE. MANY OF ICT POLICY REGIMES ARE DEEPLY PROBLEMATIC. WHY NOT SAY WIPO'S RULES, WHICH ARE FREQUENTLY A PUBLIC INTEREST DISASTER, AND ARE PERHAPS ABOUT TO GET WORSE WITH THE WEBCASTING TREATY? WHY NOT THE ITU'S INTERNATIONAL TELECOM CONVENTION? EQUALLY THE ITU'S INTERNATIONAL TELECOM REGULATIONS, WHICH MANY MEMBER STATES WANT TO RENEGOTIATE SOON, INTER ALIA TO ENCOMPASS THE INTERNET, VOIP, ETC? HOW ABOUT THE CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATING COE TREATY? ONE COULD GO ON. THIS IS A CAN OF WORMS, NO?] yes - this was my concern re mentiong the cybercrime treaty (and trade rules for that matter) - but i guess the point here is about ICANN internationlising and needing to be accountable - i would imagine the HR caucus would like very much to see something which ensures accountability to international HR frameworks. I am going to see rikke now and will ask her about this.. (she hasn't responded to this thread yet) karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Wed Sep 28 16:50:27 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:50:27 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Updated version of oversight stmt. Message-ID: <63207.83.77.143.129.1127940627.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Milton, To repeat publicly what I just said in response to your private mail, I understand your point, but think it's not responsive to the fundamental problem on the table, greater accountability to governments with respect to ICANN's core activities. On the one hand, it may be that the majority of us don't think there is a need for such accountability (this is not entirely obvious to me), but if so then we should have a principled statement as to why that is so, and why it would be a good thing to have a completely untethered ICANN roaming the earth and doing whatever from 2006. In an international negotiation, it seems odd to dodge the core question at stake. On the other hand, saying that ICANN should abide by international arrangements that are frequently a) operationally a few to many steps removed and b) lousy, seems an odd substitute for a clear position on the core item, especially when some of them---e.g. the ITU arrangements---are potentially quite troublesome. BTW, we had what I thought was a very interesting conversation during today's parallel session on oversight, and I believe someone said that there's already a provision in ICANN's bylaws saying it has to abide by international law. I don't have these imprinted in my brain, and I'm tired, but if so the point would seem to be technically irrelevant, and the issue is more tactical framing. What can I say. It's 11pm, we have to have language, and it sounds like this has already gone in as a caucus position. But I think there's some big unanswered questions that make the language hard to embrace with enthusiasm at this stage. So you can count me like McTim, not endorsing but not wanting to stop a majority, if there is one, that feels fine with it from proceeding. Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Milton Mueller > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 9:14 PM > To: karenb at gn.apc.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Updated version of oversight stmt. > > > Right, Bill, my point is precisely that - we cannot "cherry pick" > policy. What we are doing here is telling governments that they have to > actually HAVE a policy before they can control any aspects of what ICANN > does. That way, we limit the potential for abuse and arbitrariness. > > Otherwise, you get the arbitrary interventions accompanied by the > declaration, "this is a public policy issue." and of course, ANYTHING > important or controversial can be declared a "public policy issue." And > further, in most cases, I believe that consensus international > agreements provide some important protections regarding basic human > rights. Most trade rules in their general formulations re: telecom > policy are progressive, e.g., they would stop ICANN from discriminating > on the basis of national origin when it controls entry into markets, > they would favor competition over monopoly, etc. > > As for WIPO rules, sure, some of them are bad. But that battle has to > be fought in WIPO and in national legislatures. It is unrealistic - > indeed, an absurd fantasy - to think that if ICANN is exempted from > international law that it will do what we want it to do and that > suddenly, IPR interests will be weakened relative to us. I've been in > ICANN longer than most if not all of you. I know better than that. WIPO > would like to get ICANN to create new rights in names for international > organizations and impose them through its control of the DNS, for > example. Under my idea, it would have to get a new international treaty > negotiated and ratified to do that. Which is harder? > > >>> karen banks 09/28/05 2:03 PM >>> > hi > > > 6. ICANN's decisions, and any host country agreement[add:,] must be > > required to comply with public policy requirements negotiated > through > > international treaties in regard to, inter alia, human rights > treaties, > > privacy rights, and trade rules. > > bill said: [COMMENT: I UNDERSTAND MILTON'S THINKING, BUT WE CANNOT > CHERRY > PICK POLICY > FRAMEWORKS WE LIKE, E.G. HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTIONS; INTER ALIA ENTAILS > MUCH > MORE. MANY OF ICT POLICY REGIMES ARE DEEPLY PROBLEMATIC. WHY NOT SAY > WIPO'S RULES, WHICH ARE FREQUENTLY A PUBLIC INTEREST DISASTER, AND ARE > PERHAPS ABOUT TO GET WORSE WITH THE WEBCASTING TREATY? WHY NOT THE > ITU'S > INTERNATIONAL TELECOM CONVENTION? EQUALLY THE ITU'S INTERNATIONAL > TELECOM > REGULATIONS, WHICH MANY MEMBER STATES WANT TO RENEGOTIATE SOON, INTER > ALIA > TO ENCOMPASS THE INTERNET, VOIP, ETC? HOW ABOUT THE CIVIL RIGHTS > VIOLATING > COE TREATY? ONE COULD GO ON. THIS IS A CAN OF WORMS, NO?] > > yes - this was my concern re mentiong the cybercrime treaty (and trade > > rules for that matter) - but i guess the point here is about ICANN > internationlising and needing to be accountable - i would imagine the > HR > caucus would like very much to see something which ensures > accountability > to international HR frameworks. > > I am going to see rikke now and will ask her about this.. (she hasn't > responded to this thread yet) > > karen > > _ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Thu Sep 29 03:52:00 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:52:00 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Updated version of oversight stmt. Message-ID: <63341.81.62.139.82.1127980320.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Morning, Milton, > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Milton Mueller > Nope. Not correct. > http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm > There is a provision that says that ICANN ccTLD policies cannot > conflict with the domestic law applicable to a ccTLD manager, and there > are several "except as otherwise provided...by law" references, which > means US law, but there is no reference to "international law" or > treaties. Huh. Wish I could remember who said this yesterday. I'd like to get clarification on the point, need a lawyer who can do international law 101 for inadequately caffeinated dummies, copying Froomkin: What precisely is ICANN's status under international law? Irrespective of what's stated in its bylaws, presumably it has some obligations under international private law with respect to contracts etc. What about international public law as instanciated in ICT-related treaties under, inter alia, ITU/WTO/WIPO/COE, or the international bill of human rights for that matter? Could the USG as signatory to these at least nominally be obliged to act to bring ICANN into compliance with, say, a ruling of the WTO's dispute settlement system, a petition filed with the European Court of Human Rights, etc? This language went into our statement with not much discussion and I'll bet I'm not the only person here who's not entirely clear how these things work in relation to an org with ICANN's particular legal/tax status. > The difference in perspective here is "accountability to whom?" ICANN > is already completely accountable to one government and the addition of > more governments per se does not get me excited, it just means It does however get them excited, and in many cases they are not alone. Some actually do have constituents who don't like the SQ and wish for their governments to promote change---we shouldn't assume it's just a self-entailed bureaucratic interest at work here. Things that seem acceptable to globe trotting, tech enabled folks from Northern countries with dense systems of private sector and CS organization and interest representation can look different to people from places where conditions are different. Anyway, I just wish we could have said something interesting on the issue being pushed by developing countries, feel like just saying we don't support a new intergovernmental arrangement full stop sort of ducks the question, particularly since WGIG models 1, 3, and 4 all envision varying degrees of multistakeholder participation, as does the Brazilian. > It is not too relevant to this argument to say that some international > public policies are ones you don't agree with. If you get undefined, > unrestricted "oversight" you are also going to get decisions you don't > agree with. Indeed, you are much more likely to get arbitrary and > unlimited interventions. Disagree with the first, agree with the second. To me the constitutional/institutional form of governmental organization seems less important than the mandate and scope of authority. If the latter were narrowly bounded and not subject to expansion, how much would it would it matter whether you have a GAC within ICANN, which basically most governments North and South dislike, or an intergovernmental body, or a multistakeholder body in which governments have authority in the last instance over public policy, which is basically the EU's Model 3? The comparative costs and benefits merit consideration that neither we nor they have given. Best, Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Thu Sep 29 05:27:01 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:27:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] What could happen this morning in subcom A Message-ID: <63931.81.62.139.82.1127986021.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi Jeanette, > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann > Hi, we might have another opportunity to speak in the next subcommittee > meeting tonight. > My suggestion would be to have a look at the contributions from > Argentina and the EU on para 62. These contributions seem to be regarded > the most relevant ones. What do others think, should we comment on these > proposals? The Argentines just say let's have a forum, which is all but a done deal, just have to see how much of a pain the US will be in final negotiations. The EU is more interesting, and this is part of why I wasn't comfortable with our statement already saying flat out no change other than internal ICANN reform. The EU fancies itself as carving out the middle ground between the US and the Iranians, but their proposal is very vague, and when I've pressed them on this, they've insisted that this is strategically the smart thing to do---don't really specify the model, just invoke principles (I think it's really that they don't have internal consensus yet, so this is all they can do, but they don't want to admit it). Well, now we've had Brazil, India, China, Iran, and others get up and basically say hey your model is vague, please explain. Doh! The EU says under its "new model" -we should not replace existing mechanisms or institutions, but should build on the existing structures of with a special emphasis on the complementarity between all the actors, each in its field of competence;- -the role of governments in the new cooperation model should be mainly focused on principle issues of public policy, excluding any involvement in the day-to-day operations; -the 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 naming, numbering and addressing-related matters: You might join the others in asking for clarification, in particular: 1. in what organizational form do they suggest "building on existing," if they're calling it new---if they don't want the Iranian Council, what do they want (answer is GAC made an IGO but they're shy); 2. in suggesting that governments should focus on these principles, what would be the roles of other stakeholders in that process; 3. if the answer to 2) is just advisory, ask why CS and the private sector should greet this as a proposed improvement over the status quo. Thanks, Bill PS: Did Veni just get up and say something about sheep? Maybe the webcast was garbled... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Thu Sep 29 05:55:24 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:55:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function Message-ID: <63947.81.62.139.82.1127987724.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Karen, > >In the context of the evolving public and technical policy landscape of > >the Internet there will be a need to concretize binding international > >agreements that relate to: > > > >- the architectural principles of the Internet, including > >interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle I am very strongly opposed to putting this in the forum, and believe it will provide the USA and business with a big opening to reject the forum outright. I hope you will reconsider, it's dangerous. Rest is consistent more or less with IGcaucus etc. BD _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Thu Sep 29 06:07:33 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:07:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function In-Reply-To: <63947.81.62.139.82.1127987724.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <63947.81.62.139.82.1127987724.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050929110620.05b12bb0@pop.gn.apc.org> hi yes, just had a quick exchange with avri, and not a problem to take out, not our priority - human rights is we will have to submit - and as i said, we aren't looking for IG support, but would like to make sure we don't offer windows as bill has pointed out thanks for the quick feedback karen At 10:55 29/09/2005, William Drake wrote: >Karen, > > > >In the context of the evolving public and technical policy landscape of > > >the Internet there will be a need to concretize binding international > > >agreements that relate to: > > > > > >- the architectural principles of the Internet, including > > >interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle > >I am very strongly opposed to putting this in the forum, and believe it >will provide the USA and business with a big opening to reject the forum >outright. I hope you will reconsider, it's dangerous. > >Rest is consistent more or less with IGcaucus etc. > >BD > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Thu Sep 29 10:45:10 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:45:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] informal consultation with EU Message-ID: <50507.81.62.139.82.1128005110.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 > While we might want to ask for clarifications on the EU proposal (which is > what the LikeMindedGroup is doing now, before negotiating), I doubt that > that would be terribly useful, since I would guess that the only thing > that the EU can say is the text that was agreed yesterday among the member > states, and nothing more. I think it would rather be better to use the > time to make some of our points clear and ask the EU to adopt/support them > if possible. I disagree. The EU has put forward a proposal that is extremely vague and is yet asking people to support it as a bargaining solution to a heatedly divided issue. When I've pressed EC and national govt people on this they've tried to present it as a clever tactic: don't scare the US with specifics, just get agreement on principles by Tunis and then negotiate later to get the new oversight body they want to replace GAC. (I think you're right that it's probably more a reflection of the fact that they've not yet reached any consensus internally, most notably between the UK and key continentals. That's their problem. WSIS has been going on for three years; if they haven't gotten it together by now, how do they expect to bargain with the US etc?) It might be that when the like minded countries wake up to the fact that pushing their council is pointless in terms of outcomes (as opposed to scoring political points, mobilizing discontent that can be leveraged elsewhere, etc) they'll swing behind the EU formulation, who knows. Nevertheless, the US has been clear that it will not sign onto general principles without having any indication where they could lead toward. Having said that, I'd be surprised if they then backtracked and accepted anything like the EU language. I doubt business would either. Nor should we. How can we back something they refuse to explain, particularly when their end game seems contrary to the caucus statement agreed yesterday, and they've been specifically unclear on the role of CS in their formulation. So I don't see what's wrong with asking them where they are trying to go and how they see the role of CS in it. If you get the usual blah blah in response, fine, that's clarification enough. > The first and foremost one, in my opinion, is that we would like to see > some clear text in the Forum paragraph that ensures us that the forum > works like the open WGIG consultations, and not like the WSIS PrepCom. Or, > at least (as a fallback), that CS and PS would be considered as two > "delegations" that can participate to drafting groups and plenaries on a > peer basis with the delegation of one country. If this is too detailed, we > might fall back onto some more generic, but still clear, wording. We're on record since the first SubCom meeting that we want peer level interaction, but sure reiterate it. > In general, the more I read it, the more I like the Canadian proposal (tnx > Robert for forwarding it). I'm not sure about asking the EU to drop their > proposed Forum paragraph and support the Canadian one instead, but we > might consider doing this. Canadian is definitely clearer and better. > Also, if we want, we might make a more general request that the EU > formally supports our protest and asks for us to be allowed to participate > in drafting groups, or at least discusses it; and to try to keep us in the > loop, or at least regularly ask for reactions. I know many EU delegations > would support this request, but as I understand until now, as the week > evolved, it never came so high on the list of their priorities for any of > them (included mine) to actually raise it in the Coordination meeting. A little late for this, no? > About oversight, I really doubt that CS/PS can have a real impact on this. > This will be hardly fought among governments and I doubt they will have > the willingness and patience to take into account yet more views. In any > case, we definitely want to restate our views. Agreed. Best, Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Fri Sep 30 04:35:18 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:35:18 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Forum/oversight: Middle Ground proposal Message-ID: <50751.195.186.231.20.1128069318.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, Some notable things about the Canada/NZ/Aus/Switzerland/US/Singapore/Argentina/Uruguay 'middle ground' proposal. 1. If the USA is indeed on board with it, the USA has endorsed the creation of a forum. I thought they'd hold out longer, but the EU oversight proposal has brought things to a head, so cards are being played now. 2. The framing of the forum is not desirable. *There is no mention of it being multistakeholder, much less peer-level and open to unaffiliated individuals as participants. *There is no mention of it having a mandate to do much of what the IG caucus has proposed in terms of functions. *There is no mention of where and in what form it would be constituted; we have suggested that outside of but related to the UN would be preferable. We certainly don't want it based in an existing institution, i.e. ITU. *The language about it being non-duplicative and focusing on issues not otherwise being addressed adequately elsewhere could very well be deployed by the US, private sector, and others to say that, inter alia, the forum should not talk about any intellectual property issues because we have WIPO for that, nor trade aspects because we have WTO for that, nor interconnection costs or spam because we have ITU for these, nor privacy and "information security" because we have the COE Cybercrime Convention for these, and on and on. But the way these bodies have "handled" these issues is not that desirable. As we all know, many of the existing bodies do not allow participation, or meaningful participation, by CS; are controlled by particular industry coalitions and government agencies with specific and limiting missions; and accordingly produce outcomes that are not in tune with public interest considerations. Presumably, talking about how those organizations function would also be off limits. This would eliminate what Avri referred to at the CPSR panel as the "gadfly" function of the forum---raising issues and concerns not being raised within these bodies, pushing them, calling for solutions that are in keeping with WSIS principles, etc. I hope these concerns will be raised in our interventions if the opportunity arises. Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of karen banks > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 9:56 AM > To: 'Governance Governance Caucus' > Subject: [governance] Forum/oversight: Middle Ground proposal > > > hi > > we had an interesting discussion last night about the new 'middle ground' > proposal from Canada/NZ/Aus/Switzerland/US/Singapore/Argentina/Uruguay - > which, if you read carefully, is very familiar - many of the key points > from the WGIG recommendations are there.. still has a few fuzzy bits but > seems to have the support of the African Group at least.. > > we all had hard copy last night, but it's not online yet.. does > anyone have > a copy? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Fri Sep 30 05:01:51 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:01:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] IG Caucus Summit speakers Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050930085625.047c0cf0@pop.gn.apc.org> hi On the issue of summit speakers, thanks to those of you who supported my nomination of Anriette - but the responding thread (particularly from laina, vittorio, wolfgang etc) highlighted a misunderstanding (well, as it seemws from my perspective). Caucuses, working groups and families were all invited to nominate speakerS - as in plural - for the opening ceremony, high level panels, roundtables etc. I nominated anriette as one name that i assumed would join a list of other nominations from the caucus - but the reactions fo a few indicate that maybe people thought that by supporting anriette (or any one person) it would exclude others from being nominated. Nonetheless, when i look through the list of nominations that have come from civil society, many IG caucus members are there, being nominated through 'families' and other CS elements - i have certainly seen (but only recalling from memory): wolfgang bill izumi jeanette The CSB speaker nomination committee prepared a short list last night which will be presented to us in our last C and T meeting this afternoon. Once that is finalised, we'd then need to work out which speakers would be best where - i imagine dealing with the high level panels and roundtables (unless an IG member was nominated for opening ceremony. hope this clarifies any misunderstandings or assumptions.. karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Fri Sep 30 05:57:25 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:57:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Parminder on Canada Message-ID: <52197.195.186.231.20.1128074245.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> I agree with him. The proposal to move the forum to section 4 on development would indicate that they didn't just goof and make omissions, they want to spin it toward ICT4D, which I would see as entirely consistent with their larger policy stance. BD > -----Original Message----- > From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On > Behalf Of Parminder > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 11:21 AM > To: plenary at wsis-cs.org > Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Canada's proposal on IG forum - its > COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE > > > > > Thanks Jeanette, I will very much like believe that canadians > just goofed up, > but I know this is not true. The issues implied here have too long, and > consistent, a history in North-south geo-politics for this to be true. > > And I have reasoned them in my email - for instance, canada's > offer to move > the 'forum' part to section 4 on 'IG and development' from its present > location in section 5 on 'the way forward'. So obviuosly they > really know what > they are doing. The approach is too systematic for them not to.... > > Parminder > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Fri Sep 30 06:45:09 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:45:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Forum/oversight: Middle Ground proposal Message-ID: <52400.195.186.231.20.1128077109.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Karen, If the opportunity arises, I would like to see us speak to both by simply reaffirming what the caucus has already agreed on: 1. The forum should have a mandate to focus on the functions we have listed, not just ICT4D; 2. The forum should be able to address any and all multidimensional issues, and not have its scope artificially limited at the outset by marking off huge chunks of terrain that are "being handled elsewhere." This language is being read out now on the PrepCom floor as the possible basis of consensus. The intention of the restrictive formulation is very clear, I can't understand how anyone could miss it. The US and business want to restrict the forum's focus as narrowly as possible and ensure that the brilliant work being done in other bodies not be reconsidered from an independent IG standpoint. NTIA told me the other day the don't want interconnection costs in the forum, they prefer to keep it in the ITU, where bone-headed PTOs have proposed accounting and settlements type solutions to which they can easily and rightfully say no. Similarly, they will say that anything with an IPR dimension is off the table. We experienced this dynamic in WGIG, where Vittorio's efforts to discuss IPR were nixed. And my efforts to push trade dimensions. And so on. I can already hear Dick Beaird at the first Forum meeting saying the agreed language on the forum says no duplication so we can't talk about this, we can't talk about that. The WGIG report said the forum should be a place where anyone can bring up any issue. I think that's the right formulation at this stage, and that its thrust was entailed in our previously agreed language. So I hope we don't just roll with efforts to emasculate the forum before it starts. Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of karen banks > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 12:04 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Forum/oversight: Middle Ground proposal > > > hi > > - do we need to speak to the canadian forum proposal? (which is weak, but > at least references a few principles and working methods we like) - or is > it now supercded by the 'western' proposal > > - or, is it implied to form a complementary part of the 'middle ground' > proposal > > karen > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Fri Sep 30 07:08:03 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:08:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Forum/oversight: Middle Ground proposal In-Reply-To: <52400.195.186.231.20.1128077109.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <52400.195.186.231.20.1128077109.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050930120127.05899250@pop.gn.apc.org> hi bill >If the opportunity arises, I would like to see us speak to both by simply >reaffirming what the caucus has already agreed on: >1. The forum should have a mandate to focus on the functions we have >listed, not just ICT4D; >2. The forum should be able to address any and all multidimensional >issues, and not have its scope artificially limited at the outset by >marking off huge chunks of terrain that are "being handled elsewhere." > >This language is being read out now on the PrepCom floor as the possible >basis of consensus. i was just thinking that myself as i was putting together a compilation of our own texts - and personally, i think the proposals are much stronger than any government proposals on the table. i guess we have two things going on, a strategy which is focussing on supporting and/or critiqueing government positions - getting the forum off the ground being the priority - but, we mustn't underplay our own work.. how we navigate between the two could be the subject of the caucus meeting.. i'm going to make sure avri has copies of the language we have submitted on paras 62 (forum function, political oversight) for the press conference also.. >The intention of the restrictive formulation is very clear, I can't >understand how anyone could miss it. The US and business want to restrict >the forum's focus as narrowly as possible and ensure that the brilliant >work being done in other bodies not be reconsidered from an independent IG >standpoint. NTIA told me the other day the don't want interconnection >costs in the forum, they prefer to keep it in the ITU, where bone-headed >PTOs have proposed accounting and settlements type solutions to which they >can easily and rightfully say no. Similarly, they will say that anything >with an IPR dimension is off the table. We experienced this dynamic in >WGIG, where Vittorio's efforts to discuss IPR were nixed. And my efforts >to push trade dimensions. And so on. I can already hear Dick Beaird at >the first Forum meeting saying the agreed language on the forum says no >duplication so we can't talk about this, we can't talk about that. i agree with you bill.. this is indeed what we fought for (and lost somewhat) in the WGIG.. and, these are critical pillarws i think of the 'develpment' agenda we tried to push.. as, if not more important than 'capacity' building >The WGIG report said the forum should be a place where anyone can bring up >any issue. I think that's the right formulation at this stage, and that >its thrust was entailed in our previously agreed language. So I hope we >don't just roll with efforts to emasculate the forum before it starts. yes.. we need to discuss karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Fri Sep 30 08:22:14 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:22:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Forum/oversight: Message-ID: <52551.195.186.231.20.1128082934.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:wdrake at ictsd.ch] Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 2:18 PM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org Subject: RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] [governance] Forum/oversight: Middle Ground proposal Parminder, > -----Original Message----- > From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On > Behalf Of Parminder > thanks Bill, this is good. this business of 'addressing issues > not addressed > by others' is a dangerous business. i agree that WIPO, WTO should have > credible counter-points in the info society. thats where the potential of > growth and progress lies..... We had a clear example of this sort of agenda restricting and forum shopping this morning. In SubCom A's discussion of the interconnection cost section, Bangladesh proposed language saying that the Tier 1 providers should negotiate special and differential lowered rates for the least developed countries "in accordance with multilateral trade rules.” Venezuela, Colombia, India, Iran, South Africa, Indonesia, Pakistan, Haiti, Uruguay, Saudi Arabia, China, and Cuba lept to support the proposal. But the US replied no, interconnection falls outside the WTO arrangements (this is based purely on catering to US corporate interests in evading any legally binding obligation to provide "cost-oriented rates at any technically feasible point in the network" to developing countries, rather than any logical reading of the WTO rules---I had a protracted battle with ICC and the EC on this in WGIG), and the EU of course said they weren't sure and would have to consult. In other words, the US is saying that the issue of interconnection should only be dealt with in ITU, where PTOs have proposed an archaic accounting and settlement approach which they find easy to reject, and not in the WTO, where they could well lose a dispute resolution case on the matter. And similarly, as I noted, they have told me privately they do NOT want interconnection discussed in the forum. So the deal is, keep sensitive issues like interconnection locked within the boxes of existing, non-multistakeholder bodies where they can be controlled, and then pick the box that is most suitable to precluding serious challenges. The same game can be played with WIPO, COE, OECD, UNICTRAL, Hague Convention, ICANN, you name it. By the time we get done taking issues off the table because someone somewhere else is also talking about them in some manner, it's difficult to see what would be left for the forum to do, other than capacity building, per Canada. The WGIG report recommended that the forum be a place that is "open to all stakeholders from all countries; any stakeholder could bring up any Internet governance issue." The IG Caucus reply to the report didn't embrace any deviation from this approach, and I hope that CS will remain clear on the point. Best, Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Fri Sep 30 10:28:20 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 16:28:20 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Short term objectives Message-ID: <53786.195.186.231.20.1128090500.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola > First short term objective: be a player between now and Tunis. Ensure that > our proposals are included in the compilation of proposals that the Chair > will make today. Request as loudly as possible to be included in any round > of informal consultations going on between now and Tunis. Request that the Yes yes > Second short term objective: get to influence the text on the Forum. > Highlight some clear non-negotiables that civil society would like to see > in the language to be able to sign up to the text. These should be in > terms of wording, not just of concepts. For example, if we want assurance > that the non-duplication clause will not prevent the forum from discussing > anything, let's say that in five words and, when the right time comes, > insist that it is included as such (maybe getting the private sector > behind that wording as well, if possible). Same in terms of assurances of You will not get the private sector behind this; they insist on what we are opposing! BTW, I totally forgot, it's not just me here, we actually did agree language on this in our response to the WGIG Report. Didn't think of it before because it was in the Issues in Need of Further Development section and not the Forum section. So you already have approved language and hence a mandate to express the same sentiment in this or other form: "10. The caucus does not believe that the fact that certain issues are subject to ongoing negotiations in other international forums should by definition place them beyond the consideration of either the WSIS or a future forum, if one is created. This is especially the case with respect to: *multidimensional issues that cannot be adequately governed by emphasizing only one dimension; *matters that directly impact Internet governance and require Internet-specific expertise; and, *international organizations that do not allow meaningful and inclusive participation by all concerned stakeholders.” Best, Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Fri Sep 30 12:16:39 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:16:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] (Tentative) dinner plans for friday Message-ID: <54157.195.186.231.20.1128096999.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Robert, Very good restaurant but might be rather difficult for non-locals to find. Suggest bus 3 or 5 from the train station, get off Claparede. BD > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Robert Guerra > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 5:32 PM > To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: [governance] (Tentative) dinner plans for friday > > > Should it be possible, and the prepcom schedule permits - i'd like to > see if dinner plans can be arranged for this evening. > > As had been suggested by the group, the address of the Brazilian > restraurant suggested by the hotel is as follows: > > Churrascaria Gaucho > 1 Chemin Malombré > tel 022 346 1150 > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From db at dannybutt.net Wed Sep 28 08:09:18 2005 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:09:18 +1000 Subject: [governance] Speaking up In-Reply-To: References: <3067.156.106.225.194.1127897139.squirrel@156.106.225.194> Message-ID: It may be too late, but I also agree with all on the importance of speaking out strongly on this. Even though I think the interests of civil society are opposed to those of the private sector and academic technical community in many areas of detail, there was a clear recommendation from WGIG that IG arrangements should be multistakeholder, and to me this is the most important principle to hold on to and take forward to Tunis. Prepcom should be held to account. Regards, Danny (currently in Australia) On 28/09/2005, at 8:05 PM, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > I agree with Vittorio 100%. > > And this is a time to work with the private sector and technical > community, we have a stronger voice together in this and our interests > are the same. > > Adam (from England... missing Geneva already :-) > > > > On 9/28/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >> I think the moment has come to speak up and read Avri's protest >> statement >> against the exclusion of civil society and private sector from >> drafting >> groups. >> >> I have been spending the last 60 minutes speaking with some >> governments, >> with the business people, and with some of us. The business people >> are >> meeting right now to decide whether to speak up, but it seems >> likely they >> will, especially if we do the same. Some governments (both EU, and >> non-EU >> from the developed world) have told us that they would support us, >> but >> that they need to get a strong, formal and public protest from >> non-governmental actors first. The EU is meeting at the topmost level >> today at 3pm (the only high level group meeting in the week) and >> so would >> need that statement before then. >> >> If we don't speak this morning, we risk missing the train. >> Yesterday civil >> society people were repeatedly excluded from more and more drafting >> groups. If we go down this path, it could even happen that the >> next round >> of forum discussions, or even the forum itself, would adopt the >> same rules >> of procedure, and be "multistakeholder" in the sense that CS and >> PS speak >> in the first five minutes and then leave. >> >> We need to not accept losing one inch of ground on this issue. We >> need to >> get consistent support from as many countries as possible, in >> public, so >> that it can't be easily withdrawn. To do so, I think we have to >> confront >> them with the risk (which, I think, would actually become reality) >> of the >> Internet community refusing to participate in any new mechanism >> due to >> this kind of treatment, and contesting the Summit through the >> press, which >> would possibly turn the entire Tunis Summit into a failure for what >> regards IG. >> >> These are my two cents. I hope that other people can support this >> point of >> view, so that we can make a statement this morning. In any case, >> if we >> can't manage to get proper closure on it due to shortage of time, >> I would >> do it anyway, signing it with as many signatories as we can get. >> -- >> vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org] >> <------ >> http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> >> > > > -- > 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 avri at psg.com Fri Sep 30 19:48:20 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 01:48:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary Message-ID: <198BFBE3-AFDC-4853-A486-B3FDB4532DE1@psg.com> 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. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SUBCOM A_300905.rtf Type: text/rtf Size: 6724 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From db at dannybutt.net Fri Sep 23 06:36:54 2005 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:36:54 +1000 Subject: [governance] Chair's paper available In-Reply-To: <131293a2050923030852d5a94a@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd05092302225aaabae8@mail.gmail.com> <131293a2050923030852d5a94a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On the CS definition, it'd be good to get an answer in terms of Jacqueline's procedural question, which might determine what gets used. But if there needs to be a new one, Avri's is an improvement on what exists. I would also like to see a sentence to the effect that reflects the role of CS in promotion of human rights and the interests of actors who are not necessarily represented by states or the private sector (e.g. women, indigenous groups). The language from the WGIG background report para. 270 might be useful: 270. While there is no unanimously agreed definition of civil society a working definition, which draws on several United Nations documents, includes: “Organizations – including movements, networks and other entities – which are autonomous from the State, are not intergovernmental or do not represent the private sector, and which in principle, are non-profit-making, act locally, nationally and internationally, in defense and promotion of social, economic and cultural interests, defense of human rights, promotion of development objectives and for mutual benefit.” If that's too long, adding something like: "Civil society have also been important in the promotion of human rights and the social, economic and cultural interests of those not always represented by nation-states or the private sector." Regards, Danny -- http://www.dannybutt.net On 23/09/2005, at 8:08 PM, Jacqueline Morris wrote: > Adam > Isn't this text the "agreed language " from Geneva? Since this phase > is not supposed to renew debate on "agreed language" If it is in the > document, it's open for debate, right? SO it should either be out > totally, or the WGIG section on stakeholders be included? > Jacqueline > > On 9/23/05, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Bertrand, thanks. >> >> A general comment is that the draft is only three and half pages. It >> is missing sections describing follow-up issues (forum and >> oversight), but even with those sections the total may only be about >> 5 pages. This is helpful as it tells us that comments on specific >> issues will be very short. Looking at sentences not paragraphs. >> >> The paragraphs that stands out as contentious reads: >> >> We strive to establish a transition to a new cooperation model >> that helps up [us] implement the "Geneva principles" regarding the >> role of the governments and all stakeholders. Institutional >> arrangements for Internet governance should be founded on a more >> solid democratic, transparent and multilateral basis, with stronger >> emphasis on the public policy interests of all governments, and with >> clarification of the relationships among different actors. >> >> Also, I don't like how CS is defined: >> >> Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, >> especially at community level, and should continue to play such a >> role. >> >> Avri has suggested replacement: >> >> Civil society has played an important role on Internet matters. >> This role has ranged from capacity building at the community level to >> the contribution of much of the technological innovation and to the >> creation of much of the content that makes the Internet what it is >> today. Civil Society should continue to play such a role. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> At 11:22 AM +0200 9/23/05, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> >>> The Chair's paper in Group A (Internet governance) is now available >>> on the official site at : >>> >> 0>http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1962|0 >>> >>> Bertrand >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> governance mailing list >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> >> > > > -- > Jacqueline Morris > www.carnivalondenet.com > T&T Music and videos online > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From db at dannybutt.net Fri Sep 23 07:01:02 2005 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 21:01:02 +1000 Subject: [governance] proposed drafting groups In-Reply-To: <4333DC8F.5040100@wz-berlin.de> References: <4333DC8F.5040100@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: Well that's interesting. But what happens if (say) the public policy issues and the work of group 3 is not aligned? It also seems to me that the "development" area will end up having little leverage on outcomes, as all the implementable action looks to be in group 3 (and some of 1). having read the document, my suggestions for an expanded description of Civil Society's role seem out of place, so apologies. It looks like it should just be one sentence. Actually, I can't quite tell what Part Two is doing in the Chair's document if the stakeholders have already been defined elsewhere? Couldn't the whole thing be taken out entirely? Cheers, Danny On 23/09/2005, at 8:44 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Amb Khan has now proposed 3 drafting groups to be set up: > > Drafting group 1: Part 1 (introduction), Part 2 (stakeholders), > Part 3b > (public policy issues related to the use of the Internet) > Drafting group 2: Part 4 (Development) > Drafting group 3: Part 3a (Infrastructure, Management), Part 5 > (Follow up) > > > Governments are asked to comment on this proposal monday. So, nothing > will happen until then. Now, if that isn't an efficient procedure... > 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 avri at acm.org Sat Sep 24 18:20:33 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 00:20:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? In-Reply-To: <20050924213057.B272A68023@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> References: <20050924213057.B272A68023@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Message-ID: <53848A0B-94FC-43C3-85AD-00A67358FAEF@acm.org> On 24 sep 2005, at 23.23, Ian Peter wrote: > The only other situation likely to be simple enough to satisfy > would be a > “more power to GAC” one. Let GAC have a right of veto on root zone > policy > issues. I know its not ideal to everyone, but is it more acceptable > than > nothing happening or some ridiculous government top-heavy structure > being > established for this purpose? > I don't think one has to go as far as giving the GAC a veto. I think there are intermediate steps that could achieve a similar effect. e.g. give the GAC, and some CS oriented ICAN entity, perhaps the ALAC, or something with wider inclusion of users or at least domain holders, seat(s) on the board and give the GAC the ability to cause a full review of any ccTLD (and perhaps other issues related to national policies though this is somewhat more difficult to define) decision. what I do agree with is the proposition that ICANN could go a long way to having a greater degree of multistakeholder control, and that this needs to be achieved during the year approaching the end of the MOU, when one can only hope that the US will live up to its obligation to set the mature and self regulating organization free. this is, btw, implicit in my understanding of option 2, as i will argue during the Tuesday forum on the issue. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Wed Sep 28 11:04:04 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:04:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight stmt Message-ID: hi, i have added the some woring in 5 that i think we can reach agreement on. i also added a section 7 that may be more difficult for you to swallow especially those who want an FC. i am wondering if there is any chance in this or any other world where we can reach consensus on some text. the original text is already on the record, so if we can reach agreement of better text, that might be a good thing. if possible i would suggest that people recommend specific changes that others can then discuss. a. Political Oversight 62b: 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 oversight organization for domain names and IP addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard to ICANN be implemented in a reasonable time frame: 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent role of stewardship in relation to ICANN. 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the community of Internet users, civil society, the technical community, private sector and governments. 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. ICANN must establish a process for extraordinary appeal of its decisions in the form of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission, established on a case-by-case basis. Just to be clear, we are not calling for an 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. 6. ICANN's decisions, and any host country agreement must be required to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through international treaties, e.g in regard to human rights treaties, privacy rights, trade rules, and cybercrime treaties. Governement and International organizations, including NGOs, would have the right and repsonsibility of bringing violations of these requirements to the attention of ICANN and if satisfactory resolution cannot be reached using ICANN internal processes, would have the right to invoke the appeal process. 7. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government transfers the IANA function to ICANN. 8. It is understood that achieving these conditions will rely on negotiations between ICANN and the US Government. It is expected that the International multistakeholder community will take part in the process thought participation in ICANN process. It is also expected the the multistakeholder community will observe and comment on the progress made in this process through the Forum. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Sep 28 11:24:10 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:24:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight stmt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8C52D623-8B59-4864-8865-9A7B3F1A7CD5@psg.com> Actually that was an added section 5 and 6 and 8. i wrote the note and then added more stuff. apologies for the confusion. a. On 28 sep 2005, at 17.04, Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > i have added the some woring in 5 that i think we can reach agreement > on. i also added a section 7 that may be more difficult for you to > swallow especially those who want an FC. > > i am wondering if there is any chance in this or any other world > where we can reach consensus on some text. the original text is > already on the record, so if we can reach agreement of better text, > that might be a good thing. > > if possible i would suggest that people recommend specific changes > that others can then discuss. > > a. > > > Political Oversight > > 62b: 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 oversight organization for domain names and IP > addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with > regard to > ICANN be implemented in a reasonable time frame: > > 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent role of > stewardship in relation to ICANN. > > 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on > its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the community > of Internet users, civil society, the technical community, private > sector and governments. > > 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. ICANN must establish a process for extraordinary appeal of its > decisions in the form of an independent multi-stakeholder review > commission, established on a case-by-case basis. Just to be clear, we > are not calling for an 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. > > 6. ICANN's decisions, and any host country agreement must be required > to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through > international > treaties, e.g in regard to human rights treaties, privacy rights, > trade > rules, and cybercrime treaties. Governement and International > organizations, > including NGOs, would have the right and repsonsibility of bringing > violations > of these requirements to the attention of ICANN and if satisfactory > resolution > cannot be reached using ICANN internal processes, would have the > right to > invoke the appeal process. > > 7. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government > transfers the IANA function to ICANN. > > 8. It is understood that achieving these > conditions will rely on negotiations between ICANN and the US > Government. It > is expected that the International multistakeholder community will > take part > in the process thought participation in ICANN process. It is also > expected > the the multistakeholder community will observe > and comment on the progress made in this process through the Forum. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.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 Wed Sep 28 11:40:25 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:40:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] oversight stmt Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928162515.053dda10@pop.gn.apc.org> hi avri and all some minor comments, it's becoming a very coherent statement.. we largely support it >i have added the some woring in 5 that i think we can reach agreement >on. i also added a section 7 that may be more difficult for you to >swallow especially those who want an FC. do you mean 6? accountable to international treaties etc? willie and i talked about this.. and i have made a few comments below.. >i am wondering if there is any chance in this or any other world >where we can reach consensus on some text. the original text is >already on the record, so if we can reach agreement of better text, >that might be a good thing. more than that, we need to be ready - if there is some rough concensus, to give khan at least a sense of what we're talking about, and tonight if possible - is that possible? and remember, *if* we are going to get text in, and we must, we will probably need to submit by no later than late morning tomorrow, if we want delegates to have access to it.. and would even suggest, if there is some degree of consensus, that we send text directly to amb khan.. karen ----- note: have corrected typos without noting changes.. other changes noted in [] Political Oversight 62b: 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 oversight organization for domain names and IP addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard to ICANN be implemented in a reasonable time frame: 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent role of stewardship in relation to ICANN. 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on its Board and throughout its organizational structure [of?]/by the community of Internet users, civil society, the technical community, private sector and governments. I note that carlos' briefing paper on the brazilian forum proposal uses the following 4 distinct stakeholder groups - and not CS - ca - why is that? and does not include the internet community perse.. (otherwise, they are largely the same) .- National Governments; - Business associations; - Non-profit, non-business organizations; - Academic/technical community. 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. ICANN must establish a process for extraordinary appeal of its decisions in the form of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission, established on a case-by-case basis. karenb: suggest the following be a note in italics and not included in the paragraph language [note: Just to be clear, we are not calling for an 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. 6. ICANN's decisions, and any host country agreement must be required to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through international treaties, e.g in regard to human rights treaties, privacy rights, trade rules, and cybercrime treaties. Governement and International organizations, including NGOs, would have the right and repsonsibility of bringing violations of these requirements to the attention of ICANN and if satisfactory resolution cannot be reached using ICANN internal processes, would have the right to invoke the appeal process. karenb: I would like rikke to take a look at the above if possible (am ccing) - do we need to refer to the cybercrime treaty? is is not an international treaty (not yet anyway) and the less said about it the better 7. Once all [add: of] the [add: above] conditions [delete:listed above] are met, the US Government [add: shall] transfer[del:]s the IANA function to ICANN. 8. It is understood that achieving these conditions will rely on negotiations between ICANN and the US Government. It is expected that the International multi-stakeholder community will take part in the process through participation in ICANN processes. It is also expected the the multistakeholder community will observe and comment on the progress made in this process, through the [add: proposed] Forum. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Wed Sep 28 12:54:57 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:54:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Updated version of oversight stmt. Message-ID: <5DBA869A-6BCD-4C57-B7F4-460CFF952A7F@acm.org> I have attempted to combine Milton and Karen's comments with my concerns. does this work? we need, if at all possible to reach closure tonight if we want this statement to be included for consideration. almost last call folks. a. ---- Political Oversight 62b: 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 in 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 structure of the community of Internet users, national governments, civil society, the technical community, business associations, non profit organizations and non-business organizations. 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, and trade rules. 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. 7. Once all of the above conditions are met, the US Government shall transfer the IANA function to ICANN. 8. It is expected that the International multistakeholder community will take part in the process through participation in the ICANN process. It is also expected that the multistakeholder community will observe and comment on the progress made in this process through the proposed Forum. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Wed Sep 28 13:06:44 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:06:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Updated version of oversight stmt. Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928180035.0484f420@pop.gn.apc.org> thanks avri changes in [] karen ----- Political Oversight 62b: 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 [add:with]in 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[add,] and throughout its organizational structure[add:s,] of the community of Internet users, national governments, civil society, the technical community, business associations, non profit organizations and non-business organizations. 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[add:,] must be required to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through international treaties in regard to, inter alia, human rights treaties, privacy rights, and trade rules. karenb: not that important, but wonder if we should break 6. into two paras - one on compliance, one on right to invoke binding appeals process - also, a long para and easier to read if broken up 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. 7. Once all of the above conditions are met, the US Government shall transfer the IANA function to ICANN. 8. It is expected that the International multistakeholder community will take part in the process through participation in the ICANN process. It is also expected that the multistakeholder community will observe and comment on the progress made in this process through the proposed Forum. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Wed Sep 28 14:01:13 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:01:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] final Message-ID: <0E3FB139-0B8F-40AD-90BC-B2320C6FFB0A@acm.org> Hi, I have taken in Karen's grammatical changes and form change and added gender agreements to 6 i propose that this is what Jeanette sends in as the time is up. a. Political Oversight 62b: 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. 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 multistakeholder community will take part in the process through participation in the ICANN process. It is also expected that the multistakeholder community will observe and comment on the progress made in this process through the proposed Forum. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Tue Sep 20 12:30:36 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:30:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] African Position on IG Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050920172948.056d01b0@pop.gn.apc.org> hi i'm not sure if this has been posted here yet.. the African ICT ministers Conference, Dakar Statement on Internet Governance. karen >http://africa.rights.apc.org/?apc=he_1&x=1500640 > >Africa's Common Position on Internet Governance - The Dakar Resolution >20/09/2005 -- We, the African Information and Communication Technologies >(ICT) Ministers, gathered to consider "Africa's Common Position on >Internet Governance", in Dakar from 5 to 6 September 2005, thank His >Excellency Abdoulaye Wade, President of the Republic of Senegal, for >taking the initiative to organise this conference which has given us the >opportunity to debate on building a fairer new world to improve people's >lives and eradicate poverty through the creation of opportunities to >generate, use and share knowledge. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Tue Sep 13 10:42:57 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:42:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Invitation: Global Dialogue on Internet Governance Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, As a contribution to the United Nations World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), you are invited to participate in a web-based Global Deliberative Dialogue on Internet Governance, from 19-30 September 2005. For more information, and to register, go to: http://www.webdialogues.net/igp. The purpose of this Global Dialogue is to raise awareness of Internet Governance, to broaden participation in the policy debate, and to provide concrete input into the final deliberations during the Third Preparatory Meeting for the WSIS, taking place concurrently with the Global Dialogue in Geneva. The web-based structure of the dialogue will allow diverse voices from around the world to contribute to these important deliberations without traveling to Geneva. The Global Dialogue explores the findings and recommendations of the official report of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (http://www.wgig.org), and will address: (1) The WGIG itself, and lessons learned from its processes; (2) The working consensus definition of Internet Governance; (3) The public policy issues identified in the WGIG report; (4) The roles and responsibilities outlined by the report; and (5) The four governance models proposed by the report. Each of the four main sections of the dialogue will be introduced by an optional real-time "synchronous" webconference that will feature updates from participants on the ground in Geneva. At the heart of the Global Dialogue are the daily "asynchronous" web-based deliberations on the public policy issues and governance models proposed for Internet Governance. For each discussion topic, panels of experts and active participants in the WSIS processes will be available. The digital library includes extensive and searchable background information. Daily summaries will capture the main discussion points and questions raised. Periodic polls will capture the viewpoints of participants and may aid in the development of consensus positions. This dialogue is hosted by the Internet Governance Project (http://www.internetgovernance.org), in conjunction with the Collaboratory on Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco) at the School of information Studies, the Moynihan Institute of Global Affairs at the Maxwell School, the World Federation of United Nations Associations (WFUNA), and WestEd. Your participation in this Global Deliberative Dialogue is critical. We want to be as inclusive as possible to broaden and increase global participation in and awareness of the issues of Internet Governance. The ideas discussed in the dialogue will be fed into the decision-making processes in Geneva, and may help to serve as model for global deliberative policy dialogues in general. Please share this announcement with other individuals, groups and countries. The dialogue website is publicly available. To learn more about the Dialogue and to register to participate, please visit the dialogue Web site: www.webdialogues.net/igp. For more information, please contact Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn at dcogburn at syr.edu. 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Sep 15 12:32:19 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:32:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Internet Caucus Offices] Message-ID: <4329A213.1060607@wz-berlin.de> Hi, for those who will be in Geneva in the coming two weeks, the caucus is in the comfortable situation to have two rooms throughout the entire prepcom. See below, jeanette Dear Adam and Jeanette, I am writing you to let you know that the ITU has given you an office for IG Caucus during the entire PrepCom-3. The number is A 541. It is in the 5th floor, Palais des Nations. Also as you could see in the programme we have sent of side events, your meetings during PrepCom-3 as requested, will take place everyday (except 19 and 10 Sep) from 14:30-16:30, the room will be E 3056/58. Lastly I would like to know if you have already the names of speakers for put them on the list of participants so they can have access to the ITU building. I will need also to know if you will have a written statement for the IG Caucus presentation; this could really be helpful for the interpreters, as the vocabulary will be more technical. If so please send them to me. Best regards and see you on Sunday Alejandra Mendoza León CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail:wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jovank at diplomacy.edu Fri Sep 16 09:16:14 2005 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:16:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Events at the WSIS-Tunis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, With regard to the WSIS in Tunis, we plan to organise three events on Internet Governance, to be held within the framework of the GKP's Internet Governance Cluster. The first event will focus on the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme. We plan to have participants join us from the IG CBP (currently, we are in the middle of its second research phase) and our Belgrade Internet Governance Course. Both of these initiatives have yielded some excellent participants from developing countries. The idea is to introduce some fresh thinking to the IG debate, bringing new dynamics and new perspectives. The second event will focus on the forum function and possible developments after the WSIS. We plan to have the "usual suspects" participate at this event. The third event should focus on the link between development context (grassroot problems/initiatives) and Internet Governance. Yasmeen Ariff, who is in charge of the organisation of these events, will be in Geneva during the Third Prepcomm. Please let me know if you are interested in attending one of these events. We can arrange a short brainstorming meeting during the second week of the Third PrepCom. Regards, Jovan _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Fri Sep 16 11:01:13 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:01:13 -0300 Subject: [governance] Brazil's official position on .xxx and .travel In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20051128142330.023e8a50@pop.gn.apc.org> References: <4a9130d992bf66a306a56c7ead47cf5d@acm.org> <6.2.0.14.0.20051128142330.023e8a50@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <432ADE39.2060508@rits.org.br> Dear people, This is the official position of the Brazilian government regarding the ".xxx" and ".travel" gTLDs' issues (header in Portuguese, content in English, OCR of the original). fraternal regards --c.a. ================== MINISTÉRIO DA CIÊNCIA E TECNOLOGIA SECRETARIA DE POLÍTICA DE INFORMÁTICA Esplanada dos Ministérios, Bloco E – 3o andar – sala 317 – CEP 70067-900 – Brasília – DF – Brasil Telefone: 55 61 3317-7900 / 7532 – Fax: 55 61 3317-7855 OFÍCIO/GAB/SEPIN/NO 672/2005 Brasília, 6 de setembro de 2005 To: Mohamed Sharil Tarmizi Chairperson of the Governmental Advisory Committee - GAC Dear Mr. Tarmizi, On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I would like to express our concern with the procedures that Internet Corporation for Assigned Numbers and Names - ICANN has been following in the processes of introducing new sTLDs and gTLDs. In this regard, we would like to draw attention to the '.XXX' and '.TRAVEL' cases that despite having significant impacts in local concerns have been introduced without adequate consultation with national governments. The potential ethical problems that might arise due to ''XXX' and the insufficient protection allowed to local geographical names in the case of '.TRAVEL' endanger national interests that we seek to protect. Therefore, we would like to request that any new decision concerning the introduction of any other TLDs should be taken only after a careful analysis of the real need for such introduction within the Internet environment and due consultation with all parties that may be directly affected by them, particularly national governments. Yours, [signed] Marcelo de Carvalho Lopes Secretary of Information Technology Policy Ministry of Science and Technology of Brazil =============== ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 lachapelle at openwsis.org Fri Sep 16 14:49:25 2005 From: lachapelle at openwsis.org (Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:49:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance : 10 questions for PrepCom3 Message-ID: <200509161849.ERR81547@ms7.netsolmail.com> Dear all, PrepCom3 is probably the last real opportunity to influence drafting of the Tunis Document : even if there is a last minute compromise session three days before the summit itself, it will be in Tunis, with probably no access for civil society to the drafting committees, worse than last time in Geneva. Two weeks of PrepCom may seem long but they will fly quickly and there is a need to focus on the essentials of what can be achieved. PrepCom3 is about two major elements : - follow-up / implementation - Internet Governance I believe Internet Governance is going to be the major fighting ground among governments up to the summit. In that context, we must list the key questions we want to see addressed. I propose 10 below as a starting point to help move forward. INTERNET GOVERNANCE WILL BE CENTRAL IN PrepCom3 The open meeting on Sept 6 clearly demonstrated that governments : - care less about implementation than about Internet Governance (judging by the very different attendance of ambassadors in the morning and the afternoon) - care less about general governance issues than about the obvious root server question (ie ICANN evolution). We can therefore expect an easy watering down of text on implementation and a progressively more heated debate on Internet Governance. The reason for this situation is probably as follows : - on implementation, no government really supports a strong implementation framework : developped countries by fear (sincere or pretended) of creating a "new bureacracy" and some developing ones by fear of seeing others mingling with their sovereign right to prevent the emergence of an open society; as a result, the wording in the GFC report has already been toned down from previous documents, as Ralf and Parminder have noted (and even more in the very last version, as identified in my review of modifications sent to the Plenary list); the risk is only to see this trend accelerate; still there could be ways to leverage the present formulations in a positive way. - on Internet Governance, things are different. China, Brazil, India or South Africa devote most of their attention and efforts to the ICANN question, because it is an opportunity to oppose the US and affirm their status of major Regional Digital Power. This focus has two additional benefits : first, it is also a way to try and reinstall the paradigm of the primacy of governments in the only field where they are the ones knocking at the door to enter; and second, this debate distracts attention from other unpleasant issues such as freedom of expression or censorship. (By the way, the fact that in this whole process, the United States have managed to let themselves become the country under fire on such an specific point as oversight of the root server when there are so many violations of freedom of expression and so many denials of access to the internet and information in general in oppressive regimes is beyond my comprehension.) So Internet Governance - our main issue of interest on this list - is going to be central during PrepCom3. In particular I suspect we will soon see the .xxx question used systematically to counter the "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" theme used repetitively by the US representatives. Governments such as Brazil see this as an example of something that needs to be fixed (I don't want to open here the discussion on the substance of that point). WHAT WILL / SHOULD THE TUNIS DOCUMENT CONTAIN ? The only important question at that stage is : what will get into the final Tunis Text ? And what do CS actors want ? One thing is sure : no detailed formulation is on the table yet and the "food for thought document" of Ambassador Khan, a mere proposal for a structure, was not even accepted as formal input document for PrepCom3. In addition, his reference to specific paragraphs of the WGIG report was strongly opposed by the US delegation and the drafting will start from a clean slate. Some urgent questions for the IG Caucus are therefore (non exhaustive list) : 1) is Amb. Khan's document STRUCTURE appropriate as a starting point ? if not, what would we like ? 2) is the working definition of Internet Governance in the WGIG report something we can live with ? (I personnally can and commend the work of the group on that point, but others may differ) 3) can we manage / should we try to replace the formulation "multilateral, transparent and democratic with the full involvement of all stakeholders" by "multi- stakeholder, transparent and democratic", arguing that the second part of the present formulation is always dropped ? 4) can we / should we insert - as some government delegations including Salvador are also requesting - a notion that the security, stability, continuity and development of the Internet as a Global facility is the "shared responsibility" of all stakeholders ? 5) should the issues listed in Part 4a) be placed in the general framework of the revision of ICANN's MoU ? I suppose this issue will not find its solution within WSIS but that, like in the first phase, WSIS may call for the establishment of a broad debate / work group on the reform of ICANN : should we support/propose such an exit route if it offers enough guarantees of multi-stakeholderism ? 6) on the role of governments - and not simply the so- called "oversight function" - what do we really accept / support / wish ? 7) should a mechanism be proposed for the identification of new issues in addition to the ones listed in Part 4 b) ? Are the existing ones appropriate ? 8) what formulations can be proposed to avoid that Part 5 on measures to promote development have substance and do not become a simple reiteration of the formulations of the Geneva DoP and PoA ? 9)do we want a new multi-stakeholder Forum or the guarantee that all fora (existing or new ones) function on the basis of true and effective participation of all stakeholders, with a minimal set of agreed rules (Governance Protocol) and coordination mechanisms ? 10) last - but not least - is there / should there be any articulation between the fora mechanisms dealing with Internet Policy issues that this Chapter 3 addresses and the "policy debate" section of the newly proposed Chapter one on follow-up (see separate mail) ? I hope this will help structure discussions during PrepCom3 and allow the IG Caucus to have a significant impact on the final drafting. Looking forward to seeing those of you that will be in Geneva next week - I will miss the others. Best Bertrand _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat Sep 17 12:39:54 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:39:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] update on the .xxx decision Message-ID: I have second-hand information about the ICANN Board meeting Sept. 15, where .xxx was at the top of the agenda. I have been told that the Board voted, with 11 supporting and 4 abstentions, to ask ICM Registry to make sure that there would be no ownership transfer of the domain, and to strengthen its methods to enforce requirements and policies on web sites registering in the domain. The clear implication seems to be that with these modifications the domain will be approved, but of course ICANN made no explicit commitment yet and the overall effect is to delay the final contract further. As far as I know, ICANN received only 2 letters from governments on this issue, one from Sweden and one from Brazil, both negative regarding the domain. The Internet Governance Project also transmitted its petition criticizine political intervention in DNS management to the US Secretary of Commerce and the ICANN Board. The content of the Brazil letter can be seen at the NCUC archives http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0509&L=ncuc-discuss&T=0&F=&S=&X=3758E071D3FA0246DD&Y=mueller%40syr.edu&P=2005 Brazil is mainly interested in more power for governments over ICANN activities. The content and signatories of the IGP statement can be seen here: http://dcc.syr.edu/signaturepost.asp It is possible that other govts weighed in as well but kept their comments private. The bottom line here is that ICANN seems to have displayed some backbone, not caving in to political pressures from governments, including the govt of (or political forces within) the US. I believe the IGP campaign helped with this, and thanks to those of you in civil society who signed the online petition. The religious conservative group Christian Coalition has already explicitly urged the NTIA to use its veto power over modification of the DNS zone file to stop .xxx; if ICANN formally approves xxx it will no doubt provoke calls from that group to exercise the unilateral power, posing a real dilemma for the USG. In a related development, a trade association of the "adult online entertainment industry" has also started a campaign against .xxx. So we have the pornographers, the religious crazies and the Brazilian and Swedish governments working together. I hope they enjoy each other's company! 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Sat Sep 17 16:01:42 2005 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 22:01:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance : CS Declaration / Tunis Declaration Message-ID: <954259bd0509171301684cbf35@mail.gmail.com> Dear Wolfgang and all, I am indeed in favor of a CS declaration on Internet Governance at Tunis. But that does not mean we should not get involved now in the drafting process of the Tunis Declaration part dedicated to Internet Governance. This is the purpose of my 10 questions. If Bill has taken the time to read them, they are not a reopening of the WGIG debate and they are right on the topic of the proposed structure of Amb. Khan. The key issue of PrepCom3 is NOT yet the drafting of an alternative declaration (although it is worth discussing there its principle and general outline depending on how negociations evolve). It is not only to discuss the issues addressed by the WGIG in more detail. The purpose IS to monitor closely the discussions on the text the governments are drafting an try to have an impact. How do we want it to be structured, what are the minimal elements and the things we do not want ? How do we plan to lobby ? who are the allies, on what topics ? To be more concrete, I do believe that governments will not agree in PrepCom3 and probably not even during the Summit on substantive aspects and probably not even on more than a multi-stakeholder principle and the need to continue discussing this question. Using amb. Khan's structure as guide for the moment, I believe they will agree on : 1) an introduction on : - the mandate of WGIG and a note of its report (suggestion of Brazil) - a reiteration of the Geneva Principles (multilateral , etc ...) This is where my question 3 comes : should we ask for the replacement of multilateral by multi-stakeholder ? - the affirmation of security, stability, etc..of the Internet as a common objective/guiding principle This is where my question 4 comes : inserting the notion of "shared responsibility" ? I would add : should we ask to have this paragraph moved one level up, before the principles ? 2) a definition of Internet Governance : this is where my question 2 comes : do we endorse the WGIG's definition ? 3) separating infrastructure and management of critical internet resources [Part 4a)], (that is : ICANN), from other Policy issues [part 4b)], without getting in detail in the substance of the latter. This is where my questions 5, 6 and 7 come in. 4) a part devoted to "development-related issues" This is where my question 8 comes in Very open questions will be : - the relationships between governments and ICANN : I do not believe there will be any possible agreement there before Tunis among governments. the only option (last minute compromize like last time) will probably be to address this question after Tunis in the general framework of the follow-up to the present ICANN MoU. This is related to my questions 5 and 6 : what should be the framework for the discussion of the follow-up to ICANN's MoU ? how should it associate all stakeholders ? - the establishment of a Forum [resp Fora] : there the devil is in the details and the key question is what form/procedures should such mechanism(s) adopt ? This is my questions 9 and 10. Question 10 in particular is of great importance, as it addresses the possible relationship between different parts of the draft Tunis Document and could allow to get on one side (implementation) what is not obtained on the other (Internet Governance). So, sorry to insist, but these questions are very operational and down to the point. Add other if you want - they are very welcome - but if you don't address them, don't complain afterwards that CS positions are not taken into account. Most diplomats in the room are not like us all, passionate about Internet Governance. Apart from the general US-China battle on oversight, most of them don't care a damn about these issues - if they understand them -. In four months, most of them will not even think about the information society and this summit any more. All they want is to be offer their heads of state an agreement in Tunis, even if it is only to set up a specific mechanism to address these issues further. Let's help them in a way that sets the future activities in a proper balance. Looking forward to seeing you soon. Best Bertrand For clarity, I reproduce below the 10 questions of my previous mail : 1) is Amb. Khan's document STRUCTURE appropriate as a starting point ? if not, what would we like ? 2) is the working definition of Internet Governance in the WGIG report something we can live with ? (I personnally can and commend the work of the group on that point, but others may differ) 3) can we manage / should we try to replace the formulation "multilateral, transparent and democratic with the full involvement of all stakeholders" by "multi- stakeholder, transparent and democratic", arguing that the second part of the present formulation is always dropped ? 4) can we / should we insert - as some government delegations including Salvador are also requesting - a notion that the security, stability, continuity and development of the Internet as a Global facility is the "shared responsibility" of all stakeholders ? 5) should the issues listed in Part 4a) be placed in the general framework of the revision of ICANN's MoU ? I suppose this issue will not find its solution within WSIS but that, like in the first phase, WSIS may call for the establishment of a broad debate / work group on the reform of ICANN : should we support/propose such an exit route if it offers enough guarantees of multi-stakeholderism ? 6) on the role of governments - and not simply the so- called "oversight function" - what do we really accept / support / wish ? 7) should a mechanism be proposed for the identification of new issues in addition to the ones listed in Part 4 b) ? Are the existing ones appropriate ? 8) what formulations can be proposed to avoid that Part 5 on measures to promote development have substance and do not become a simple reiteration of the formulations of the Geneva DoP and PoA ? 9) do we want a new multi-stakeholder Forum or the guarantee that all fora (existing or new ones) function on the basis of true and effective participation of all stakeholders, with a minimal set of agreed rules (Governance Protocol) and coordination mechanisms ? 10) last - but not least - is there / should there be any articulation between the fora mechanisms dealing with Internet Policy issues that this Chapter 3 addresses and the "policy debate" section of the newly proposed Chapter one on follow-up ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Sep 19 09:29:43 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:29:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] First prepcom interventions Message-ID: As you may have seen from Rik Panganiban's note to the plenary list this morning, prepcom has so far focused on China and human rights issues. Great fun and important stuff. Nice to see the US, UK (EU) and Canada taking a bit of a stand on human rights. As far as Internet governance is concerned we hope sub-committee A will start work this afternoon. One disturbing rumor (we will find out for sure later today) is that observers will be given 15 minutes speaking time every 6 hours of discussion. As sub-committee A meets for 3 hours each day, it seems we may only be able to speak every other day. Will will argue against this. Other civil society organizations have kindly agreed to give the IG caucus the full 15 minutes speaking time today. Five of us will speak: Speakers for Civil Society Sub-Committee A (Internet Governance) Monday, 19 September 1. Mr. Adam Peake, from GLOCOM, on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 2. Ms. Magaly Pazello, from DAWN, on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 3. Mr. William Drake, from CPSR, on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 4. Mr. Milton Mueller, from the Georgia Institute of Technology, on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 5. Ms. Jeanette Hofmann, from the Heinrich Boell Foundation, on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus We had to prepare text for the interpreters, those files are attached. Thanks, Adam -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AJP_Process(CS19_09).rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 5890 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MP_Capacity(CS19_09).rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 10223 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WD_Forum(CS19_09).rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 6165 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MM_Root(CS19_09).rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 4577 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JH_lacking(CS19_09).rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 5879 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 Mon Sep 19 09:50:27 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:50:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] PrepCom information: Webdialogues Message-ID: Please take a look at the webdialogue project's website, they are trying to bring as much information as possible from the prepcom about Internet governance, and will also hold a series of interactive sessions, etc. Great credit to Derrick Cogburn. the Internet Governance Project and all involved in helping people follow what's going on at the prepcom remotely and generally enriching the discussion Thanks, Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit-multimedia.com Mon Sep 19 17:53:39 2005 From: laina at getit-multimedia.com (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:53:39 -0700 Subject: [governance] Iwshing to participate and contribute Message-ID: <20050919215347.VQPA1251.morpheus1.pacific.net.sg@LAINATABLET> Dear Internet Governance caucus members, Thank you for all the wonderful efforts in the work of WGIG and your consistency and dedication. I look forward to working with you in the upcoming week on IG issues, where possible. Some of you, such as Adam,Bill, and Milton know me from the 1996 days= pre-IAHC, Green and White Paper process, IFWP negotiations up to creation of ICANN, others such as Karen I have worked on Gender and ICT and ICT4D issues. Whilst I may not have been recently active on this list or your WGIG work, I truly look forward to working with you on adding value to the process. Best Regards, Laina Raveendran Greene -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Sep 20 06:00:42 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:00:42 -0300 Subject: [governance] Brazil's statement - subcommitte on IG Message-ID: Below is the statement from the government of Brazil at the opening meeting of Prepcom 3's subcommittee A (Internet governance). --c.a. ========== Brazilian Statement On Internet Governance to the WSIS Prepcom III Geneva, September 20th, 2005 Thank you Mr. Chairman, On Internet Governance three words tend to come to our mind: “Lack of Legitimacy”. Despite the success in ensuring high availability and great stability to the operation of the network, the current structure for global governance of the Internet presents significant limitations and a clear lack of legitimacy. In what concerns Internet Governance, in our digital world, only one nation decides on behalf of us all. How those in favor of this power concentration explain this awkward situation? The most common one is the well known 1984 George Orwell type of mantra, which says: “If it is not broken, do not fix it”. Even if we agree that there is nothing to be fixed – which is not the case for Brazil – this indoctrination argument makes no sense. It makes no sense for a simple reason: we are not debating industrial mass production through assembly lines; we are trying to build a democratic, transparent and multilateral decision making process in our digital world. In order to see things from another perspective, Brazil proposes a new mantra based on an often quoted Stein's Law, a principle enunciated by the late Herbert Stein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Nixon administration: "Things that can't go on forever, don't." Mr. Chairman, the WGIG Report calls our attention to a number of issues related to Internet Governance that cannot go on forever. Allow me to quote a few of them: a) On administration of the root zone files and system, the unilateral control by one Government, as well as the lack of formal relationship with root server operators. b) On Interconnection costs, an uneven distribution of cost and an absence of an appropriate and effective global Internet governance mechanism to resolve the issue. c) On Internet security, a lack of multilateral mechanisms to ensure network stability and security of Internet infrastructure services and applications and a lack of efficient tools and mechanisms to be used by countries to prevent and prosecute crimes committed in other jurisdictions using technological means that might be located within or outside the territory where the crime caused the negative effect. d) On Spam, no unified, coordinated approach. e) In what concerns participation in global policy development, there are significant barriers to multi-stakeholder participation in governance mechanisms. There is often a lack of transparency, openness and participatory processes. f) On Allocation of domain names, there is a need for further development of policies and procedures for generic top-level domain names (gTLDs). g) On IP addressing, concerns over allocation policies for IP addresses. h) In what concerns Freedom of expression, restrictions on freedom of expression. i) In relation to Consumer rights, there is a lack of global standards for consumer rights over the Internet. The recent case of triple X domain name is a good example of lack of accountability. Mr. Chairman, we cannot ignore reality; neither should we expect magic solutions. The WGIG Report proposes a number of ways out of this dilemma. The first one is the creation of a Global Forum – a place of dialog and decision, with all stakeholders. Let me stress the world “decision” – otherwise it will be seen as nothing but a kindergarten. The second proposal is the creation of a Global Public Policy Oversight Function System. Three of the four models proposed by the WGIG report are worth being implemented. In this regard, Brazil is of the opinion that the WGIG’s report shall be a base for our work here at Prepcom III. It’s a good and sound step forward. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Brazil supports a new organization model for Internet Governance. One that is democratic, transparent and multilateral, as we all have already agreed upon in the Declaration of Principles, at the Geneva Summit, two years ago. Current policies on Internet Governance are unsustainable. We can't go on like this indefinitely. And things that can't go on forever, don't. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ========== ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272 - sexto andar 22270-060 Rio de Janeiro Brasil tel +55-21-2527-5494 fax +55-21-2527-5460 http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jovank at diplomacy.edu Tue Sep 20 22:16:34 2005 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 04:16:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Simulating Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Jeanette, Thank you for very useful summary! As far as "language" for the final text is concerned we may have some interesting inputs from the simulation exercise which is conducted in the context of our Postgraduate Diploma Course. "Simulation" is almost misnomer since students have been drafting the final text in parallel to the Third Prepcomm activities. Here is the first draft which has been already substantially amended. I will keep you informed about new versions of the text. There is one caveat: For didactical pruposes the text has a form of "resolution". Regards, Jovan 2005 Postgraduate Diploma Course SIMULATION EXERCISE IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE Draft resolution on the Internet Governance The high-level representatives to the second phase of the World Summit on Information Society, assembled in Tunis, from 16 to 18 November 2005, Acknowledging that the Internet is a central element of the infrastructure of the emerging information society, Mindful that the Internet has evolved into a global facility to which all should have better access, Recalling that the international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, as agreed in the Geneva Declaration of Principles, Recognizing the essential role of all stakeholders in the Internet governance, Aware of the need to address all public policy issues related to the Internet governance in a coordinated manner, Taking note with satisfaction of the Report of the Working Group of Internet Governance. 1. Declares that any Internet governance mechanism should ensure functional stability of the Internet, as well as promote the core Internet characteristics like openness, transparency and "end-to-end networking"; 2. Reaffirms the need for a more equitable distribution of resources and cost sharing among all countries and people; 3. Invites all stakeholders to work in partnership to ensure better access of all to the Internet as a public good, while sharing differentiated responsibilities in the Internet governance; 4. Calls upon governments to: - ensure that the Internet is governed as a part of the national critical infrastructure, in a stable, sustainable and accountable way; - elaborate strategies aiming at improving the access of all to the Internet resources; - create an enabling environment for ICT development; - assume responsibility in the management of country domain names; - develop and adapt laws and regulations in the fight against all forms of cybercrime. 5. Also calls upon the private sector to: - develop the industry self-regulation in such a way as to increase accessibility of all to the Internet services; - develop policy proposals, guidelines and tools for policymakers and the other stakeholders; - promote capacity building in particular in developing countries; - research and develop technologies, standards and procedures which take into account the public interest; - develop and promote best practices. 6. Invites the civil society organizations to: - contribute to shaping visions of human-centred information society based on sustainable development and empowerment; - contribute to awareness-raising and capacity-building, through knowledge, training and skill training; - facilitate participatory and inclusive network-building; - help to ensure that political and market forces are accountable to the needs of all members of society; - bring perspectives of the developing countries in the preparation of decisions relevant for the Internet governance. 7. Decides the establishment of an Internet Governance Forum as a space for dialogue among all stakeholders that will address Internet-related public policies as well as any other cross-cutting and multinational issues that affect more than one institution; 8. Request the Secretary-General of the United Nations to conduct open, transparent and inclusive consultations, with the participation of all relevant stakeholders, with the aim of establishing the mandate, modalities, functions, size, membership, working methods and procedures for the such a forum, and present a proposal to that effect as soon as possible, but not later than 1 September 2006. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Sep 21 12:56:22 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 01:56:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] caucus response to WGIG report Message-ID: People have been asking about the links to the caucus' contribution to prepcom 3, our comments on the WGIG report. You will find the document at the links below: Thanks, Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Thu Sep 22 07:15:59 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:15:59 +0900 Subject: [governance] Sept 22 / Morning subcomittee notes In-Reply-To: <20BA545A-BB0B-47B7-B45C-4DE20F8658DA@lists.privaterra.org> References: <20BA545A-BB0B-47B7-B45C-4DE20F8658DA@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050922201448.07af8870@211.125.95.185> OK, the webcast came back now. I missed the first portion of Chair's summary, but so Singapore and El Salvador will report back tomorrow morning, right? izumi At 12:55 05/09/22 +0200, you wrote: >council of europe > >- makes reference to coe convention on cybercrime >- asks for global ascension to cybercrime convention > > >caricom > >ralf bendrath > >brazil > >UK / EU > >- supports general outline of chair >- reserve the right to make comments >- there is still much work to be dobne to iid common ground and >common understanding and develop framekwork which different country >concerns can be addressed. >- question - > what is timeline to tabling a text >- on tue welcomed wgig report as basis for this subcommittee. >reiterates support for using wgig report. however, this is not a >negotiated text. it serves as a starting point. >- comments made so far provide valuable input > >- the EU regocnizes there is no UNIQUE definition of IG. should use >the wgig definition as a working definition for IG. can revist it if >needed. > >chair > >- timetable. probably afternoon and evening sessions. >- definition. concern has been noted > >iraq > >- comments on part 5 (f/u and future arrangements) >- framework for interface: recommendations og wgig founded on two >piallers - oversight and forum. >- Question on - "Framework for interface between existing and future >arrangements >". should it be two subpoints and not one. > >chair: > >- evolutionary / incremental references come from reference made >earier by ghana/africa group. that's the justification >- framework for interface : is the overall chapeau for the bullets >that follow. > >interface between the existing agreements and furture posibility > >- recommendation on forum: is a seperate point >- delegates have to decide have to decide if structure is light, >heavy or tighly controlled. across the spectrum there are mentions >that it should be agile. it should NOT be a burdensome beaurocracy > >USA > >- contratulate chair on outlien that focus us on important issues >- confirms that this is a working document, that each of the points >are open for discussion. we will follow suite and offer our views on >specifics >- two poiints: >1. agree with EU that defn offered by WGIG report i an interesting >one that can be used as a working definition. we have a view about it >and will offer interesting discussion >2. models: agree with russia that models offered are not exhausted. >other possibilities and external suggestion might come. > >- welcome the outline and look forward for discussion. > >chair: > >- thanks us for comments > >singapore > >- general support for chairman's document. >- while might have individual comments, will make them at later stage >- the scheme presented by chair is one we can agree with. > >honduras > >- agree with mayority of areas to express ddevelopment >- wgig mentions them too in a way that creates a dialogue with dev >countries >- in different parts of the report -> recommend that a section on >access to all be added to the chair paper. (to be added as an >overaching goal) > >chair: > >- 3b : access to information and knowledge. >- it is already in geneva documents. we will reinvoke a reference to it. > >saudi arabia > >- iranian part 5 proposal, support it >- Q: will you restrucutre part 5 as per comments made earier by iran > >chair: > >- agreeded with iranian proposal. explained existing points. thinks >that iranian delegate agreeded >- you are putting too much emphasis to the points. we aren't >negotiating yet, just points on what to talk about later,. > >cuba: > >- likes the chair discussion paper >- 2 comemnts: > >1. 4 in seperating it from #3, makes it seem that it does not >related to public policy. but in the wgig report they were. > >2. agree with iranian comment that section 5 needs to have more details > >- process comment: agree with brazil and colombia that we should move >to comments on section 5, on models. > >chair > >- we are advancing on section #5. we are on that subject >- there might be a misconconception on promoting development. they >are seperated for understanding, but let's find language to >conceptually link them. >- we will come up with some language > >brazil > >- reference to ccbi talking about governance. quoting on what was >said - "they do not support a more centralized system for IG". >- brazilian delegation could not agree more with ccbi, as currently >there is currently a centralized system controlled by a single >computer in marina del rey.(ICANN) >- the only way to move forward is to create aninternet council that >can substitute work being done by icann an iana. this council is >common to models 1,3 & 4. we just have to negotiate the details. >- we need more than one government involved. i think this an >unanimous comment from the wgig report. >- don't think others oppose moving away from the existing centralized >process. > >chair > >- at appropiate time cbbi might want to explain what they mentioned >- i understand you support iic (intil internet council) > >haiti > >- comment on part 4. >- add ict programs and projects to section 4 > >Egypt: > >- further expand part 4 >- 53.4 in wgig report should be added - equitable access for all >should be added. > > >chair: > >- honduras also proposed that. will take note of it. > >stakeholders: > >- private sector (ISOC) > >- thanks wgig members >- cost of access, advice and how to use the internet, security and >usefull content, in language >- we are here (para 4 of wsis declaration). we need to remind >oursleces, on two issues: >* connectivity and capacity building are key issues > >(seems to be repeating what is in ISOC comments to wgig report) > >- isoc has been keenly involved in capacity building and connectivity >need to be > >- models: the existing models work and have been resliant >- many of the policy areas are already being discussed. we need to >build and evolve existing structures and organizations and not create >new strucutures. >- the internet community has adapted and become more open >- the system works and evolves now > >ccbi: > >- forum function: a variety of existing organizations already >- many of the organizations allow for discussion > >- the internet has worked well with decentralized control >- this decentralzied control has allow for growth at edges. >- supports greater participation and greater evolution > >- there may be in some cases call for issue specific fora > >- any issue specific event should include information exchange and >horizonal collaboration >- the space would need to be a neutral space to bring them together >as equal partners. >- existing organizations could increase participation to all >stakehodlers at national and regional level. > >- information should be to favcilitate and exchange information. >- ccbi looks forward to contribute further > >heather shaw (CBBI) > >- need to facilitate collaboration >- new fora can be xpensive. need to make most of existing >organizations before creating new organizations >- capacity building important >- all stakehodlers have a role to play on capacity building. > >ralf bendrath >adam peake > >venezuela > >- wgig report is a guide. >- the proposed models can be used as a guide only. we shouldbe able >to make combinations and/or changes >- there might be areas of convergence > >- we have limited time to discuss, and it is out last chance to reach >an accord we have at this prepcom. there should not be a prepcom 3 >bis. we have almost finished a week of declarations and we don't have >text. >- we are worried that we haven't yet been able to enter into a >discussion in a text and plan of action. >- the guide presented by chair is good. we sugegst the following > >section 1: >- related to definition >- we should be guided by the geneva principles > >section 2: > >- suggests addtion to have interactyion between stakehodlers >- coordination, cooperation, > >section 3& 4: > >- we should put all of these into a single part called governance models >- we should reach agreement > >section 5: > >- a section which should be subdivded: > >a. models of governance >b. implementstion on models >c. definition of public policies. we should go into details. > >at this stage there are elements that require further work > >- we are worried as time is moving on. we should start discussing now > >- recommendation: let us setup several groups. the important point is >that we shoudl start by tomorrow. as time is short we need to hurry >up. if we don't we will have to setup several groups that would make >it difficult for small delegations such as ours. > >chair > >- one should banish worry >- there will be no prepcom bis > >el salvador > >- will submit a list of written comments on parts 1 & 2 >- >section 3a & 5: there seems to be duplication. how to we proceed. > >- part 5: Question on oversight function >- models: can we envisage other models that aren't in wgig report > >chair > >- there is overlap between 3a and one bullet in #5. we will try to >rationalize it . > > >saudi arabia ( on behalf of arab countries): > >- would like concentrate on part 5. >- the essential decisions need to be taken on part 5 before we get to >specific wording. > > >chair > >- what we have done to-date has been easy. >- we are now moving into a more difficult phase. it will be a >challenging area. >- will be need to focus on intelligence to strike compromises, to >know that the other sides are saying. > >- let's do something more skill-full that can gen results. > >- drafting groups proposed to draft language. will circulate text >that has blanks to be filled in. > >- status of papers: > >* food for thought: no status. just an aid to facilitate discussion >* outline: tool to facilitate dsicussion >* paper: no status. use it, substitute it, would be to focus mind and >attention on subjects. > >* only text with status would be the ones emerging from the >discussions. by monday we might have a rolling text. > >* this afternoon there should be a flurry of activcity. suggestion. > >- meet amongst yourself to strategise >- tomorrow there will be a suggestion paper for thought. >- let's have cross group dialogue >- > >drafting groups: > >- how do we associate other stakeholders. I need your help on what to >do. there are rules of procedures, but there are also calls for >observers to be involved in the negotiating exercise. > >in summary: > >1. create working groups >2. a non-paper will be circulated >3. seek guidance on how to involve observers in drafting groups. > > >USA > >- while we consider your proposal >- we thank you for these suggestions. we know it is not an easy task > >- two thoughts to have: > >1. practicality >- many delegations are small. >- would ask that if drafting groups created that we don't have too >many of them,as hard for small delegations > >2. principle > >- we need to give very careful and full thought to observers >- would seek that observers participate in the debate in the drafting >groups >- those communities need to be at the table. > >brazil > >- you are going in a good direction. >- one practical difficulty. we are here to negotiate a text to be >signed by heads of state. > >- there is a moment where governments need to sit among each other >(that is exclude civil society) > >- we need to meet in small groups, practically it needs to be done in >a quiet way > >chair > >- rules of procedure, what is there? >- section 8. >- there is no text that refers to observers in working groups > >saudi arabia (arab states) > >(1) >- in the past had no objections to drafting groups. should limit the # >- should only create them after the basic decisions have been made in >plenary > >(2) observers: > >- the geneva summit set the present. the rules are clear. we should >follow the rules from phase I. >- in this context it would be difficult to involve them > > >senegal (african countries) > >- satisfied with the method of work that has been proposed >- drafting groups: will allow for a rather lively discussion. >- we need to have a limited # of drafting groups , as otherwise it >would be difficult for small delegations. >- work of regional groups should also be considered. > >canada > >- thanks the chair for his propsal >- we dont' have any agreement yet. > >1. necesity to insure security and stability >2. multistakeholder approach - let's put it into practice. >- supports us view that observers that they have a lot to contribute >- > >working groups >- we need to define well the groups and keep them to minimu > >the following should be first discussed in plenary: > >- defintions >- role & responsivility of stakeholders >- pass over the key issues, > >then, go to drafting text. > >summary: we need a bit more time in plenary that will condition what >drafting groups will do. we need to include a broad group of >stakeholders > >chair: > >- we must make progress > >methodology (thinking outloud) > >- if we distrubute work and have soem rough idea to working works, >they will bring them back to plenary >- plenary should not block work of the working groups. >- hard to draft text in plenary. it would disastrous to try it. > >iran: > >- welcomes the initiative of the chair >- would like to flag that there should be no proliferation of working >groups. would make it hard for small delegations. > >- other stakeholders: >* iran appreciates the input of all the stake-holders. >* emphasis that this is an intergovernmental process. > >El salvador > >- support safety and security, multilaterism and transparency >- we don't seem to be in the usual UN pattern >- we had small drafting groups in intercessional in paris (phase 1). >we had civil society participating in the past and make statements >that helped us make concepts clearer and guide negotiations. > >- (supports cs) > >- proposal from el salvador for observers to attend and make >contributions to drafting groups > >chair > >- this is a different process. >- there are rules of procedure. but, there is a grey area. >- there is (prepcom) precedent where cs & observers have been involved > >- let's take it as an agreed principle that all stake-holders >participate. > >japan > >- good idea to create drafting groups. a concern with the # that >might be created. >- if they are in the afternoon, it will conflict with other subcomittee > > >UK (on bahalf of EU) > >(1) >- stakeholder participation in working groups. the MS nature of the >internet. we need to involve all key stakeholders. > >- in the wg's that are created, we need to draw on the expertize > >(2) # of drafting groups. there is a difficulty for smaller delegations. > >- there is also a limited # of experts available. > > >Australia > >- supports canada about what issues to be discussed in plenary >- drafting groups - would prefer a smaller # >- ngos: would support participation of ngos. they are fundamental > >- impressed by the high quality of the contributions of ngos >- given the nature of the internet, the expertise is with ngos and >their experience would help us. >- supports that rules should support involvement of observers in >working groups. > > >chair > >- we need to make progress > >nicaragua: (on behlaf of grulag) > >- working groups : we need to be careful. it's an issue with small >delegations. > > >china: > >- two points. > >1. support the chair as to the proposal that we shoudl start drafting >2. it's an intergovernmental process > >honduras > >- thanks chair for the methods to work >- perhaps we can have meeting of regional groups - as we already have >consensus >- perhaps could regional coordinators could attend drafting working >groups >- need to take into account other stakeholders - they should be able >to pariticiapte > >turkey: > >- thanks chair for proposals >- looks forward to working with observers in accordance with rules of >procedure >- how many wg will be created? > > >singapore > >2 points: > >1. concern about small delegations >2. the input from other observers is vital. supports el salvador that >observers sit in meetings and contribute written comments. let's look >for way to do it > >new zealand > >- agree with canada to insure security and stability of the intenet. >whatever we do should be through that lense >- agree with singapore, isoc and others - we have a responsibility to >users in countries. we need to establish which issues need fixing . >- we might not yet be at the drafting stage. >- let's keep # of drafting groups small. >- multistakeholder - this is a good opportunity to put into practractice > >norway: > >- welcomes initiative of chair & proposal of drafting groups. >- important to bring ngo views and expertise into drafting groups. >they could be helpful and useful. >- the model proposed by el salvador is a good one. one where they are >observers, where they can talk, but not in negotiating. > >pakistan (asian grp) > >- welcome the proposal for working groups > >- endorse that there should not be a proliferation of working groups. > >- multistakeholder: position of asia group: > >* that is prepcom should adhere to rules and principles of the geneva >phase > > > >chair > >- let's come tomorrow to comment on today's comments > >switzerland > >- agree with creation of drafting groups. the # should be small. > > >india > >- supports drafting groups creation >- drafting groups must have the prsence of the other stakeholders. >supports singapore view on this > >Canada > >- not all regional groups can work in a way to coordinate . ie. not >possible for weog. > >barabados > >- supoports el salvador and singapore view that obervers be in wg > >togo > >- keep # of wg small. if possible do it in regional and/or sub- >regional fashion so that smaller countries can be involved. > >sudan > >- will be frank in regards to DG. not convinced that the need to have >drafting groups as ultimately it will come back to plenary. >- of course can split subcommittee into two sections (1) 5 & 3: >models, (2) all other matters. > >south africa > >- support for proposal >- we should have small # of WG >- ask for reassurance on what will adopt. > > >chair > >indonesia > >- supports rule of procedure in regards to drafting group. > >nigeria > >- supports creation of WG. they should be limited so that regional >associations can be involved >- other stakehodlers: the rules need to be followed. observers should >not have voting rights > >nepal > >- supports a limited # of WG >- good that cs make stakements and written contributions to WG > >lebanon > >- support for proposal >- ngos: supports saudi arabia , brazil and others that although value >their contribution that CAN NOT agree that they participate in >drafting groups. > >australia > >- Q on rules of procedure. acknowledge that there is ambiguity. there >is a question is there a legal impediment on > >- asks for legal advice if there is legal impediment for them to >participate >- puts forward the proposal that ngos be able to participate. ngos >would NOT be voting. > >chair > >- there is no legal impediment > >????? >- WG proposal good. >- # of WG should be limited. >- they be open ended groups >- participation of other partners: however, would like to respect the >rules of procedure and precedent. > > >Egypt > >- support the formation of drafting group. should be strictly >intergovernmental. >- support the participation of multistakeholders - however underlines >that drafting group stay strictly intergovernmental > > >azerbajan > >- supports limited # of drafting groups. >- it would be useful to invite multistakeholders - according to >existing rules of procedure > >chair > >- made 3 proposals >(1) - there is no objection for them to be created. they should be >limited >(2) will circulate a paper - no objection >(3) stakeholders with drafting groups: there are two groups > >- el salvdor & singapore: they are objservers and can make >contributions , but are not in negotaions. (like in pc 2) > >- asks el salvador to consult with others for 5 min to see if there >can be an agreement on 3rd propsal. > >[ break for 5 min] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dkissoondoyal at hotmail.com Thu Sep 22 07:59:46 2005 From: dkissoondoyal at hotmail.com (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:59:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] Use of SMTP server at the Meeting Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Sep 22 12:13:38 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 01:13:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] sub-committee A - ongoing issues Message-ID: Hi, As you'll have seen from Jeremy Shtern and Robert Guerra's very helpful notes and blogs, Sub-Committee A (Internet governance) got complicated this morning. I'll try to explain what I think is happening and implications for civil society. After this morning's general discussion, at about 12 noon, Amb Khan (chair) suggested that drafting groups should be created to work on text for the rest of the process. He suggested these drafting groups would start work tomorrow. To help the work of the drafters, tomorrow morning the chair will distribute a text of the Chapter on Internet governance (perhaps his text will be online by 10AM Geneva local time?) He was very clear about the status of all the papers that have been made available to date: all are for our information, all are to aid discussion, they have no official status. So the purpose of the text the chair will deliver tomorrow is to focus attention on issues and to stimulate discussion. The meeting accepted that the chair would submit a text, they should accept it tomorrow without complaint. (some will remember the problems we had at an earlier prepcom when Adama Samassekou tried to introduce a non-paper... it caused all kind of trouble. This should not happen tomorrow.) Most governments said only a limited number of drafting groups should be created. Delegations do not have enough members for many additional groups. There was no decision on the number of groups, but it will be only a few. So it was agreed there will be drafting groups. The main issue then was rules of procedure for these drafting groups. Participation of observers was a contentious. The outcome is we are now faced with three options (1.) Observers will not be able to participate in drafting groups. Intergovernmental only. (2.) Observers will be able to make written or spoken comments at the start of a drafting group session and will then be asked to leave. (3.) Observers will be able to make written or spoken comments at the start of a drafting group session and will be able to stay as silent observers. Observers of course want option (3.) My feeling is that we might get (2.) but (1.) is not unlikely. I hope I am wrong. No decision was made today, but the governments have been asked to decide overnight. Option 1 and 2 will be very hard for us. The first time we would see text from drafting groups would be when it is presented to the Plenary. Under rules of procedure for the prepcom observers are allowed to participate in Plenary and speak, but we must submit our comments for each day before the Plenary session starts. Therefore we will not be able to comment on text until the day after it comes from the drafting group, and by that time government's in Plenary will have completed comments on the text we observers are only just beginning to address. Options 1 and 2 would make our comments and presence largely irrelevant. Governments suggested that civil society and private sector might appoint a few liaisons to work closely with the government chairs of the drafting groups, bringing information to their stakeholders. But as the drafting groups are likely to be working late into the day (perhaps night), this would not help us prepare timely and therefore relevant comments to plenary. Hopefully we will get option 3 tomorrow. Thanks, Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Sep 23 05:22:11 2005 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:22:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Chair's paper available Message-ID: <954259bd05092302225aaabae8@mail.gmail.com> The Chair's paper in Group A (Internet governance) is now available on the official site at : http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1962|0 Bertrand -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Sep 23 05:28:22 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:28:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] update on drafting groups Message-ID: Update on drafting groups. From yesterday we were left with governments trying to agree on three options: (1.) Observers will not be able to participate in drafting groups. Intergovernmental only. (2.) Observers will be able to make written or spoken comments at the start of a drafting group session and will then be asked to leave. (3.) Observers will be able to make written or spoken comments at the start of a drafting group session and will be able to stay as silent observers. These options were discussed again this morning and governments cannot agree. So the meeting asked the chairman of the prepcom, Amb Karklins, to decide on which of the 3 options would be adopted. We are slightly hopeful that we might get option 3. Options 1 and 2 are not acceptable. So we are waiting. Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Sep 23 06:06:32 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 19:06:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] caucus comments: moving forward Message-ID: I just read the text below. We feel uncomfortable about reacting any more strongly/specifically without feedback from the caucus (and others). Please read the chair's paper and send comments Good morning again chair, thank you, this text it is extremely helpful and we look forward to the opportunity to contribute to its further development. we are uncomfortable with the wording of 43 c. and with respect to your comments about treading carefully about suggesting new text, would anyway like to give some new language for 43c. "Civil society has played an important role on Internet matters. This role has ranged from capacity building at the community level to the contribution of much of the technological innovation and to the creation of much of the content that makes the Internet what it is today. Civil Society should continue to play such a role. "(end of text) And with this in mind, we would like to again express our wish that we and all non governmental participants will be able to participate to the fullest extent possible in the drafting group process. Thank you. Thanks, Adam & Jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Sep 23 06:44:31 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:44:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] proposed drafting groups Message-ID: <4333DC8F.5040100@wz-berlin.de> Amb Khan has now proposed 3 drafting groups to be set up: Drafting group 1: Part 1 (introduction), Part 2 (stakeholders), Part 3b (public policy issues related to the use of the Internet) Drafting group 2: Part 4 (Development) Drafting group 3: Part 3a (Infrastructure, Management), Part 5 (Follow up) Governments are asked to comment on this proposal monday. So, nothing will happen until then. Now, if that isn't an efficient procedure... jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From valeriane61 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 23 09:02:31 2005 From: valeriane61 at hotmail.com (Valeriane Bernard) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:02:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] Values and Ethics statement for SubCom A Message-ID: Dear Jeanette and Adam, We had indicated to you, that the Values and Ethics Caucus was interested in submitting its views to SubCom A. We appreciated your suggestions on making it relevant and to work on drafting text if possible. We do have some draft text that we can work on to submit to you if you think it relevant. Meanwhile, here is the working draft statement that we have been working on in our Caucus. We trust that you will advise us on how best this can be inputted into the process. We were hoping to discuss this with you during today's IG Caucus meeting but we understand the meeting was cancelled. Regards, Valeriane Bernard Values and Ethics Caucus -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Trusteeship3.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 24064 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ronda at panix.com Fri Sep 23 09:05:37 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:05:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Report "No Future for the Internet" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks to Adam for sending the url On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Adam Peake wrote: > I just read the text below. > Please read the chair's paper and send comments > > I am struck by the fact that the UN is adopting a short range commercial view of the Internet that basically sets "No Future for the Internet" as its future. The Chair's paper says: "b) The private sector has had and should continue to have an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields" There would be no Internet today if this were true. The Internet is the result of international scientific research collaboration. The future development of the Internet requires this same international scientific research collaboration. To give the Internet over to the private sector and deny the continuing need for technical and scientific research for the continuing development of the Internet is to give the Internet over to become a commercial entity that doesn't even serve global business interests. At the time of the research to create the Internet, there were a number of commercial networks that claimed to be creating a global network. None of these could succeed. Their view of of a network that they owned and managed. The Internet, to the contrary, was built as a way to make a network of networks, to make it possible to intercomment dissimilar networks. Open architecture is the principle that made this possible. Whether or not commercial entities are involved in some of the equipment that involves the Internet now, this doesn't not make them the technical or economic owners or operators of the Internet. Essentially this role has to be one that is overseen by those who have a researcher and scientific perspective. Business can look ahead 3 years, not 10 or 15 years. The Internet needs a research and scientific oversight that looks ahead 10 or 15 years. Also users are part of the Internet. Without users and their computers as active participants in the Internet and its development, there is no Internet. It becomes little more than another form of television. I have already noted that the netizens, those users who are active to contribute to the Internet and its development, also should be recognized in any document discussing Internet governance. This all represents a very serious flaw and also conceptual mistake. Perhaps this is what happens when the WGIG includes the business sector as a major stakeholder - rather than recognizing the need to see that the process of guiding the Internet and its future has to be a social, public, international and noncommerical effort. Perhaps also a problem with the report is that it doesn't have any conception of the vision that gave birth to the Internet, the vision for an interactive, collaborative, plastic environment where there is the need to have the citizens participate in its continuing development. I provide some background about the vision in the paper I submitted to the wgig before their meetings started. See: The International Origins of the Internet and the Impact of this Framework on its Future. www.wgig.org/docs/Ronda-Hauben.doc Also with regard to the concept of netizen, a helpful explanation is in a blog by a graduate student in Korea. She writes: "Netizen is not the word that point any casual internet users. "They are people who understand it takes effort and action on each and everyone's part to make the Net a regenerative and vibrant community and resource. Netizens are people who decide to devote time and effort into making the Net, this new part of our world, a better place." (by Michael Hauben, 1995) This is a sophisticated concept. If you have the consciousness of social/political participation and take action, you can be a netizen. If you just enjoy web surfing, it's very hard to say that you are a netizen although you spend great time for the internet." by Heewon Kim Misunderstandings about Netizen August 8, 2005 http://hypercortex.net/ver2/index.php?pl=4#t1 She also refers to a paper Izumi Aizu Netizen Participation in Internet Governance September 5, 2005 http://hypercortex.net/ver2/index.php?pl=12 with best wishes Ronda _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From valeriane61 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 23 09:06:12 2005 From: valeriane61 at hotmail.com (Valeriane Bernard) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:06:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: Values and Ethics statement for SubCom A Message-ID: >Dear Jeanette and Adam, > >We had indicated to you, that the Values and Ethics Caucus was interested >in submitting its views to SubCom A. We appreciated your suggestions on >making it relevant and to work on drafting text if possible. We do have >some draft text that we can work on to submit to you if you think it >relevant. > >Meanwhile, here is the working draft statement that we have been working on >in our Caucus. We trust that you will advise us on how best this can be >inputted into the process. > >We were hoping to discuss this with you during today's IG Caucus meeting >but we understand the meeting was cancelled. > >Regards, >Valeriane Bernard >Values and Ethics Caucus > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Trusteeship3.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 24064 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat Sep 24 00:07:12 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 00:07:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] Consensus on the forum issue Message-ID: Jeanette: This is a very good summary of the Forum function debate. Thank you for your leadership. Let me contribute to this important discussion. One argument against the forum that I heard from both state and non-state participants was that it would be a placebo. In other words, it would provide the U.S. a way to appear to do something without changing any of the important things. To this argument, there is a simple answer: it might still be better than doing nothing. If the U.S. doesn't want to make some of the "important" changes re: ICANN and Internet resources, they will not happen, regardless of whether the Forum is created. So that is not an argument against the Forum. Concerns that the Forum would have too much power, or would slowly accumulate too much power, seem to me to be incredible. As I explained at the CPSR-sponsored side event on the forum, it faces enormous obstacles even to get created, due to competition from other international organizations, with more funds and with well-established interest groups behind them. So Avri is correct that if the Forum can be created at all in this environment, it will only be by acquiring "soft" or persuasive power over time. >>> Jeanette Hofmann 09/22/05 4:02 AM >>> Hi, although many of the active caucus members are here, there are obviously problems to meet. We have had two caucus meetings so far, both of them had lots of new attendees. While it is very good that other caucuses become interested in our work, it turns out to be difficult to discuss contested issues such as the forum. The fact that only a few WGIG members find the time to attend the caucus meetings doesn't exactly help. Having said that, I think we need to make an effort to clarify a number of things: 1. How far does consensus reach with regard to the forum? 2. What exactly do we disagree about? 3. How can we bypass this conflict? As far as I understand nobody opposes the idea of a forum in principle. Nobody supports the position of the business sector, which doesn't even recognize the need for a venue where Internet related issues can be discussed. What is more, we seem to agree that the forum should be open to anyone and composed in a multi stakeholder manner. From what I understand we disagree about the functions and the authority of such a forum. Some people think it should have only soft power without any decision making power. Others think we need a body that can make binding decisions. Another bone of contention might concern the so-called oversight function. Some people think this issue should be treated seperately from the forum, others think the role of the forum is related to that function. I would like to know if this is a correct description of our controversy? If so, I would like to suggest a possible compromise between these two differing views. The civil society statement has language to the effect that the forum can make decisions if all participating statekholders agree with this. (Former versions of Bill's statement included this clause. I think it only disappeared for the sake of brevity.) In other words, any extention of the forum's authority would have to be consensus-based and bottom up. The second common element I see has been pointed out by Avri. In her view, the forum has to earn its authority. It can only gain political authority if it is regarded useful by those who participante in the forum. Decision making authority for the forum would thus depend on two related if's: consensus among the participants and legitimate outcomes. This implies that the forum may grow over time. It would start in a very modest way with nothing but advisory functions but its authority could increase over time depending on its productivity and legitimacy. What do people think? Can we find a consensus along these lines? 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 christine at apdip.net Sat Sep 24 08:53:56 2005 From: christine at apdip.net (Christine) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 19:53:56 +0700 Subject: [governance] UNDP-APDIP Releases China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Thailand Country Reports on Internet Governance Message-ID: <4cvvua$c7iof@mail.asianet.co.th> ======================================================================== UNDP-APDIP Releases China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Thailand Country Reports on Internet Governance http://www.apdip.net/news/ordigcountryreports ========================================================================== APDIP's Open Regional Dialogue on Internet Governance initiative zooms in on the Internet governance issues, priorities and challenges faced by five countries in Asia. The report results are drawn from extensive consultations and a survey involving all stakeholders (government, the private sector and civil society),�and region-wide research undertaken over the past year, as part of the Open Regional Dialogue on Internet Governance (ORDIG). The reports show that all countries regard viruses, cyber attacks and spam as the most pressing issues for Internet governance. Issues on access, affordability, speed and reliability of the Internet feature high on the list of concerns in India, Indonesia and Thailand. While in India and Pakistan, more than two-thirds of the respondents regard the availability of local language software and local content as urgent concerns. Respondents from China are less concerned about this issue but are significantly more dissatisfied than those in other Asia-Pacific countries with the current system for allocating and managing IP numbers. The reports also detail the governance issues and opinions about two new and emerging technologies � wireless Internet and Internet telephony. These are a mere sample of the multitude of Internet policy issues that the reports examine.� In the reports, all the various issues are grouped under four dimensions: 1. infrastructure dimension, which covers issues of physical network characteristics and roll-out 2. logical dimension, which comprises data routing and software development topics 3. content dimension, which covers local and illegal content 4. social and development dimension, which covers topics related to the development-oriented use of the Internet � Download ORDIG Country Reports: China India Indonesia Pakistan Thailand � Download other ORDIG Papers: Input Paper Policy Brief Survey Report Online Forum Summary � Forthcoming: Internet Governance Primer Internet Governance: Voices from the Asia Pacific � ICT4D Series � Related Link: Asia-Pacific Internet Governance Portal APDIP e-Note 1 - Voices from Asia-Pacific: Internet governance for sustainable human development � ORDIG is an initiative of UNDP-APDIP in collaboration with the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific and the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre, with support from the International Development Research Centre of Canada Christine Apikul Programme Specialist UNDP-APDIP -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 17:39:45 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 06:39:45 +0900 Subject: [governance] Prepcom week 2 (Re: Chair's paper available) Message-ID: We should start discussing our response to the chair's paper. http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1962|0> Comments would be good on what's there (I sent a couple of very basic ideas last week, copied below) and what's not there, i.e. oversight and forum. Given the style of the chairs paper the sections on these two issue won't be much more than half page each. Anyone want to draft something? Adam > >A general comment is that the draft is only three and half pages. It >is missing sections describing follow-up issues (forum and >oversight), but even with those sections the total may only be about >5 pages. This is helpful as it tells us that comments on specific >issues will be very short. Looking at sentences not paragraphs. > >The paragraphs that stands out as contentious reads: > > We strive to establish a transition to a new cooperation model >that helps up [us] implement the "Geneva principles" regarding the >role of the governments and all stakeholders. Institutional >arrangements for Internet governance should be founded on a more >solid democratic, transparent and multilateral basis, with stronger >emphasis on the public policy interests of all governments, and with >clarification of the relationships among different actors. > >Also, I don't like how CS is defined: > >Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, >especially at community level, and should continue to play such a >role. > >Avri has suggested replacement: > >Civil society has played an important role on Internet matters. >This role has ranged from capacity building at the community level to >the contribution of much of the technological innovation and to the >creation of much of the content that makes the Internet what it is >today. Civil Society should continue to play such a role. > >Adam > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Sun Sep 25 17:41:02 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 06:41:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] China sets new rules on Internet news Message-ID: (The first rule of comedy ... timing.) China sets new rules on Internet news Reuters Sunday, September 25, 2005 BEIJING (Reuters) - China set new regulations on Internet news content on Sunday, widening a campaign of controls it has imposed on other Web sites, such as discussion groups. "The state bans the spreading of any news with content that is against national security and public interest," the official Xinhua news agency said in announcing the new rules, which took effect immediately. The news agency did not detail the rules, but said Internet news sites must "be directed toward serving the people and socialism and insist on correct guidance of public opinion for maintaining national and public interests." Established news media needed permission to run a news Web site, it said. New operators had to register themselves with government information offices. China has a dedicated band of cyber police who patrol the Internet with the aim of regulating content. Postings that criticize the government or address sensitive topics are quickly removed. Registration was a feature of rules imposed earlier this year aimed at not-for-profit Internet activities, such as personal Web sites and blogs. Since March, university on-line discussion groups have been restricted to students, removing a once popular outlet for Chinese keen to publicize their views on sensitive issues. Student users and site managers must register using their real names. The biggest Chinese Web portals include those operated by Sina Corp. (www.sina.com.cn) and Sohu.com Inc. (sohu.com). Both carry news. Access to many foreign news Web sites is routinely blocked. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Sun Sep 25 18:17:39 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:17:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Prepcom week 2 (Re: Chair's paper available) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050925231118.05cc1580@pop.gn.apc.org> hi >We should start discussing our response to the chair's paper. > >http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1962|0> > >Comments would be good on what's there (I sent a couple of very basic >ideas last week, copied below) and what's not there, i.e. oversight >and forum. Given the style of the chairs paper the sections on these >two issue won't be much more than half page each. Anyone want to draft >something? The privacy and security caucus is currently drafting text on paras 50, 52 and 53 Some text has been drafted by the informal coalition on financing for part 3 (paras 55/56/57) - which is quite good and will be posted here soon. (informal coalition include CRIS, APC, IteM (Uruguay), Bread For All, It For Change (india)) The gender caucus is drafting general text on several sections of the document. i'll make sure they know to post copies here.. it would be good to make a compilation - do you have a timeline in mind? - and, are you going to put a general call in plenary for input to the text? i'm happy to help with compilation.. karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From raul at lacnic.net Sun Sep 25 18:19:32 2005 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:19:32 -0300 Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? In-Reply-To: <20050925211721.1143B68023@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> References: <20050925211721.1143B68023@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Message-ID: <43372274.1090604@lacnic.net> Ian Peter wrote: >Count me in on this agreement as well - > >Sounds to me like we have a broad consensus on a non binding forum, given >Carlos's comments here. > > > I agree with the idea of "non binding" forum only in the scenario proposed by Jeanette, what means that any new function of the forum should be supported by all the stakeholders. Other comment: non binding is not exactly the same than "(with as many additional functions as it is possible to negotiate-- and these might happen in steps after the forum is created)". We have to be careful. Raúl >-----Original Message----- >From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] >Sent: Sunday, 25 September 2005 11:24 PM >To: ian.peter at ianpeter.com; ca at rits.org.br >Cc: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; wdrake at ictsd.ch; governance at lists.cpsr.org; >jeanette at wz-berlin.de >Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? > >Surprisingly, I find myself in significant agreement with the first two >steps of Carlos's concept of an ideal sequence. > > > > >>>>Carlos Afonso 09/25/05 5:14 AM >>> >>>> >>>> >>- Agreement now on the immediate need of an advisory forum >>(with as many additional functions as it is possible to negotiate >>-- and these might happen in steps after the forum is created), >> >> > > > >>- Immediate establishment of the process towards and international >>Internet governance convention, deriving from it the oversight >>functions and mechanisms needed >> >> > >An major changes in oversight require careful negotiation of principles >and also careful limitation of the powers of governments over the >Internet. This requires a negotiation and a process by which governments >and citizens can ratify (i.e., voluntarily accept) such an agreement. > > > >>- The USA gets convinced that ICANN must become a true global >>body, host country agrement and all; this agreement means a >>total autonomy contract between ICANN and the USA similar to >>any country agreement with hosted international organizations >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Sep 26 05:14:25 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 06:14:25 -0300 Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Everything flows (or should) indeed! :) Thanks, Wolf! --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter To: Raul Echeberria , governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 09:25:19 +0200 Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? > Raul: > I agree with the idea of "non binding" forum only in the scenario > proposed by Jeanette, what means that any new function of the forum > should be supported by all the stakeholders. Other comment: non > binding is not exactly the same than "(with as many > additional functions as it is possible to negotiate-- and these might > happen in steps after the forum is created)". We have to be careful. > > Wolfgang: > Pantha Rei. We should make first steps first and keep options open > for the future. Think big, start small, move fast. > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.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 Sep 26 12:32:39 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:32:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] updates from subcom A + schedule for next days Message-ID: <3017.156.106.225.9.1127752359.squirrel@156.106.225.9> Subcom A (contrarily to rumours) is regularly happening right now in room XX, until 9pm. Karklins has announced the schedule for next days: - Tuesday: 10-13 subcom A (assembly room) 10-13 subcom B (room XX) 15-18 subcom A (room XX) 18-21 subcom B (room XX) - Wednesday: 10-13 subcom A (room XX) 10-13 subcom B (assembly room) 15-18 subcom B (room XX) 18-21 subcom A (room XX) Session started with statement from CCBI, asking for various edits in paras 5x. No one in the audience seemed to even listen to that. Then drafting groups reported on their text. New para 43B added to recognize the role of technical and academic community. More complex edits (including new paras and lots of square brackets) coming out from the other drafting group, where some countries started to push language on governmental oversight etc. Now Pakistan has started the actual discussion, asking for stronger commitments against "abusive uses of the Internet". -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Sep 27 04:52:33 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:52:33 +0900 Subject: [governance] Comments at plenary - Sept 27 AM Message-ID: I read some text this morning. As the CS plenary decided that we should not present the draft discussed in content and themes and various CS lists, we dropped that text for now. What I think I said (pretty on the fly) was: Good morning Mr. Chair Thank you for your personal efforts to ensure transparency and inclusion, your efforts since the publication of the WGIG report are much appreciated. However, Civil Society is disappointed that we will not be able to participate fully in the drafting groups. And that the rules and procedures for this prepcom now seem unclear to all. Could you explain the situation regarding drafting groups? We note your new compilation document of comments received, and are pleased to see that some civil society comments have been included. But also note some have not been included. For example last Friday we made comments about 43c. These comments were also mentioned by a government in sub committee yesterday. But they are not mentioned in your new document, nor were they mentioned during the drafting group meeting that discussed 43 yesterday. Did we have rights to speak in that drafting group? Could we have reminded the group that we had already submitted comments and those comments were already on the prepcom3 website. I think you can understand our confusion. Can we join and speak in drafting groups? Are our comments made to sub-committee A being taken into consideration? We would appreciate clarity on this. We were expecting some resolution yesterday. Thank you. END. Izumi has sent some notes with the chair's response you should already have seen. I think bad precedence is being set. Above was read in my name and that of GLOCOM and on behalf of the IG caucus so is my responsibility, I thought something had to be said. Thanks, Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wcurrie at apc.org Tue Sep 27 05:19:18 2005 From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 05:19:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Finance coalition statement Message-ID: <54415.156.106.192.16.1127812758.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> Hi all Here is a copy of the Informal Finance Coalition's statement to Sub-Committee A this morning. Unfortunately, in the rush to finalise yesterday we omitted to replace ITU from 57 (i) of our written submission, but it is changed in the statement. 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’s 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’s inhabitants to ICTs by 2015. According to ITU figures, 46% of the developed world’s inhabitants are already connected to the Internet. Only 5% of the developing world’s 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’s 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. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca Tue Sep 27 06:30:36 2005 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 06:30:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] CS positon 1230? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050927175950.0795d740@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <001f01c5c34e$7fd702f0$9fe16a9c@jgsnotebook> Immediately on returning from break at 1230, the chair just asked if CS had a position or input on the forum function. No one answered, so he moved on to government. I send this message in case the IG cacus had comments to make but is not currently in the room. I can't see who is or isn't in the lower deck from where I am sitting. -JS =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-= 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 Izumi AIZU Sent: September 27, 2005 5:08 AM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [not_spam] Re: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments at plenary - Sept 27 AM I also think while waiting for the decision of our participation in drafting groups, we are already losing the opportunites for almost two days. Just sitting inside the drafting group room quietly is better than kicking out, but for that we cannot make any substantive comments but just being there watching governments going ahead for the negotiation. I think we should put equal amount of energy for making subtantive comments, especially as they approach to the core issues of oversight and forum we should really make our own position clear to them in time, not after. Let us first discuss about that this afternoon at the IG caucus meeting in Geneva, and welcome all online comments for that. Thanks, izumi At 17:52 05/09/27 +0900, Adam Peake 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! >_______________________________________ > >I read some text this morning. As the CS plenary decided that we >should not present the draft discussed in content and themes and >various CS lists, we dropped that text for now. What I think I said >(pretty on the fly) was: > >Good morning Mr. Chair > >Thank you for your personal efforts to ensure transparency and >inclusion, your efforts since the publication of the WGIG report are >much appreciated. > >However, Civil Society is disappointed that we will not be able to >participate fully in the drafting groups. And that the rules and >procedures for this prepcom now seem unclear to all. > >Could you explain the situation regarding drafting groups? > >We note your new compilation document of comments received, and are >pleased to see that some civil society comments have been included. >But also note some have not been included. For example last Friday >we made comments about 43c. These comments were also mentioned by a >government in sub committee yesterday. But they are not mentioned >in your new document, nor were they mentioned during the drafting >group meeting that discussed 43 yesterday. Did we have rights to >speak in that drafting group? Could we have reminded the group that >we had already submitted comments and those comments were already on >the prepcom3 website. > >I think you can understand our confusion. Can we join and speak in >drafting groups? Are our comments made to sub-committee A being >taken into consideration? > >We would appreciate clarity on this. We were expecting some >resolution yesterday. > >Thank you. > >END. > >Izumi has sent some notes with the chair's response you should >already have seen. > >I think bad precedence is being set. Above was read in my name and >that of GLOCOM and on behalf of the IG caucus so is my >responsibility, I thought something had to be said. > >Thanks, > >Adam >_______________________________________________ >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 jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca Tue Sep 27 06:47:59 2005 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 06:47:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] [not_spam] CS positon 1230? In-Reply-To: <001f01c5c34e$7fd702f0$9fe16a9c@jgsnotebook> Message-ID: <002101c5c350$ed8280c0$9fe16a9c@jgsnotebook> Sorry if my previous message about CS speaking on the forum function was alarmist, the chair just said CS will speak soon, so clearly this was sorted out beyond my line of site. -JS =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-= 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 Jeremy Shtern Sent: September 27, 2005 6:31 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [not_spam] [governance] CS positon 1230? Immediately on returning from break at 1230, the chair just asked if CS had a position or input on the forum function. No one answered, so he moved on to government. I send this message in case the IG cacus had comments to make but is not currently in the room. I can't see who is or isn't in the lower deck from where I am sitting. -JS =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-= 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 Izumi AIZU Sent: September 27, 2005 5:08 AM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [not_spam] Re: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments at plenary - Sept 27 AM I also think while waiting for the decision of our participation in drafting groups, we are already losing the opportunites for almost two days. Just sitting inside the drafting group room quietly is better than kicking out, but for that we cannot make any substantive comments but just being there watching governments going ahead for the negotiation. I think we should put equal amount of energy for making subtantive comments, especially as they approach to the core issues of oversight and forum we should really make our own position clear to them in time, not after. Let us first discuss about that this afternoon at the IG caucus meeting in Geneva, and welcome all online comments for that. Thanks, izumi At 17:52 05/09/27 +0900, Adam Peake 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! >_______________________________________ > >I read some text this morning. As the CS plenary decided that we >should not present the draft discussed in content and themes and >various CS lists, we dropped that text for now. What I think I said >(pretty on the fly) was: > >Good morning Mr. Chair > >Thank you for your personal efforts to ensure transparency and >inclusion, your efforts since the publication of the WGIG report are >much appreciated. > >However, Civil Society is disappointed that we will not be able to >participate fully in the drafting groups. And that the rules and >procedures for this prepcom now seem unclear to all. > >Could you explain the situation regarding drafting groups? > >We note your new compilation document of comments received, and are >pleased to see that some civil society comments have been included. >But also note some have not been included. For example last Friday >we made comments about 43c. These comments were also mentioned by a >government in sub committee yesterday. But they are not mentioned >in your new document, nor were they mentioned during the drafting >group meeting that discussed 43 yesterday. Did we have rights to >speak in that drafting group? Could we have reminded the group that >we had already submitted comments and those comments were already on >the prepcom3 website. > >I think you can understand our confusion. Can we join and speak in >drafting groups? Are our comments made to sub-committee A being >taken into consideration? > >We would appreciate clarity on this. We were expecting some >resolution yesterday. > >Thank you. > >END. > >Izumi has sent some notes with the chair's response you should >already have seen. > >I think bad precedence is being set. Above was read in my name and >that of GLOCOM and on behalf of the IG caucus so is my >responsibility, I thought something had to be said. > >Thanks, > >Adam >_______________________________________________ >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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Sep 27 07:02:01 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:02:01 +1000 Subject: [governance] CS positon 1230? In-Reply-To: <001f01c5c34e$7fd702f0$9fe16a9c@jgsnotebook> Message-ID: <20050927111026.7562A68032@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> > > Immediately on returning from break at 1230, the chair just asked if CS > had a position or input on the forum function. No one answered, so he > moved on to government. > > > I also think while waiting for the decision of our participation in > drafting > groups, we are already losing the opportunites for almost two days. > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Tue Sep 27 07:18:45 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:18:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Forum Function: statement read and support Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050927121426.05502080@pop.gn.apc.org> dear all We had an opportunity to input on the forum function this morning in sub-committee - with insufficient time to prepare/consult. Avri and jeanette drafted a statement based on the CS response to the WGIG report and comments posted in the governance list this past week, but there were some changes based on based on a discussion this morning based on: - UN secretary general initiating the free standing organisation - toning down on the language about treaties As we clearly don't have consensus on this, but had to make the most of the opportunity, the statement was read by adam, submitted by GLOCOM, but not on behalf of the caucus. We will need to discuss this at the meeting this afternoon 2.30 - room e3056/58 to see if there is broader support for the statement the text follows.. karen, avri, jeanette Adam Peake, GLOCOM, Sub-Committee A, 10:00-1300 session, Sep 27 We also recognize that while some policy issues are dealt with in the existing institutional structure there is a lack of space in particular for cross cutting issues. There is no global-mulit-stakeholder forum to address Internet-related public policy issues. We recommend the UN SG to initiate a forum that incorporates the Geneva principles for significant multi-stakeholder participation. We recommend that the forum not be anchored in any existing specialized international organization, but rather be organized as a legally free-standing entity Stakeholders from all sectors must be able to participate in such a forum as peers. We recommend that the forum provides the following functions: a. inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for peer-level interaction. b. comparative, cross-sectoral analysis of governance mechanisms, with an eye toward "lessons learned" and best practices that could inform individual and collective institutional improvements c. assessment and monitoring of horizontal issues applicable to all Internet governance arrangements, e.g. the promotion of transparency, accountability, inclusion, and other guidelines for "good governance," such as the WSIS principles; d. identification of weaknesses and gaps in existing governance mechanisms, especially multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly within the scope of any existing body; e. efforts to promote enhanced coordination among existing governing bodies f. provide a clearing house for coordination and resource mobilization to supporting meaningful developing country participation and capacity building; g. release recommendations, best practices, proposals and other documents on the various Internet governance issues. We recommend that operations are designed in such a way that physical attendance is not strictly required and disadvantaged stakeholders (developing countries, civil society organizations, individuals) are proactively supported. We recommend the forum have clear organization and decision-making procedures. It is also important that the structure that will be given to the forum is able to produce practical results. The forum will not have a mandate to negotiate hard instruments like treaties or contracts. However, in very exceptional circumstances when all stakeholders agree that more formal arrangements are desirable, the forum could request an appropriate international organization to negotiate such instruments. The forum focuses on the development of soft law instruments such as recommendations, guidelines, declarations, etc. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Tue Sep 27 07:31:08 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:31:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] draft text on political oversight Message-ID: <43392D7C.605@wz-berlin.de> Hi, Avri and I have drafted some language on political oversight. Text should be read this afternoon. We have to submit it by 2pm. Please have a look and let us know if we can read it on behalf of the IG caucus or if we have to invent another stakeholder group. jeanette Political Oversight 62b: 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 oversight organization for domain names and IP addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard to ICANN: 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent role of stewardship in relation to ICANN and enters into an adequate host-country agreement for ICANN. 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the community of Internet users, private sector and governments. 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. ICANN must establish a review process for its decisions in the form of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission, established on a case-by-case basis. 5. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government transfers the IANA function to ICANN. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Sep 27 07:38:28 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:38:28 +0900 Subject: [governance] Caucus coordination from today Message-ID: I'm leaving Geneva. Been fun and I'm sorry to escape just as the real work begins :-) Jeanette needs support and Izumi's volunteered (forcibly :-) So with agreement and acclamation, I hope the caucus will accept Izumi taking over from me for the rest of prepcom. Hope all goes well and you are successful in getting into the drafting groups. We will hold a caucus meeting today. If you can't join, please let us know. People are spread very thin between all the meetings. Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Tue Sep 27 09:20:17 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:20:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] draft text on political oversight Message-ID: Sounds good to me, sorry for the late support! Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Jeanette Hofmann 09/27/05 7:31 AM >>> Hi, Avri and I have drafted some language on political oversight. Text should be read this afternoon. We have to submit it by 2pm. Please have a look and let us know if we can read it on behalf of the IG caucus or if we have to invent another stakeholder group. jeanette Political Oversight 62b: 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 oversight organization for domain names and IP addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard to ICANN: 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent role of stewardship in relation to ICANN and enters into an adequate host-country agreement for ICANN. 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the community of Internet users, private sector and governments. 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. ICANN must establish a review process for its decisions in the form of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission, established on a case-by-case basis. 5. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government transfers the IANA function to ICANN. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.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 Sep 27 10:04:26 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:04:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: draft text on political oversight Message-ID: >>> Milton Mueller 09/27/05 10:01 AM >>> Some comments: This is not an acceptable statement to me, although it is close and I won't be upset if you read it as IGC. Key questions that you have not thought through: Who decides when "full and equal multi-stakeholder participation" exists in ICANN? Who decides when ICANN has "clear, transparent rules and procedures commensurate with international norms and principles for fair administrative decision-making"? Case by case establishment of a review commission is a bad idea and won't work. ICANN's current "independent" review commission (appointed by ICANN) has been a complete failure. Who appoints this review commission? You can't just duck these issues. I will suggest some language changes in the next message, if it is not too late. Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> Jeanette Hofmann 09/27/05 7:31 AM >>> Hi, Avri and I have drafted some language on political oversight. Text should be read this afternoon. We have to submit it by 2pm. Please have a look and let us know if we can read it on behalf of the IG caucus or if we have to invent another stakeholder group. jeanette Political Oversight 62b: 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 oversight organization for domain names and IP addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard to ICANN: 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent role of stewardship in relation to ICANN and enters into an adequate host-country agreement for ICANN. 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the community of Internet users, private sector and governments. 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. ICANN must establish a review process for its decisions in the form of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission, established on a case-by-case basis. 5. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government transfers the IANA function to ICANN. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.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 Sep 27 10:06:02 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:06:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] draft text on political oversight Message-ID: >>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter 09/27/05 9:03 AM >>> >3. We should call for a reform of the GAC, including a >rearrangment of the relationship between GAC and >ICANN Baord for cases with a clear public policy dimension >(tgoing beyond the "consultation procedure, as fixed >under ICANN 2.0 bylaws). I do not agree with this. --MM _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Tue Sep 27 10:14:32 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:14:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] MODIFIED draft text on political oversight Message-ID: My proposed additions in ALL CAPS, deletes in [brackets] >>> Jeanette Hofmann 09/27/05 7:31 AM >>> Political Oversight 62b: We recognize that the time has come for a change in the political oversight of ICANN [the logical Internet infrastructure]. We do not recommend the creation of a new oversight organization for domain names and IP addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard to ICANN: 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its [pre-eminent role of ] stewardship OVER [in relation to] ICANN AND THE DNS ROOT and enters into an adequate host-country agreement for ICANN. 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the community of Internet users, private sector and governments. THE WSIS MULTISTAKEHOLDER FORUM WOULD DECIDE WHEN THIS MILESTONE HAD BEEN REACHED. 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. THE WSIS MULTISTAKEHOLDER FORUM WOULD DECIDE WHEN THIS MILESTONE HAD BEEN REACHED. 4. ICANN'S DECISIONS MUST BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH PUBLIC POLICY CONSTRAINTS NEGOTIATED THROUGH INTERNATIONAL TREATIES; E.G., WTO TRADE RULES, HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES, CYBERCRIME CONVENTIONS, ETC. GOVERNMENTS AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO INVOKE A DISPUTE PROCEDURE WHEN IT BELIEVED ICANN ACTIONS VIOLATED THE TERMS OF ESTABLISHED INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC POLICY. [4. ICANN must establish a review process for its decisions in the form of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission, established on a case-by-case basis.] 5. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government transfers the IANA function to ICANN. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.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 Sep 27 10:47:53 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:47:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Oversight: Are we forgetting principles? Message-ID: Let me begin by thanking those in Geneva for their incredibly hard and often quite talented work. I understand the need to improvise out there and to seize opportunities to influence the governmental negotiators. I do however feel concerned about the degree to which we are "flying blind" on the key issue of political oversight of ICANN. As Bill Drake pointed out a few days ago, Civil Society (and governments, too) really didn't do their homework on this issue. Although we agreed that unilateral US control was not desirable or viable, IGC never had a full-fledged discussion of the risks and benefits of altering current oversight arrangements. The WGIG report did not provide us with a well thought-out set of alternatives, instead producing sketchy "models" that raised more questions than they answered. Now we are in a situation of thrashing about superifical ideas on the fly, which to an external observer kinda looks like a medical operating room with the surgeon saying, "let's move the heart over here and put the liver over there," and his assistant saying, "no, let's sew it onto the lungs over here," and the janitor walking by and saying, "seems to me you could yank that whole mess out and he'd be better off," etc., etc. When we are reduced to that level of improvisation, isn't it clear that we should back off and recognize that the issue isn't ripe yet, and seek continued negotiations among governments, inclusive of civil society and private sector? Doesn't the idea of a lightweight framework convention seem like a better way to proceed? Our interventions on the Multistakeholder Forum have been much better, but here again we seem to have forgotten the issue of accountability, democracy and legitimacy - how do people get onto this forum, how do we prevent it from being captured by a small group that can never be dislodged, etc. I would hope it is not too late for CS to articulate certain governance principles, such as rotating officers, some kind of democratic procedure for selecting people, etc. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From fausett at lextext.com Tue Sep 27 11:20:09 2005 From: fausett at lextext.com (Bret Fausett) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:20:09 -0700 Subject: [governance] need for a host country agreement? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43396329.804@lextext.com> In calling for an adequate host country agreement for ICANN, please keep in mind that California law provides a number of protections for Directors, corporation members and the public in general that are in the interests of both civil society and Internet users. To the extent that the "host country agreement" is intended to provide privileges and immunities to ICANN from local law, remember the Auerbach v. ICANN lawsuit, backed by EFF, which ensured that a single Director was entitled to review the corporation's records against a claim by the President, General Counsel and a majority of the Directors that the records were private. That unfettered right to review ICANN's corporate records was guaranteed by California law. This is just one among many important provisions of California law that might be lost by insulating ICANN from local law. A host country agreement might make ICANN more international, but it also could have the unpleasant side effect of making ICANN more closed and less transparent. Bret Fausett _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Tue Sep 27 12:16:18 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:16:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] draft text on political oversight Message-ID: Hi Wolfgang, While I understand the motivation in giving this level of specificity in terms of political oversight, I think it's playing into the wrong hands. The more China insists on ignoring you now, the less whatever language coming out of Prepcom matters, and certainly as Milton and Michael have noted there is no consensus on each of your additional points - some maybe but not collectively. So if this whole exercise gets derailed as a 'China, Iran and the UN claim control of the Internet' bogeyman - I can already see the CNN live report - (and you see how narrowly Brazil just escaped being in the headline), you don't want to be standing around and seen as possibly aiding and abetting. So I'd say slow down, pick and choose items for disussion VERY carefully, and postpone to the next scrimmage issues that are not ripe for resolution now. Like how exactly poltiical oversight functions might or might not shift, beyond the consensus that ccTLDs are/should be under soverign control. If we can leave Geneva with a compromise in favor of the Forum function, and with some langauge on the need for review and reform of oversight, to be worked out in time, that's not a bad outcome. There's this not insignificant matter that neither ICANN nor IANA has to do a thing China or the UN tells it to.So while in UN halls the need to kiss up to governments is naturally strong. But out on the net it's not : ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter 09/27/05 9:03 AM >>> ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann Gesendet: Di 27.09.2005 13:31 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] draft text on political oversight Hi, Avri and I have drafted some language on political oversight. Text should be read this afternoon. We have to submit it by 2pm. Please have a look and let us know if we can read it on behalf of the IG caucus or if we have to invent another stakeholder group. jeanette Political Oversight 62b: 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 oversight organization for domain names and IP addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard to ICANN: 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent role of stewardship in relation to ICANN and enters into an adequate host-country agreement for ICANN. 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the community of Internet users, private sector and governments. 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. ICANN must establish a review process for its decisions in the form of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission, established on a case-by-case basis. 5. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government transfers the IANA function to ICANN. Three additonal points: 1. ICANN has to be embedded into a set of contractual arrangements with ccTLD Managers and Root Server Operators 2. Transfer IANA function to ICANN would include the formal termination of the second MoU between ICANN and DOC (BTW, what will happen with the CRADA agreement? Any position?) 3. We should call for a reform of the GAC, including a rearrangment of the relationship between GAC and ICANN Baord for cases with a clear public policy dimension (tgoing beyond the "consultation procedure, as fixed under ICANN 2.0 bylaws). Best w _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.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 johannes.schunter at gmx.de Tue Sep 27 12:16:18 2005 From: johannes.schunter at gmx.de (Josch) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:16:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] drafting gropu Egypt Message-ID: <001201c5c37e$cb65f700$85e16a9c@laptopbirgit> Hi all, I am here in the drafting group chaired by Egypt (Room 16 since 18:00) and the presence of CS actors hasn't been questioned by anyone so far. Right now Norbert Klein from APC has even taken the floor speaking in favour of OpenSource Software. And now were out! habe to close down -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jovank at diplomacy.edu Tue Sep 27 17:11:41 2005 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:11:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Oversight: Are we forgetting principles? ... Common But Differentiated Responsibilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Let me add a few reflections on Milton's important message on principles... The principle of common but differentiated (or specific) responsibilites could broaden "zone of possible agreement". This princple which is used in the article 49 of the WSIS Declaration is gaining importance in international negotiations (especially in fields far from "sovereignty nexus"). Recently, it has been used largely in environmental and commodities treaties/regimes (e.g. under the Timber Convention, Brazilian and other timber exporters have more weighted votes than other signatory parties). Ue of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is probably the way out of "zero-sum" thinking on IG. Such decision-making architecture should be asymmetric and diversified (already introduced in various CS inputs and the WGIG Report; Wolfgang - meachnisms of mechanisms, etc.). The main criterioon for assigning issue to each stakeholder would be stakeholder's interest and capacity to deal with particular IG issue. The "grey zone" issues could be handled through a carefully designed system of checks-and-balances. Please let me know if you think that this principle should be elaborated more and included in some of CS proposals. JK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:47:53 -0400 From: "Milton Mueller" Subject: [governance] Oversight: Are we forgetting principles? To: Cc: plenary at wsis-cs.org Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Let me begin by thanking those in Geneva for their incredibly hard and often quite talented work. I understand the need to improvise out there and to seize opportunities to influence the governmental negotiators. I do however feel concerned about the degree to which we are "flying blind" on the key issue of political oversight of ICANN. As Bill Drake pointed out a few days ago, Civil Society (and governments, too) really didn't do their homework on this issue. Although we agreed that unilateral US control was not desirable or viable, IGC never had a full-fledged discussion of the risks and benefits of altering current oversight arrangements. The WGIG report did not provide us with a well thought-out set of alternatives, instead producing sketchy "models" that raised more questions than they answered. Now we are in a situation of thrashing about superifical ideas on the fly, which to an external observer kinda looks like a medical operating room with the surgeon saying, "let's move the heart over here and put the liver over there," and his assistant saying, "no, let's sew it onto the lungs over here," and the janitor walking by and saying, "seems to me you could yank that whole mess out and he'd be better off," etc., etc. When we are reduced to that level of improvisation, isn't it clear that we should back off and recognize that the issue isn't ripe yet, and seek continued negotiations among governments, inclusive of civil society and private sector? Doesn't the idea of a lightweight framework convention seem like a better way to proceed? Our interventions on the Multistakeholder Forum have been much better, but here again we seem to have forgotten the issue of accountability, democracy and legitimacy - how do people get onto this forum, how do we prevent it from being captured by a small group that can never be dislodged, etc. I would hope it is not too late for CS to articulate certain governance principles, such as rotating officers, some kind of democratic procedure for selecting people, etc. ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jovank at diplomacy.edu Tue Sep 27 17:57:07 2005 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:57:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] A Host Country Agreement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Bret and Michael, The Red Cross (ICRC) is possible precedance. The ICRC was established as private entity under the Swiss Civil Code. Its' international juridical status (including immunities) is based on the Headquareters Agreement between the ICRS and Switzerland. Apart from the similarities there is one important difference. The ICRC's mandate is based on the Geneva Conventions for the protection of prisioners of war, etc. By analogy ICANN+ should have complete or part of its mandate (GAC) anchored in international law. International legal basis could be developed through one of the following options: - international framework convention - US government unilateral declaration (civil society/Milton's proposal) - instant customary law (US government practice of non-intervention in running DNS-system) strenghten by soft law declaration I agree that "privileged status" is not the most favourable setting for the promotion of transparency and efficiency. However - based on the current IG debate - any IG institutional arrangement (Forum, ICANN+, ?) will be cearefully controlled by various stakeholders. Jovan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Sep 28 04:42:10 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:42:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] protest statement drafted by Avri Message-ID: <433A5762.5050909@wz-berlin.de> Hi everyone, Avri has redrafted our statement on exclusion of stakeholders from the drafting groups. We weren't be able to discuss it in plenary this morning due to lack of time. We would thus like to read this statement this morning on behalf of the IG caucus. Any objections to that? I know, you americans are still sleeping. Sorry... jeanette Internet Governance Statement on the Decision to Exclude Non-governmental stakeholders from Drafting Groups September 27, 2005 0. We want to thank the chair for your personal efforts to ensure transparency and inclusion. We also want to thank the many nations that have supported the non-governmental organizations in our quest to fully participate in this Prepcom. Now that it has become the practice of some drafting groups to expel non-governmental participants, Civil society is forced to protest Civil Society believes all non-governmental partners should be able to make statements on the same basis as agreed for the subcommittees, to remain in the room as observers for the entire session and to further contribute at the discretion of the chair of the drafting groups. Such procedures would put into practice the commitment to the “full participation of all stakeholders” (e.g. Para 39.) 1. The decisions to exclude non-governmental stakeholders from meaningful participation in the drafting groups are not acceptable as a matter of principle. The WSIS and the WGIG have affirmed that governance of the Internet must be based on real partnerships with the participation of all stakeholders in an open, inclusive and transparent manner. These principles are central to the Geneva documents. The decisions made to exclude non-governmental stakeholders from meaningful participation in the drafting groups breaks these fundamental conditions and undermines the legitimacy of all outcomes of the WSIS. The sincerity of commitments made by some governments to these principles is now open to question. 2. The decisions to exclude non-governmental stakeholders from the drafting groups are not about rules and procedure, but rather a matter of political courage and principle. In each meeting you have the choice: to be inclusive or exclusive, to work in partnership, with transparency and openness, or to chose not to do so. There was a great opportunity here to move forward with all the progress we have made within the UN and WSIS, but this has been a move backwards. 3. The Internet is the creation of the multi-stakeholder cooperation of academia, civil society, governments, private sector and technologists. There has never been a more successful multi-stakeholder partnership than the one that has created and nurtured the Internet. Governments in Geneva risk jeopardizing this partnership. 4. The WGIG process demonstrated that civil society organizations contribute positively. Our exclusion deprives the Prepcom of valuable knowledge, expertise and perspectives. Civil society has been, and will continue to be, the main force for promoting capacity building and development of the Internet in developing countries. Civil society understands what is needed in order to continue that work, and exclusion from the drafting groups makes it more difficult for us to continue that work effectively. 5. The WSIS Plan of Action cannot be implemented by governments alone: the active engagement of civil society actors is needed in the follow-up stage; our exclusion today would discourage many from engaging after Tunis and would therefore reduce the chances of effectively implementing the ambitious Plan of Action of Geneva. 6. We strongly protest the decisions to exclude non-governmental observers from the drafting groups. The Tunis declaration will be meaningless if it is not seen as legitimate by all those involved in the creation and evolution of the Internet, its applications, services and content. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Wed Sep 28 08:16:35 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:16:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] need for a host country agreement? In-Reply-To: <20050928113047.GA28174@nic.fr> References: <43396329.804@lextext.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050927232308.02b20058@193.200.15.187> <20050928113047.GA28174@nic.fr> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050928151511.02947928@193.200.15.187> At 13:30 28-09-05 +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >Yes, thanks for telling us that ICANN was not incorporated in >California to be sure that Internet governance would remain in US >hands. No, not at all, ICANN was incorporated in California by >sensible persons who were deeply and sincerely committed to the >interested of Internet users. > >Now, let's stop propaganda. If a country (say, Finland or Costa-Rica) >had a local law which gives *more* rights to the directors and members >than the California law, would you support an immediate relocation of >ICANN to this country? Dear Stephane, Can we focus on something more on the topic of this mailing list? The problems of IG are not related to where ICANN is located. If you think ICANN is the issue of the IG, then you need to think twice. best, veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From njenga at apc.org Wed Sep 28 08:28:22 2005 From: njenga at apc.org (Emmanuel Njenga) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:28:22 +1000 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [Africa-CS-WSIS]Intenet Governance: Follow-up and Possible Future Arrangements] Message-ID: <433A8C66.6090402@apc.org> FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Africa-CS-WSIS]Intenet Governance: Follow-up and Possible Future Arrangements Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 04:43:01 +1000 From: Emmanuel Njenga Reply-To: africa at wsis-cs.org To: africa at wsis-cs.org, Karenb at Gn.Apc.Org (Francais ci-dessous) Hello all, Just forwarding the following text for contribution to the Chair of Subcommittee A on Internet Governance Section 5 (Follow-up and possible future arrangements). The text was prepared by the Africa civil society drafting committee (including Ken Lohento, Fatou Jagne-Senghor, Emmanuel Njenga). Please send in your comments and remarks/endorsements by tomorrow morning (28 Sept 05). The drafting committee consulted with a number of civil society representatives present in Geneva. No specific model proposed by the Working group on Internet Governance (WGIG) has been chosen and as neither was none was considered most effective nor was there consensus on what model to chose. Regards, Emmanuel Chers tous Nous vous envoyons le texte ci-dessous qui est une contribution a la section 5 du document produit par le President du sous-comite A (Suivi et mechanismes futurs de la gouvernance de l'internet). En anglais seulement compte tenu de contraintes de temps. Le texte a ete prepare par le comite de redaction de la societe civile africaine (comprenant entre autres Ken Lohento, Fatou Jagne-Senghor, Emmanuel Njenga). Veuillez nous envoyer vos commentairesd'ici demain matin (28 sept 05). Nous avons egalement pris l'avis de certains representants de la societe civile presents ici. Vous constaterez qu'aucun modele specifique n'a ete choisi parce que nous n'avons trouve aucun des 4 proposes totalement adequats et qu'il n'y a pas eu de consensus sur le choix d'un modele. Cordialement Emmanuel ------ *Africa Civil Society Caucus proposals on Internet Governance * *Paragraphs 62 of the Chair's paper (Document WSIS-II/PC-3/DT/10-E)* * * *5. **Follow-up and Possible Future Arrangements* * * Final version for submission, 27 September 2005, 16:30 CEST** Recognizing that the existing operational mechanisms on internet governance have been to a large extent effective in ensuring the technical functioning of the internet. Recognizing the need for the reforms of these existing mechanisms to ensure independence, full participation and representation of all stakeholders. We therefore call for the following; * That the role of Government Advisory Committee (GAC) within ICANN should be reinforced * That ICANN should be transformed into an autonomous body, independent from government and/or commercial interest. * That ICANN structures and especially the governing bodies should ensure multi-stakeholder participation comprised of Governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisations. * That developing countries should be more involved in ICANN functioning and governance. * That ICANN must take into account cultural diversity and multilingualism in its operations, including technical constraints of online participation for developing countries. * That an adequate mechanism for coordinating Internet governance public policy issues be established A forum should be established under the auspices of ECOSOC, to facilitate discussion on Internet-related public policy issues with the participation on equal footing by Governments, the private sector and civil society. Ends ------------ -------------- 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 qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw Wed Sep 28 08:59:48 2005 From: qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw (Qusai Al-Shatti) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:59:48 +0300 Subject: [governance] Comments on WGIG report and Chair's paper - Kuwait Information Technology Society Message-ID: <200509281259.PAA14898@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Dear all: This is the comments From Kuwait Information Technology Society on the WGIG report and chair's paper. Thank You Qusai Al-Shatti -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Comments_on_the_WGIG_Report_and_Chairs_paper.doc Type: application/x-whatever Size: 28160 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Wed Sep 28 10:34:03 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:34:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Nomination: APC/Anriette Esterhuysen Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928153110.04c18930@pop.gn.apc.org> dear internet governance caucus list I would like to nominate Anriette Esterhuysen, APC's Executive Director, as a speaker for the Summit. I would like to have the IG caucuses support for the nomination (though we can probably try to nominate through other caucuses also). Many of you know anriette, she is a powerful speaker, always provocative and insightful and greatly respected in the broad ICTD community generally, and specifically in africa. I will try to find a cv also. karen ps.. i think we should ask the CSB to get an extension on this process until at least friday no? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Sep 28 11:34:14 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:34:14 -0300 Subject: [governance] Nomination: APC/Anriette Esterhuysen In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928153110.04c18930@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: Rits endorses this nomination. --c.a. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272 - sexto andar 22270-060 Rio de Janeiro Brasil tel +55-21-2527-5494 fax +55-21-2527-5460 http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria To: karen banks Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:04:41 +0200 Subject: Re: [governance] Nomination: APC/Anriette Esterhuysen > i endorse the nomination as well. > > a. > > On 28 sep 2005, at 16.34, karen banks wrote: > > > dear internet governance caucus list > > > > I would like to nominate Anriette Esterhuysen, APC's Executive > > Director, as > > a speaker for the Summit. > > > > I would like to have the IG caucuses support for the nomination > > (though we > > can probably try to nominate through other caucuses also). > > > > Many of you know anriette, she is a powerful speaker, always > > provocative > > and insightful and greatly respected in the broad ICTD community > > generally, > > and specifically in africa. > > > > I will try to find a cv also. > > > > karen > > ps.. i think we should ask the CSB to get an extension on this > process > > until at least friday no? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.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 Wed Sep 28 12:00:03 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:00:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: oversight stmt - explanation of MM edits Message-ID: >>> Milton Mueller 09/28/05 11:55 AM >>> >>> Avri Doria 09/28/05 11:04 AM >>> >i am wondering if there is any chance in this or any other world >where we can reach consensus on some text. the original text is >already on the record, so if we can reach agreement of better text, >that might be a good thing. I am happy with the addition of section 6. Section 4 is still not acceptable. We have DIRECT EXPERIENCE with ICANN-established review processes and there is conclusive, empirical evidence that it won't work. Further, it boggles the mind that we permit an ICANN-established review board to decide whether human rights, trade rules, etc. are applicable to it. This is one of the few legitimate beefs governments have about ICANN. International laws and agreements should be binding. ICANN is not above the law! But there is a way around these disagreements. We simply reframe this statement not as a proposed institutional design (which we are not ready for), but as a list of basic guidelines. So instead of saying "ICANN Establishes an appeal process in the following way..." we say "we recognize the need for an appeal process that will provide recourse if ICANN abuses its procedures" And we say that "we recognize that ICANN decisions must be subordinate to established international treaties and agreements," mentioning especially human rights and other agreements we care about most. We don't pretend to have solved the institutional design problems raised by that need. It is indeed extremely arrogant for us to pretend that we do know how those issues could be solved and that we are anywhere near solving them. Any such design issues will have to be agreed through govt-govt negotiations anyway, if they are to achieve Section 8 is incapable of reaching consensus. That should be obvious to anyone who has observed interactions on this list and other IG-related forums. I proposed to delete it. It basically asks those who question ICANN's legitimacy and the legitimacy of US unilateral control to accede to that control. I fully recognize that in practical terms, this may be the way things end up happening. I also recognize that things could happen in worse ways, and that this may be a third-best option. But I see no need for us to express SUPPORT for that option. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jovank at diplomacy.edu Wed Sep 28 12:20:14 2005 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:20:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Presentation/Panel - Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (Training and Research for Developing Countries) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAMME Achievements in 2005 – Plans for 2006 Room XXII of Palais des Nations 29th of September 2005 at 13.00 – 14:30 AGENDA Introduction: Yasmeen Ariff, DiploFoundaiton Participants: Anna Badimo, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa Jean Philémon Kissangou, Coordinator, CACSUP, Congo Ken Lohento, Panos-West Africa, Senegal Plans for 2006 Jovan Kurbalija, DiploFoundation WHO SHOULD ATTEND? - Anyone interested in participating in Internet Governance courses; - Anyone interested in developing research capacities on Internet Governance in developing countries; - Organisations interested in becoming a partner of the 2006/2007 Internet Governance Capacity Building Initiative (participating in the organisation of regional and national Internet Governance courses and research projects). MAIN FEATURES of the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme in 2005: - “Walk the talk” approach (training and research activities for 100 participants from developing countries conducted in parallel to WSIS/WGIG negotiations on Internet Governance); - Multistakeholder participation in course/research activities; - Building epistemic Internet Governance communities in developing countries. Link to the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme: http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/default.asp For more information please contact Yasmeen Ariff (yasmeen at diplomacy.edu) _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Sep 28 13:25:46 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:25:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Proposals tabled on oversight Message-ID: <3035.156.106.225.194.1127928346.squirrel@156.106.225.194> At the plenary session of subcom A, some wording proposals on governmental oversight have been eventually tabled. They have not been distributed in writing yet, we hope they will be made available shortly on the website and in the room (many delegations only had the chance of listening to them). One is from the EU, and was negotiated among member states and agreed this afternoon in a specific meeting of the high level group. I happen to have a copy :) so here it is the specific para: "64. The new cooperation model should include the development and application of public policy principles and provide an international government involvement at the level of principles over the following naming, numbering and addressing-related matters: a. Provides for a global allocation system of IP number blocks, which is equitable and efficient; b. 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; c. Establishment of contingency plans to ensure the continuity of crucial DNS functions; d. Establishment of an arbitration and dispute resolution mechanism based on international law in case of disputes; e. Rules applicable to the DNS system." Others are from Argentina (supported by some Latin American countries), and from the African group. I will have to wait to read them in writing before being able to really evaluate them and report them. No news yet from China and the likes, but I'd expect something soon. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Sep 28 13:59:25 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:59:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] US speaking + followup on CS participation Message-ID: <3082.156.106.225.194.1127930365.squirrel@156.106.225.194> If I got it well... sorry, didn't get it well, I hope someone has more precise wording and wouldn't want to say something incorrect, but... the US just said that they cannot accept any language that might imply that they would not maintain their role of guarantee in the day-to-day management of the Internet. And praised (to this respect) the Argentinian proposal, while being silent on the EU one. On the other hand, they said, if you want to create a forum to increase the security of the Internet by solving spam and viruses, we're not necessarily opposed. Now, session adjourned until tomorrow at 10am, when the various proposals will be discussed. But what I wanted to ask is: did we get any (informal) reaction from Karklins or Khan on our statement from this morning? If not, we should follow up and ask what was decided in the meeting of drafting group Chairs at lunch. The Chair said drafting on the substantial part will happen in plenary as a "guarantee for civil society"... and yet we can't be happy of talking five minutes and then staying silent. We'll need to address this in some way, to reiterate that these procedures are not acceptable for the Forum. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Sep 28 14:02:02 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:02:02 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Update on non-gov participation Message-ID: <3085.156.106.225.194.1127930522.squirrel@156.106.225.194> Ayesha Hassan from ICC just took the floor at the end of subcom A plenary and said that CCBI and the private sector at WSIS associates itself with our statement on non-gov participation from this morning. Very good. On this issue we need to fight together with them. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Sep 29 04:52:05 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:52:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] New Canada proposal on the forum Message-ID: <3076.156.106.225.194.1127983925.squirrel@156.106.225.194> Canada is presenting a much more detailed proposal on the forum which looks much better than the previous ones. Particularly good is the reference to the open WGIG consultations as "in particular" an example of how work should be conducted. (Let's be careful because if the proposal is kept, but "in particular... WGIG consultations" is deleted, that will mean that the WSIS rules of procedure might become the reference, and that would be bad.) Also good the extended references to the use of online consultations and archival. For those of you who didn't see yesterday's proposals from EU, Argentina and Africa, here they are: http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2063|2065|2067 I'll post the Canadian para as soon as I get it. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Thu Sep 29 05:35:36 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:35:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] APC text on Forum function In-Reply-To: <433BACFB.4070604@wz-berlin.de> References: <3042.156.106.225.194.1127982958.squirrel@156.106.225.194> <433BACFB.4070604@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050929103335.0602a710@pop.gn.apc.org> hi noting that canada has developed more concrete proposals, would like to share what anriete, willie and i have just drawn up on other aspects of forum.. we will submit this as APC but if others find parts of this useful, we could work up something for tonight.. karen ------- APC submission for Chapter 5 of the Chair's paper (DT/10) Follow up and possible future arrangements September 29th 2005 APC proposal regarding the establishment of a multi-stakeholder forum to address Internet-related public policy issues Scope ----- We support the scope for the Forum outlined in the report of the WGIG particularly in paragraphs 40, 41, 42, 43 and 45. We also support the GLOCOM statement on the Forum function (paragraph 62 of the Compilation document DT/10). In addition, the scope of the work of the Forum should address the application of existing international human rights instruments in the area of internet governance and related public policy. In the context of the evolving public and technical policy landscape of the Internet there will be a need to concretize binding international agreements that relate to: - the architectural principles of the Internet, including interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle - ensuring that nothing in existing or emerging internet governance and related public policy development impair, restrict, or contradict human rights, as they are spelled out in the UDHR and international law The forum should monitor this evolving landscape with a view to the initiation of a process to concretize such international agreements. Anchorage and legal identity ----------------------------- We propose that initially the Forum NOT be anchored in any existing international organization. We propose that the Forum be constituted as an independent international organization incorporated under national law in any country that provides for the legal establishment of international not-for-profit institutions. We propose that the process of convening and formally constituting the Forum, as a free-standing legal entity, take place under the oversight of the Secretary General of the UN. Constituting the membership ---------------------------- We propose the following steps, under the oversight of the SG of the UN: Establish transparent membership criteria that is consistent with: - The Geneva Principles on participation from multiple stakeholder groups (paragraph 48 of the WSIS Declaration of Principles) - The technical, legal, public policy and other areas of expertise required to respond to the range of issues related to the BROAD definition of internet governance - Regional and linguistic diversity and the disparities that exist in relation to economic development and access to the information society, within countries and between countries Convene a public nomination process that is open to: - Governments - Business entities - The technical community - Academic and educational institutions - Civil society organizations - Community based organizations and grassroots communities Structure and functioning ------------------------- We endorse paragraph 46 of the WGIG report that emphasizes a lightweight support structure. Coordination of the work of the Forum can be provided by a small staff, working under the guidance of an executive committee elected from the membership, by the membership. Members of the Forum can self-organise into thematic working groups on an as needed basis to respond to both existing and emerging internet governance and public policy challenges. Meetings of the Forum and thematic working groups can take place face-to-face and online. An annual meeting should take place, face to face, and be combined with a public event that maximizes sharing of information, learning and good practice. The venue should rotate. Access to the work of the Forum, and its thematic working groups, should be facilitated by online tools for example as is done by the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force). _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Sep 29 06:17:04 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:17:04 +0300 Subject: [governance] Bulgaria intervention during WSIS PrepCom-3, Geneva, Sept. 29th, 2005 Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050929131556.02f30c90@193.200.15.187> This is the Bulgarian government contribution to the PrepCom: Bulgaria intervention to PrepCom-3 at the WSIS-II √ Geneva, September 2005 Dear colleagues, We'd like to inform you that just before the WSIS PrepCom-3, or perhaps in honor of it, Bulgaria has elected new Parliament, and a new government. The government established for the first time ever in Bulgaria a new Agency, dedicated to IT and Communications. This State Agency is directly responsible to the Council of Ministers. One of the Agency's' priorities, is further involvement in the WSIS, where Bulgaria has been quite active since the beginning, and also further involvement in the post-WSIS environment. The Agency will also do substantial work on cybersecurity, so anyone who has interest in that area, should contact our delegation either here, or later √ via the Bulgarian mission in Geneva. Given the prime minister's strong support for the mission of the Agency, we're seeking results in the near term. Dear colleagues, Many people here talk about global issues, that have influence upon the whole world. As we are a small country, in the process of transition towards market economy, we decided to be modest and take a more focused approach to Internet Governance problems. We tried to find a way for the government to partner with the private sector and the civil society. As a result, today the BG government has requested re-delegation of the .bg TLD; the Government participated as an equal partner in the formation of the new registry √ called Public Internet Registry, together with the academic network, the Internet Society and the ISP Association. We have asked leading experts and companies in the field of running successful registries to help us with the technical back-end of running DNSsec. The difference in the last few months, since previous PrepCom, is that we stopped merely talking about what we want to do, or how we want to find a solution, and we moved to actually taking steps to implement solutions. In the WSIS environment we see two main problems, and we'd like to draw your attention to how we're solving them in Bulgaria: 1st problem There's clash of generations. The older, analogue, generation, is fighting with the new, digital generation. We can't talk about bridging the Digital Divide, overcoming poverty by using ITC, etc., if we don't let the digital generation work for the good of the Internet users 2nd problem What is the best WSIS outcome? This can be described best by the story about the shepherd who requested the local artist to draw for him an iconostasis. But unlike usual icons, this was a somewhat strange one √ with three icons: On the first icon there was the trivial case - St. George kills the Dragon. On the second icon, the story was a little bit weird - The Dragon kills St. George, and on the third one St. George has put the Dragon to the yoke and they plough (till) together. What we may find in this story is, that from each situation there are three solutions - two are obvious, the third is an intelligent one. In the case with Internet Governance, we also have the two obvious solutions √ keep the status quo, or try to fully replace the current model. In Bulgaria, where we faced the same problem, we've searched for, and have found the third, the intelligent solution: Our previous Parliament has put together a group of experts, consisting of members of the Parliament, National Regulatory Authority, representatives of private business and of civil society to work upon the draft of the Telecommunications Act. As a result, today's Internet world in Bulgaria is built on the foundation of public-private partnership. The result of this approach is visible in the number of Internet users, which has jumped 25 times in the last 6 years √ from 76,000 in 1999 to 2 million today (or 25 % of the whole population). This is the best proof about the importance of the way Internet is being governed in Bulgaria. We urge the WSIS PrepCom to find the intelligent solution, not be lured to use any of the obvious ones. That solution also includes allowing civil society and businesses to be actively and really involved in the work of the 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 aizu at anr.org Thu Sep 29 07:00:27 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:00:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] informal consultation with EU Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050929200214.064f5b50@211.125.95.185> Vittorio suggested to have IGC consultation with EU this afternoon and we approached them. They are postive, but the only challenge is to find the time slot - 1:30 pm to 3 pm is drafting group, and EU will have meeting with like-minded countries at 3 pm (closed). We may have this consultation after that, say 4 or 4:30. We will report more when this is fixed. izumi _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Thu Sep 29 09:23:54 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:23:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Update: Submissions for Chapter 5 Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050929142225.05443a80@pop.gn.apc.org> hi an (informal) note from tim kelly on the liekilhood of a new compilation for chapter 5.. >We can't start a compilation until we have a text for chapter five. >We may or may not have one this evening (depending on the outcome of the >EU/LMG consultations). Tomorrow will be chaotic, so most likely the >would set a deadline of for comments on the end of the sub-committee's >work, or sometime in the next two weeks. karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ronda at panix.com Thu Sep 29 09:54:48 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:54:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function In-Reply-To: <200509292147477.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <200509292147477.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: About 'end-to-end' and 'open architecture' Actually the architectural principle for the internet was 'open architecture' which meant that all the info about the the communicating networks would function as peers of each other,rather than requiring that any one become a component of another." A definition of open architecture is "Open architecture...describes the structure of the Internet, which is built on standard interfaces, protocols, a basic data format, and a uniform identifier or addressing mechanism. All the information needed regarding the interconnection aspects is publicly available." The end to end principle has been promoted as the essence of the Internet, but the Internet is not any single network (which goes from one end to another end.). The Internet is a network of networks. So it is important that this interconnection of dissimilar networks be recognized in characterizing the Internet, as this is the conception of its origin and what its nature is. This is what makes it possible for so many dissimilar networks to be interconnected in today's Internet. Ronda http://umcc.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/birth_tcp.txt http://www.circleid.com/article/96_0_1_0_Chttp://www.circleid.com/article/96_0_1_0_C http://umcc.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/birth_tcp.txt On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > > Agreed with you Lee. There is a need to remind people about the openess of > the Internet and the spirit in which it was created and spread around the > world. In our statement, we tried to remind delegates that the Internet was > created by individuals with a high sense of shared responsibility and trust, > and any efforts for IG, whether improving the status quo, creating a forum > and/or new oversight mechanisms, should all be done within these same > spirit. > > Currently, as Amb Klarkin pointed out, we are at a unique juncture of public > and private international law coming together. It has happened before from > the 60s to 90s, with the rise of MNCs and international law moving towards > the application of "soft laws" and increase of private international law > applications. Now we have the civil society equation, which is new to some > agencies especially the likes of ITU. It is a very unique juncture of the > creation of a "new form of cooperation" between stakeholders and a new form > of "soft law" (even moving beyond what we have in PIL....a term used in > public international law vis a vis MOUs e.g. lke the one we had on GMPCS on > LEOs etc..). > > Laina > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee McKnight > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:21 PM > To: wdrake at cpsr.org; wdrake at ictsd.ch; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function > > Karen, Bill, > > I appreciate your intent Karen and APC's intent but agree with Bill that > 'binding international agreements' on openness is a contradication in terms > that will never fly. > > Language more along the lines that the forum's efforts should keep in mind > the need to preserve the Internet's essential features, such as, 'openness > etc..' might have the opposite effect of making agreement easier, since then > the forum is signalling the techies that it will not muck things up. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>>> wdrake at cpsr.org 09/29/05 5:55 AM >>> > Karen, > >>> In the context of the evolving public and technical policy landscape > of >>> the Internet there will be a need to concretize binding > international >>> agreements that relate to: >>> >>> - the architectural principles of the Internet, including >>> interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle > > I am very strongly opposed to putting this in the forum, and believe it will > provide the USA and business with a big opening to reject the forum > outright. I hope you will reconsider, it's dangerous. > > Rest is consistent more or less with IGcaucus etc. > > BD > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.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 Thu Sep 29 23:48:13 2005 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 05:48:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight smt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Just one factual correction The Cybercrime convention entered into force on 1.7.2004. Therefore it is international treaty. It seems that there is a terminological confusion on international treiaties. Here is a brief comment.... Signature - expression to be part of a treaty (not yet legally binding for signatory states) Ratification - legal consent to be boundy by particular treaty (usually adopted by the highest political authority in national states). Entry into Force - after significan number of reatifications is received (usually 5 in the Council of Europe) So far, the Cybercrime Convention is signed 42 and ratified by 11 countries. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Fri Sep 30 03:57:30 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 16:57:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] Today's IG Caucus meeting 1:30 pm - 2:30 pm @E1058 Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050930165743.08c33d50@211.125.95.185> Internet Governance Caucus will meet this afternoon, 1:30 - 2:30 pm, at Room E1058. We need to "wrap up" this PrepCom3 activities and discuss, if possible and necesarry, about the next course of actions to Tunis. Of course, the final plenary will begin from 3 pm and it is unlikely for them to reach any tangible conclusion today, we may not have clear sense of direction this afternoon, but let's see. izumi _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Fri Sep 30 05:10:08 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:10:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] Summit overpass Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050930181327.08bfeeb0@211.125.95.185> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Fri Sep 30 05:20:15 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:20:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] Summit overpass - requested already Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050930181939.0bc9ebe0@211.125.95.185> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Fri Sep 30 05:53:08 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:53:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] CORRECTION: Today's IG Caucus meeting 1:30 pm - 2:30 pm @E1058 In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050930165743.08c33d50@211.125.95.185> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050930165743.08c33d50@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050930105129.047addd0@pop.gn.apc.org> hi izumi Room E3056/58 - behind room XX (not room E1058, which i'm sure was a typo ;) and, i heard that subcom will meet from 3-6 and plenary will reconvene at 7pm.. any confirmation? (ccing congo staff who seemed to know) karen At 08:57 30/09/2005, Izumi AIZU wrote: >Internet Governance Caucus will meet this afternoon, >1:30 - 2:30 pm, at Room E1058. > >We need to "wrap up" this PrepCom3 activities and discuss, >if possible and necesarry, about the next course of actions >to Tunis. > >Of course, the final plenary will begin from 3 pm and it is >unlikely for them to reach any tangible conclusion today, >we may not have clear sense of direction this afternoon, >but let's see. > >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 jovank at diplomacy.edu Fri Sep 30 06:03:48 2005 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:03:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] International legal aspects of IG debate Message-ID: Here are a few comments on the legal aspects. I hope this will help in clarifying some terminological confusion. FROMKIN: I was attempting to distinguish from entities like the UN which have a treaty behind them. If there is a treaty, which (as you note) there is in the case of the R.C., then that leads neatly and routinely to a HQ agreement if the treaty contemplates a secretariat. Maybe I've become overly legalistic, but this seems to me to be a fundamental difference from the (current) ICANN case.... JOVAN: In the case of the Red Cross, status is not regulated by treaty. It is regulated by the Swiss Civil Law and Headquarters Agreement signed between Switzerland and the Red Cross. The treaty aspect (Geneva Convention) does not regulate the status of the Red Cross. It only provides the policy context (implementation of the Geneva Convention). In that sense, the Red Cross is sui generis. It does not follow the usual pattern, which you correctly indicated –establishing the organisation via an international treaty + signing a headquarters agreement in order to regulate relations between the organisation and the host country. BILL: What precisely is ICANN's status under international law? JOVAN: ICANN is not an international legal entity. It does not have any legal capacity under international public law. The only subjects of international public law are nation states and, to some extent, international organisations. BILL: Irrespective of what's stated in its bylaws, presumably it has some obligations under international private law with respect to contracts etc. JOVAN: International private law is a frequently used misnomer. One possible reason why it was widely adopted is that international private law sounds “sexier” than more correct and precise titles, such as “conflict of laws” (used in the USA) “Konfliktrecht,” or “droit intersystematique”. It sounds more impressive to be a professor of international private law than of “conflict of laws.” International private law is not “international.” The “international” element is related to its application, used to identify applicable jurisdiction and law in legal cases with foreign elements. This is stipulated in national legislation not in international treaties (like international PUBLIC law). If Adam Peake, representing the Internet Governance Caucus (not a legal entity), concludes an agreement with a restaurant regarding the hosting of an IG Caucus Gala Dinner, in order to celebrate the success of civil society in IG negotiations, with an expensive menu, and nobody attends the dinner without prior cancellation, the owner of the restaurant could start a legal case for compensation. Such a legal case would involve a foreign element (the nationality of Adam Peake). The court in France would have to decide which jurisdiction should apply (Japanese or French) and after that which substantive law should apply. The rules about how the French court should decide about applicable jurisdiction and relevant law are part of French national legislation. They are “international” private law, which could also be applied to other private law cases (property relations, marriage, other transactions, etc.). In the case of ICANN, if there is a court case between ICANN and a foreign entity (e.g. national domain name operators), the court where the legal case is initiated has to decide about its jurisdiction and applicable law. If this is a court in California, it will decide according to the Californian conflict of laws (international private law). The court has to decide: a) if it can establish jurisdiction; b) if it can establish jurisdiction which law should be applied (Californian or foreign). BILL: What about international public law as instanciated in ICT-related treaties under, inter alia, ITU/WTO/WIPO/COE, or the international bill of human rights for that matter? Could the USG as signatory to these at least nominally be obliged to act to bring ICANN into compliance with, say, a ruling of the WTO's dispute settlement system, a petition filed with the European Court of Human Rights, etc? JOVAN: Generally speaking, the US has been using a “monist” approach to international law. The international obligations adopted by the USA are directly applicable to the internal legal system. This is one of the reasons why the USA is sometimes reluctant to sign international agreements. For other countries, which belong to the “dualist” school, the link between international and national law is less direct (there is the possibility to prolong and evade internationally accepted obligations). Specifically, it depends on each regime – e.g. the WTO dispute settlement system accepts only specific claims. The European Court of Human Rights provides access to individuals, but it is restricted to the signatories of the European Human Rights Convention. This convention is regional and the USA is not a party to it. An important caveat: there are SOME Council of Europe Conventions which are accessible to any nation state (including those outside Europe) – such as the Cybercrime Convention. BILL: This language went into our statement with not much discussion and I'll bet I'm not the only person here who's not entirely clear how these things work in relation to an org with ICANN's particular legal/tax status. JOVAN: I agree, it requires more careful consideration. The civil society has been building its credibility on providing authoritative and knowledgeable input into the debate. We have to be careful to keep this line during the next phase when we enter a tricky terrain of legal considerations – especially various interplays between national and international legal systems. As ever, Jovan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Fri Sep 30 07:01:18 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:01:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] CORRECTION: Today's IG Caucus meeting 1:30 pm - 2:30pm @E1058 In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050930190312.0acba850@211.125.95.185> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050930165743.08c33d50@211.125.95.185> <6.2.0.14.0.20050930105129.047addd0@pop.gn.apc.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20050930190312.0acba850@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050930120022.0586c930@pop.gn.apc.org> hi izumi sorry about that - i think as the number was exactly the same, just wanted to clarify that it was indeed the right number.. and on subcommittee - can you clarify? >>and, i heard that subcom will meet from 3-6 and plenary will reconvene at >>7pm.. karen At 11:05 30/09/2005, Izumi AIZU wrote: >NO, It will be E1058, I spoke with Phillip and other lady >this morning during CS plenary face to face and they >clearly told me that this is not the same room as we had >before. > >E3056/58 has been reserved for the whole two weeks >from 14:30 to 16:30, but NOT for other time, that is >why we need to change the room. > >Unless, Karen, you made another change this remains >to be E1058. > >Sorry for the confusion. > >izumi > >At 10:53 05/09/30 +0100, karen banks wrote: >>hi izumi >> >>Room E3056/58 - behind room XX (not room E1058, which i'm sure was a typo ;) >> >>and, i heard that subcom will meet from 3-6 and plenary will reconvene at >>7pm.. >> >>any confirmation? (ccing congo staff who seemed to know) >> >>karen >> >>At 08:57 30/09/2005, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >Internet Governance Caucus will meet this afternoon, >> >1:30 - 2:30 pm, at Room E1058. >> > >> >We need to "wrap up" this PrepCom3 activities and discuss, >> >if possible and necesarry, about the next course of actions >> >to Tunis. >> > >> >Of course, the final plenary will begin from 3 pm and it is >> >unlikely for them to reach any tangible conclusion today, >> >we may not have clear sense of direction this afternoon, >> >but let's see. >> > >> >izumi >> > >> > >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >governance mailing list >> >governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>governance mailing list >>governance at lists.cpsr.org >>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jovank at diplomacy.edu Fri Sep 30 08:20:06 2005 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:20:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance/Policy Capacity Building Initiative In-Reply-To: Message-ID: For those of you who could not attend yesterday's panel here is the summary.... INTERNET GOVERNANCE/POLICY CAPACITY BUILDING INITIATIVE FOR 2006/2007 The Internet Governance/Policy Capacity Building Initiative for 2006/2007 is based on the success of the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programmes (IG CBP) conducted in 2005. The 2006/2007 initiative will include regional and national training and research activities on Internet Governance and Internet Policy. TRAINING The main features of training activities will be: - multistakeholder composition of training groups, including government officials, technical community, academia and civil society; - use of blended learning methodology combining face-to-face and online learning; - practical relevance of the training to issues discussed in regional and national contexts. Based on our experience and a preliminary survey of capacity building needs, the following activities are envisaged: - one-day awareness building seminars on Internet Governance for parliamentarians and high officials; - two-month courses on Internet Governance delivered through online learning and practical training (participation in various international events focusing on Internet Governance); - assistance programmes for academic institutions in developing countries aimed at integrating Internet Governance and Internet Policy in their courses (particularly relevant for postgraduate courses in law, computer science, economy and management). Other types of training activities may be introduced depending on the needs in developing countries. The existing course materials and the educational methodology are highly flexible, allowing for quick adjustment and deployment. RESEARCH Research will focus on the Internet Governance/Policy issues with the highest relevance for developing countries, and will be closely linked to training activities. We will emphasise in particular promoting researchers and institutions from developing countries in the global academic and research debate on Internet Governance/Policy. ORGANISATION The 2006/2007 Initiative will be run by a consortium of institutions contributing in various capacities, including preparation of teaching materials, providing trainers, organising and running training and research activities. The consortium of institutions should reflect the multistakeholder nature of the overall initiative, and thus include international organisations and networks, academic institutions, government departments and NGOs. From the consortium, concrete partnerships will be established for specific training and research activities (e.g. regional courses, regional research). The Internet Governance/Policy Capacity Building Initiatives should contribute to WSIS follow-up activities, including a possible Internet Governance Forum. The Initiative will also seek complementary work done within other existing and future initiatives in the field of Internet Governance/Policy. TIMETABLE September 2005: Initial consultations and panel on the IGCBP at the 3rd WSIS PrepCom. October-November 2005: Consultations with potential partners. November 2005: Panel on the Internet Governance Capacity Building Initiative; the first meeting of the consortium. November 2005: Presentation of concept at the Commonwealth Heads of States and Governments Annual Meeting in Malta (late November). December 2005 -January 2006: Consultations about concrete projects and activities. February 2006: Meeting of members of consortium and others interested in the initiative, on the occasion of the Internet Governance Conference (Malta, 11-13 February 2006). March/April 2006: Commencement of training/research activities. For more information, please contact: Yasmeen Ariff at DiploFoundation (yasmeen at diplomacy.edu). The IG CBP website: http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at Ameritech.NET Fri Sep 30 09:04:10 2005 From: JimFleming at Ameritech.NET (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:04:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Saving the World and .NET from THE Big Lie Society Message-ID: <0c3f01c5c5bf$737f38b0$fffe0a0a@bunker> Saving the World and .NET from 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. THE 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 and 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 ? 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 vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Sep 30 10:16:16 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 16:16:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Short term objectives Message-ID: <1137.156.106.217.59.1128089776.squirrel@156.106.217.59> I already made these points at the caucus today, but wanted to share them with the list. I think that since we will now be in the middle of the final negotiations, while reiterating our high level principles and hardly agreed statements, we should also react and have a few very clear and very important short term objectives to pursue. First short term objective: be a player between now and Tunis. Ensure that our proposals are included in the compilation of proposals that the Chair will make today. Request as loudly as possible to be included in any round of informal consultations going on between now and Tunis. Request that the rest of the process is kept at least as open and transparent as it was until today (I won't comment on how much it was until today, of course). Insist that we want actual chances to influence the text, not just to make principle statements and then leave. Second short term objective: get to influence the text on the Forum. Highlight some clear non-negotiables that civil society would like to see in the language to be able to sign up to the text. These should be in terms of wording, not just of concepts. For example, if we want assurance that the non-duplication clause will not prevent the forum from discussing anything, let's say that in five words and, when the right time comes, insist that it is included as such (maybe getting the private sector behind that wording as well, if possible). Same in terms of assurances of the openness of the process (and here, getting the PS might be much easier). Let's push that language to friendly governments as well. Having one page of wonderful proposed text won't help much, unless we manage to get it adopted as starting point (science fiction), but having a few key words ready for prompt insertion by wearing out people at drafting sessions might help a lot. We could have a third one on oversight... I personally am sure that we won't have any real chance to have a say on how the oversight function is arranged, but we can try. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ronda at panix.com Fri Sep 30 11:38:42 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:38:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] BBC report on WSIS - misrepresenting the issues In-Reply-To: <1137.156.106.217.59.1128089776.squirrel@156.106.217.59> References: <1137.156.106.217.59.1128089776.squirrel@156.106.217.59> Message-ID: There was just a sort news report on BBC radio about what is happening with WSIS. Their account was misleading to say the least. They said that the US set up ICANN in the early days of the Internet. 1998 was not by any means the early days of the Internet. The Internet research began in 1973 and by the early 1990's many nations were connecting. Then their report said that there were critics saying that the issue of domain names and ICANN was not really an issue, but the Internet for development purposes was the real issue. So instead of explaining the issue and the contention around it, they basically trivialized it. Sad to see such reporting as what is happening at WSIS is important and it would help if the public was kept informed of what is happening. It is good that BBC finally recognized it is important to report on the WSIS developmetns. It would help if they gave it serious attention. Ronda _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Fri Sep 30 22:18:34 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 04:18:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: BBC report on WSIS - misrepresenting the issues Message-ID: <200510011030423.SM01024@LAINATABLET> -----Original Message----- From: Laina Raveendran Greene [mailto:laina at getit.org] Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 4:16 AM To: 'Ronda Hauben' Subject: RE: [governance] BBC report on WSIS - misrepresenting the issues Thanks Ronda for keeping us informed. Unfortunately, the BBC reporting indirectly also reflects the "condescending" attitude many have about the inabbility of the public or developing countries to understand the issues of IP addresses and domain names. Sadly, I found this attitude also prevailent amongst CS who seems to be predominately from "developed"countries speaking on behalf of others whom they seemed to assume knew nothing about these issues. So besides this attitude of not truly informing the public, I would also think we need to get rid of this attitude that only the few can truly understand what this is all about. This attitude itself restricts true info exchange and open consultation, IMHO Regards, Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ronda Hauben Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 5:39 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] BBC report on WSIS - misrepresenting the issues There was just a sort news report on BBC radio about what is happening with WSIS. Their account was misleading to say the least. They said that the US set up ICANN in the early days of the Internet. 1998 was not by any means the early days of the Internet. The Internet research began in 1973 and by the early 1990's many nations were connecting. Then their report said that there were critics saying that the issue of domain names and ICANN was not really an issue, but the Internet for development purposes was the real issue. So instead of explaining the issue and the contention around it, they basically trivialized it. Sad to see such reporting as what is happening at WSIS is important and it would help if the public was kept informed of what is happening. It is good that BBC finally recognized it is important to report on the WSIS developmetns. It would help if they gave it serious attention. 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 ca at rits.org.br Sun Sep 25 05:14:15 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 06:14:15 -0300 Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? In-Reply-To: <20050924213057.B272A68023@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> References: <20050924213057.B272A68023@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Message-ID: <43366A67.2080304@rits.org.br> Ian and all, The scenario is uncertain here so far. Ideally, in my view, the process should be something like: - Agreement now on the immediate need of an advisory forum (with as many additional functions as it is possible to negotiate -- and these might happen in steps after the forum is created), and on the forms of funding this forum to ensure pluralist participation from all regions and sectors. - Immediate establishment of the process towards and international Internet governance convention, deriving from it the oversight functions and mechanisms needed (I know this activates canonical responses like "it will take forever" and so on -- well, let us all help this not to take typically long, what else?). - The USA gets convinced that ICANN must become a true global body, host country agrement and all; this agreement means a total autonomy contract between ICANN and the USA similar to any country agreement with hosted international organizations (UN or not). In this way, the first (and currently most disputed) component of the future oversight mechanism would be established in a very short term -- a new, truly global ICANN. I still hope there might be some light in the US minds (I mean, there is intelligent life there beyond the Republicans and conservative Democrats :)) to see that this would be a spectacular, leading move on their part, opening up the way for the international convention to embody all other components of Internet governance. Of course, CDT, ISOC and their "like-minded" group would follow suit :) With the initial forum in place, it would become a leading advocate for speeding up this whole process. With the convention in place, in my admittedly optimistic view, the original forum would become part of a larger system combining oversight, advice, conflict resolution, standards setting and development, and coordination. All this hopefully in a decentralized form in which existing organizations could take over one or more of these functions for specific components, or just keep their functions (like ICANN) in a new institutional arrangement. IMHO --c.a. Ian Peter wrote: >I’m following this as closely as I can from a distance. And I suspect >governments are in exactly the same position as CS was a few weeks a go, >with little time to explore the details of a structure, but the need to >draft something acceptable to all parties. The difference is that, at this >stage, something as loose as the CS indicative position doesn’t go far >enough. > >There is at least a strong chance that no firm structural recommendation >will come from Prepcomm, but there seems at the same time (taking the Chairs >non-paper) an acknowledgement that some change is needed. I realize that >there are a bunch of ambassadorial types in Geneva from ISOC arguing the >opposite, but lets hope the argument that change is needed sticks. CS should >enforce that. > >Usually before change occurs a “burning platform for change” needs to be >understood and realized. The burning platform for change here is: > >“US unilateral control of root zone policy is unacceptable for an >international network. Period.” (apologies to Ambassador Gross) > >If that acknowledgement sticks, a mechanism is needed to come up with a >structure acceptable to stakeholders. Maybe some recommendations to that >effect would be useful. I think you may need to concentrate on a mechanism >to evolve a structural recommendation post Prepcom. > >The only other situation likely to be simple enough to satisfy would be a >“more power to GAC” one. Let GAC have a right of veto on root zone policy >issues. I know its not ideal to everyone, but is it more acceptable than >nothing happening or some ridiculous government top-heavy structure being >established for this purpose? > >There’s some thoughts anyway. Good luck achieving anything next week! It >will require a big dose of pragmatism, from what I am reading. > >Ian > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 Sun Sep 25 07:17:10 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 13:17:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? In-Reply-To: <20050924213057.B272A68023@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> References: <50887.81.62.134.234.1127564440.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <20050924213057.B272A68023@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Message-ID: Hello Ian, On 9/24/05, Ian Peter wrote: > There is at least a strong chance that no firm structural recommendation > will come from Prepcomm, but there seems at the same time (taking the Chairs > non-paper) an acknowledgement that some change is needed. I realize that > there are a bunch of ambassadorial types in Geneva from ISOC arguing the > opposite, but lets hope the argument that change is needed sticks. CS should > enforce that. Actually the ISOC ambassadors are arguing no such thing. We realise that Inet Governance mechanisms need to include more (and better informed) stakeholders. What we are trying to put forth is the notion that WSIS is supposed to be about connecting the unconnected, building a more inclusive Information Society, ICT4D, etc. IIRC, our consensus position is that settling the ownership of the rootzone question will not make Internet access any cheaper, more reliable or faster; nor will it connect the unconnected, train folk on IT usage or positively impact any of the other development issues that get lost when we focus on narrow IG issues. > > Usually before change occurs a "burning platform for change" needs to be > understood and realized. The burning platform for change here is: > > "US unilateral control of root zone policy is unacceptable for an > international network. Period." (apologies to Ambassador Gross) You may be right about this. however, I think that a more fruiful use of WSIS time, energy and monies would be to electrify remote communities, build telecoms infrastructure, train local communites in ICT usage, etc. > There's some thoughts anyway. Good luck achieving anything next week! It > will require a big dose of pragmatism, from what I am reading. You are certainly correct on this point! -- 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 Sep 26 03:48:16 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 09:48:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? In-Reply-To: <20050925195434.9D51668022@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> References: <20050925195434.9D51668022@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Message-ID: Morning Ian (morning in Geneva at least), On 9/25/05, Ian Peter wrote: > McTim, let's separate the issues here. > > There is a digital divide issue being addressed at WSIS. No, in fact it is NOT being addressed, this is my point. > > There is also an Internet governance issue being addressed. This "sexy" topic gets more attention than all others put together. I am now in the African Caucus (governmental), and IG is (and has been) the only topic on the agenda. > > WE have no disagreement about the importance of the first issue. Addressing > this appropriately is important. However, this does not distract from the > importance of the second issue. They are separate and will both be > addressed. I am afraid you are incorrect. I am quite sure of it in fact. Sad, but true. -- 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 Sep 26 04:41:39 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:41:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? In-Reply-To: <20050925195434.9D51668022@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> References: <20050925195434.9D51668022@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Message-ID: Hi Ian, Apologies for not responding to your direct queries earlier: On 9/25/05, Ian Peter wrote: > Which structural change recommendations in Internet governance is ISOC > supporting or recommending? The ISOC positions can be found here: http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/wsis/ I have previously suggested having an e-forum function (but please don't include me in your declaration of "broad consensus" that a Forum is needed). I agree with Raul that we must be very careful. if you recall, the WGIG report called for a "Forum function". Why not have the face 2 face Forum function meetings be included in the current IG mechanism meetings? This would of course be in addition the the e-forum function, but would facilitate communication, be truly global, as dozens of these meetings are held all over the world every year. This would also facilitate more meaningful participation, as travelling to a local or regional destination is far easier for excluded groups than affording a trip to Geneva. This way, all players have greater opportunities to share their expertise with each other. I would expect that decisions would be made by consensus after full consultation of all stakeholders and would NOT be made by the small elite of folk who are able to travel to f2f meetings. This would mean a process of e-discussion, f2f meeting, more e-discussion and then consensus (or not) on the way forward being agreed. This is the way current IG works in my limited experience (coming from the numbering world). let's build on those Best Current Practices, and not re-invent wheels. -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 05:43:57 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:43:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] room documents posted this morning In-Reply-To: <20050928092755.89BE674010@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> References: <62947.195.186.175.34.1127897491.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <20050928092755.89BE674010@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Message-ID: http://tinyurl.com/a6y3q works just as well as below link and is shorter. On 9/28/05, Ian Peter wrote: > http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2033|2034|2035|20 > 36|2040|2037|2038 -- 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 Sep 25 09:18:10 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 09:18:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? Message-ID: Ian Peter wrote: >The only other situation likely to be simple enough to satisfy >would be a "more power to GAC" one. Let GAC have a right of >veto on root zone policy issues. Absolutely not. I am sorry to be blunt but am in a hurry. Anyone who thinks a GAC veto is a good option must not be very familiar with the way ICANN operates and has obviously limited familiarity with the operations of GAC. First, we must stop using the word "veto." That is an unthinking, uncontrolled form of power that CS should not align itself with under any circumstances. If you want to give GAC certain authority, you must specify aspects of decisions making that it would have authority over, and actual procedures for exercising it. Second, recognize what GAC is now. It is not well organized, has no established procedures, and giving it direct "veto" power over something as important as the root is asking for trouble. Third, recognize that by being inside ICANN an empowered GAC has none of the normal checks and balances of other intergovernmental organizations - management of the root FORCES everyone to comply with a policy, whereas in a normal intergovernmental treaty states that don't agree are not bound. >I know its not ideal to >everyone, but is it more acceptable than nothing happening >or some ridiculous government top-heavy structure being >established for this purpose? "Nothing happening" is actually a better option than a stronger GAC. with a veto. A "ridiculous govt top-heavy structure" will not happen anyway, the US and many others in the Internet community won't let it. What you are proposing, Ian, is a "ridiculous top-heavy structgure" within ICANN, which will have fewer checks and balances than an external governmental oversight. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Sep 25 09:23:31 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 09:23:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? Message-ID: Surprisingly, I find myself in significant agreement with the first two steps of Carlos's concept of an ideal sequence. >>> Carlos Afonso 09/25/05 5:14 AM >>> >- Agreement now on the immediate need of an advisory forum >(with as many additional functions as it is possible to negotiate >-- and these might happen in steps after the forum is created), >- Immediate establishment of the process towards and international >Internet governance convention, deriving from it the oversight >functions and mechanisms needed An major changes in oversight require careful negotiation of principles and also careful limitation of the powers of governments over the Internet. This requires a negotiation and a process by which governments and citizens can ratify (i.e., voluntarily accept) such an agreement. >- The USA gets convinced that ICANN must become a true global > body, host country agrement and all; this agreement means a >total autonomy contract between ICANN and the USA similar to >any country agreement with hosted international organizations _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Thu Sep 22 08:12:14 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:12:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Sept 22 / Morning subcomittee notes In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050922201448.07af8870@211.125.95.185> References: <20BA545A-BB0B-47B7-B45C-4DE20F8658DA@lists.privaterra.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20050922201448.07af8870@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <448E2E71-D547-4513-AC20-DFF634BAFFF0@lists.privaterra.org> My complete notes are on my blog @ On 22-Sep-05, at 1:15 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > OK, the webcast came back now. I missed the first portion > of Chair's summary, but so Singapore and El Salvador will > report back tomorrow morning, right? > yes. they will report back in the morning with what consensus (if any) they can come up with. > 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 Sep 22 11:25:17 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:25:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] Sept 22 / IG subcomittee (A) excutive summary Message-ID: Thanks to all who do this wonderfl work. Seems to me that I am still in geneva, while teaching here in Aarhus .-))9 best and see you next Monday again wolfgahg ----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Izumi AIZU Sent: Thu 9/22/2005 3:58 PM To: Jeremy Shtern; 'Gurstein, Michael' Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org Subject: Re: [governance] Sept 22 / IG subcomittee (A) excutive summary Many thanks Jeremy and others at SubcomA from Civil society reporting about the ongoing debate. Since I plan to come to PrepCom3 from next Monday till the end, these reports provide very valuable reference that help me understand the context and better prepared. Please keep on your good work, and see you all soon! izumi At 09:48 05/09/22 -0400, Jeremy Shtern wrote: >Hi Michael and others who may not want to read 11 pages of scrambled >notes in UN speak, > >Here is a quick and dirty executive summary of this (Thurs) AM's >Subcommittee A meeting on Internet governance; > >-they discussed the items described in the chair's document in general >terms. >- decided that drafting groups will be formed to work on getting >language on specific issues >- these groups will be limited number to accommodate smaller delegations >- stakeholders (NGOs, CS and PS) role in them is still open: will either >be A) closed completely (Brazil, Iran China etc) ; B) allowed in as >observers only with some speaking rights (Singapore, el Salvador etc); >C) allowed full participation in negotiations (US, most strongly). This >was to be decided right away through a consultation co-ordinated by >Singapore and el Salvador. Singapore came back and said that it was >agreed upon that it will be alright to allow stakeholders to attend at >the outset, they will be invited to present statements. Thereafter there >is unresolved tension between 2 views: >1). That they would then be asked to leave, negotiation would occur >without stakeholders in the room >2). Instead be allowed to remain in the room to observe with no right to >speak. > >- the consultation will continue and results will be announced first >thing tomorrow on the status of stakeholder (CS, International NGOs, PS) >participation in the draft groups/ negotiation >- The chair will diffuse a nondocument for discussion to serve as the >basis for the negotiation over language. It is different from the >document that he put out today, but has not been seen but is believed to >be based on the WGIG report, his initial chair non document and the >comments received on both. It is a non status document. >- Tomorrow, the chair will announce what the status of stakeholders is >in the drafting groups, diffuse his nonpaper and give the marching >orders on these drafting groups (number, theme, schedule, deliverables >etc). > >Hope that helps a little. > > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >=-=-= >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 > >Universit?de Montr?l >d?artement 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 Gurstein, >Michael >Sent: September 22, 2005 8:24 AM >To: Robert Guerra; Izumi AIZU >Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org >Subject: [not_spam] Re: [governance] Sept 22 / Morning subcomittee notes > > >Robert and all, > >Thanks very very much for the on-going notes (they give a strong sense >of the process) but it would help a lot for those of us following at a >distance if we could have an occasional "wrap-up" of the current state >of play (sorry for the on-going tv sports metaphors), but what we are >getting through the lists is a play by play and some of the internal >strategic discussions and banter, but there isn't much stepping back and >giving one a sense of either the current score or overall what is >happening with the game, the league standings, the drive for the >Championship Cup etc.etc.... > >This may not matter much as the game is being played out on the ground, >but this approach certainly doesn't build a strong (or informed) base of >supporters. > >MG > >-----Original Message----- >From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra >Sent: September 22, 2005 2:12 PM >To: Izumi AIZU >Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Sept 22 / Morning subcomittee notes > > >My complete notes are on my blog @ > > > > > > >On 22-Sep-05, at 1:15 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > OK, the webcast came back now. I missed the first portion > > of Chair's summary, but so Singapore and El Salvador will report back > > tomorrow morning, right? > > >yes. they will report back in the morning with what consensus (if >any) they can come up with. > > > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Tue Sep 27 06:14:59 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:14:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments at plenary - Sept 27 AM In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050927175950.0795d740@211.125.95.185> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050927175950.0795d740@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <131293a2050927031413b56ddb@mail.gmail.com> Hi Unfortunately I will be late to the meeting, if I make it at all. I think, given the response today, and private conversations I have had with some governmental delegates, we run the risk of pushing too hard and getting a negative result. I agree that we need to have timely interventions, and if we can ensure that the written ones are considered in a timely manner, we can do OK. Maybe we can discuss this with the Chair? If we submit the written ones and they get put up on the screen - that maybe a good holding position for today. We can push again tomorrow. We can also use friendly government voices to raise any points that are urgent, or need explanation. Jacqueline On 9/27/05, Izumi AIZU wrote: > I also think while waiting for the decision of our participation in drafting > groups, we are already losing the opportunites for almost two days. > > Just sitting inside the drafting group room quietly is better than kicking > out, but for that we cannot make any substantive comments but just > being there watching governments going ahead for the negotiation. > > I think we should put equal amount of energy for making subtantive > comments, especially as they approach to the core issues of oversight > and forum we should really make our own position clear to them > in time, not after. > > Let us first discuss about that this afternoon at the IG caucus > meeting in Geneva, and welcome all online comments for that. > > Thanks, > > izumi > > At 17:52 05/09/27 +0900, Adam Peake 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! > >_______________________________________ > > > >I read some text this morning. As the CS plenary decided that we > >should not present the draft discussed in content and themes and > >various CS lists, we dropped that text for now. What I think I said > >(pretty on the fly) was: > > > >Good morning Mr. Chair > > > >Thank you for your personal efforts to ensure transparency and > >inclusion, your efforts since the publication of the WGIG report are > >much appreciated. > > > >However, Civil Society is disappointed that we will not be able to > >participate fully in the drafting groups. And that the rules and > >procedures for this prepcom now seem unclear to all. > > > >Could you explain the situation regarding drafting groups? > > > >We note your new compilation document of comments received, and are > >pleased to see that some civil society comments have been included. > >But also note some have not been included. For example last Friday > >we made comments about 43c. These comments were also mentioned by a > >government in sub committee yesterday. But they are not mentioned > >in your new document, nor were they mentioned during the drafting > >group meeting that discussed 43 yesterday. Did we have rights to > >speak in that drafting group? Could we have reminded the group that > >we had already submitted comments and those comments were already on > >the prepcom3 website. > > > >I think you can understand our confusion. Can we join and speak in > >drafting groups? Are our comments made to sub-committee A being > >taken into consideration? > > > >We would appreciate clarity on this. We were expecting some > >resolution yesterday. > > > >Thank you. > > > >END. > > > >Izumi has sent some notes with the chair's response you should > >already have seen. > > > >I think bad precedence is being set. Above was read in my name and > >that of GLOCOM and on behalf of the IG caucus so is my > >responsibility, I thought something had to be said. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Adam > >_______________________________________________ > >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 karenb at gn.apc.org Wed Sep 28 14:04:43 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:04:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Updated version of oversight stmt. In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050929023653.0b0c36d0@211.125.95.185> References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928180035.0484f420@pop.gn.apc.org> <433AD239.1080603@panos-ao.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20050929023653.0b0c36d0@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928190410.05e846a0@pop.gn.apc.org> hi I fully support ken's comment karen At 18:37 28/09/2005, Izumi AIZU wrote: >I think this is a good suggestion and I support the inclusion of this, >details can be modified if necesarry. > >izumi > >At 19:26 05/09/28 +0200, klohento at panos-ao.org wrote: >>Dear all: >> >>It seems to me, there is no reference to developing countries in the >>statement, and since in my opinion developing countries don't have >>*enough* opportunities to be participate in ICANN body and governance >>mechanisms, I propose (in line with the African Caucus statement) that a >>small addition is made to point 2 (in capital letters) which could read >>: please edit the English if needed. >> >>2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on >>its Board[add,] and throughout its organizational structure[add:s,] 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 DEVELOVING >>COUNTRIES PARTICIPATION. >> >>Ken Lohento >> >>karen banks a $BqD(Brit : > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Sep 29 09:50:28 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 15:50:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] informal consultation with EU In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050929200214.064f5b50@211.125.95.185> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050929200214.064f5b50@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <3035.156.106.217.9.1128001828.squirrel@156.106.217.9> On Gio, 29 Settembre 2005 13:00, Izumi AIZU disse: > Vittorio suggested to have IGC consultation with EU this afternoon > and we approached them. They are postive, but the only challenge > is to find the time slot - 1:30 pm to 3 pm is drafting group, and > EU will have meeting with like-minded countries at 3 pm (closed). > We may have this consultation after that, say 4 or 4:30. > > We will report more when this is fixed. This is now settled ===> from 17:00 to 17:30 in room XI <=== with Martin Boyle from the UK (Presidency) delegation. From 17:30 to 18:00 in the same place they will meet with the private sector. At 18:00 in the same place there will be a (closed) EU Coordination meeting, which means that we might want to make sure (by explicitly asking) that some of our requests are reported to the member states then. Now, the first reason why I thought to ask for this meeting was to establish us as a player; also, since the EU could become the leader of the mediation, it could be very important to get their support on a few specific points that we might want to see in the final text. While we might want to ask for clarifications on the EU proposal (which is what the LikeMindedGroup is doing now, before negotiating), I doubt that that would be terribly useful, since I would guess that the only thing that the EU can say is the text that was agreed yesterday among the member states, and nothing more. I think it would rather be better to use the time to make some of our points clear and ask the EU to adopt/support them if possible. The first and foremost one, in my opinion, is that we would like to see some clear text in the Forum paragraph that ensures us that the forum works like the open WGIG consultations, and not like the WSIS PrepCom. Or, at least (as a fallback), that CS and PS would be considered as two "delegations" that can participate to drafting groups and plenaries on a peer basis with the delegation of one country. If this is too detailed, we might fall back onto some more generic, but still clear, wording. In general, the more I read it, the more I like the Canadian proposal (tnx Robert for forwarding it). I'm not sure about asking the EU to drop their proposed Forum paragraph and support the Canadian one instead, but we might consider doing this. Also, if we want, we might make a more general request that the EU formally supports our protest and asks for us to be allowed to participate in drafting groups, or at least discusses it; and to try to keep us in the loop, or at least regularly ask for reactions. I know many EU delegations would support this request, but as I understand until now, as the week evolved, it never came so high on the list of their priorities for any of them (included mine) to actually raise it in the Coordination meeting. About oversight, I really doubt that CS/PS can have a real impact on this. This will be hardly fought among governments and I doubt they will have the willingness and patience to take into account yet more views. In any case, we definitely want to restate our views. Anything else? -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Thu Sep 29 10:59:13 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:59:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] draft statement Message-ID: <5567646E-D4E1-4C2D-8005-652B6A0020AE@acm.org> hi, a quick pass with adds, deletes and replace] Statement on new proposals Sep 29 Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Good evening everyone. My name is Izumi Aizu[Delete:, succeeding the co-coordinator’s role of the] [add: of Glocom speaking on behalf of the] Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus [delete: from my colleague Adam Peake at GLOCOM]. [delete: First we would like to thank all the efforts the delegations are now putting to conclude this two week long session of PrepCom 3. We hope we can go back home with the tangible product of mutual cooperation and collaboration tomorrow. [delete: Now, we again would like to express our great concern, however, about the working modality of the Drafting Group sessions which essentially deny us from meaningful participation. We like to remind you that all of the non-governmental stakeholders, the private sector, international organizations and us, the citizens, or the civil society are your essential partners, that was agreed under the Geneva WSIS principles. Therefore we strongly urge you to reconsider this negative situation and start implement far more constructive and productive working method for any of the remaining work as well as all the work of the Tunis summit, follow up and future works ahead. [delete: On the progress being made at the Subcomitee A on Internet Governance, we would like to share the following observations. First, we welcome [add: the fact] that Subcom A [add: has] finally started to discuss the core issues [delete:in its full slot at this very end of the session.] Civil society welcomes the proposal made this morning by the delegation of Canada. We think it embodies the Geneva Principle of multi-stakeholdership [replace; with/including the] full and equal participation principle, and greater emphasis on inclusion from developing parts of the world. We also welcome the explicit recognition of the WGIG process, the open consultation process. With this encouraging proposal from Canada, Civil Society would like to [replace: retaliate/reiterate] our position on participation [delete: once again] : We seek for full and equal participation of all stakeholders as a matter of principle and a matter of practice. On the proposal made by the European Union, we have carefully read and analyzed it and [replace: came/ have come] to the following conclusion. First, we like to thank EU for having informal consultation with Civil Society this afternoon. We had very constructive meeting and made a meaningful dialogue. As we said during the meeting, we have some concerns and reservations in the following areas. While we also [replace: share/believe] that some adjustments or improvement is necessary in the area of Internet Governance, including that of the current ICANN framework, [add: but] we do not agree that governments alone [replace: will/should] be given any special role over other stakeholders [replace: which/as ] is expressed in this new EU proposal. We do not agree with the language in para 63. which says “with the special emphasis on the complementarity between all the actors involved … including governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations each of them in its field of competence;”, we have problem with “each of them in its field of competence “ which would confine our ability for full engagement, [add: especially since the agreed language in para 42c attempts to limit civil society to community activity] We also do not support “Para 64. Essential tasks” as a whole. We do not think that the areas described from a) to e) in specifics should rest under the sole involvement of international government involvement, which is clearly against the multi-stakeholder principle WSIS has agreed with. We also do not agree [add: with] the limited [repalce: nature/ duration] of [add: the] Forum [add: .][delte: , with predefined period.] We see the need for the periodic review as is described in Canada proposal, but [add: are] not in full support of the default sun-set provision EU proposes. With the same concern, we have doubt [s] about the 2 phase approach [replace: to create / or creating] Forum first, finish that, and then start[ing] the transition. We hope that EU together with other colleagues here in Geneva will find ways to improve these areas and come together for mutually agreeable solution. Again we need true multi-stakeholder practice [repalce: in/with] full and equal [replace: footing/particpation]. Thank you very much. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Thu Sep 29 11:50:15 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:50:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] draft statement Message-ID: <99F67580-2C96-40C5-AF10-F46B0C121EBC@acm.org> with edits done (even fixed one of my own typos] & do you still have the same concerns after this meeting? i added a line on human rights. Statement on new chapter 5 proposals Sep 29 Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Good evening everyone. My name is Izumi Aizu of Glocom speaking on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. First, we welcome the fact that Subcom A has finally started to discuss the core issues . Civil society welcomes the proposal made this morning by the delegation of Canada. We think it embodies the Geneva Principle of multi-stakeholdership including the full and equal participation principle, and greater emphasis on inclusion from developing parts of the world. We also welcome the explicit recognition of the WGIG process, the open consultation process. With this encouraging proposal from Canada, Civil Society would like to reiterate our position on participation: We seek for full and equal participation of all stakeholders as a matter of principle and a matter of practice. On the proposal made by the European Union, we have carefully read and analyzed it and have come to the following conclusion. First, we like to thank EU for having informal consultation with Civil Society this afternoon. We had very constructive meeting and made a meaningful dialogue. As we said during the meeting, we have some concerns and reservations in the following areas. While we also believe that some adjustments or improvement is necessary in the area of Internet Governance, including that of the current ICANN framework, we do not agree that governments alone should be given any special role over other stakeholders as is expressed in this new EU proposal. We do not agree with the language in para 63. which says “with the special emphasis on the complementarity between all the actors involved … including governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations each of them in its field of competence;”, we have problem with “each of them in its field of competence “ which would confine our ability for full engagement, especially since the agreed language in para 42c attempts to limit civil society to community activity. We do appreciate your inclusion of the 'end-to-end principle' in para. 63 since that gives the maximum level of freedom to users at the edge of the network. We also do not support “Para 64. Essential tasks” as a whole. We do not think that the areas described from a) to e) in specifics should rest under the sole involvement of international government involvement, which is clearly against the multi-stakeholder principle WSIS has agreed with. We also do not agree with the limited duration of the Forum. We see the need for the periodic review as is described in Canada proposal, but are not in full support of the default sun-set provision the EU proposes. With the same concern, we have doubts about the 2 phase approach of creating the Forum first, finish that, and then starting the transition. Finally we have grave concern about the the level and application of International law, especially with relation to human rights, of the cooperation models. We hope that EU together with other colleagues here in Geneva will find ways to improve these areas and come together for mutually agreeable solution. Again we need true multi-stakeholder practice with full and equal participation. Thank you very much. -------------- 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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Fri Sep 30 07:00:55 2005 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:00:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] last intervention for Subcom A In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050930184341.0846f8d0@211.125.95.185> References: <50674.195.186.231.20.1128066748.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <3083.156.106.224.63.1128072113.squirrel@156.106.224.63> <6.2.3.4.2.20050930184341.0846f8d0@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <20050930110055.GB10006@himmeli.it.jyu.fi> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 06:48:14PM +0900, Izumi AIZU (aizu at anr.org) wrote: > We like to make our final statement at the coming Plenary > seession starting at 3 pm. (not Subcom A, unless they > change the schedule, but that could happen). they have changed the schedule, see http://www.itu.int/wsis/preparatory2/pc3/programme.html subcom A reconvenes 18-20, plenary is 20-23 -- Tapani Tarvainen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Fri Sep 16 00:38:49 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:38:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] Report of the Open consultation on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <131293a205091409202f8c6649@mail.gmail.com> References: <131293a205091409202f8c6649@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050916133742.08ff8630@211.125.95.185> Jacqueline, This was very informative and useful. Thank you so much. I have shared this with the members of the IGTF (Internet Governance Task Force) of Japan. thanks again, izumi At 12:20 05/09/14 -0400, Jacqueline Morris wrote: >Please find enclosed the report on the Informal Consultation on >Internet Governance, convened by Ambassador Khan on 6 September 2005. >The Food for Thought document is available at: >www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/consultations/6sep/food-for-thought.doc. > > >Open consultation on Internet Governance > >6 September 2005 > > > > > >Ambassador Khan from Pakistan, Chairman-designate of PrepCom-3 >Sub-Committee A, first made a short presentation of the ォ Food for >thought サ document. The purpose of this paper was to give guidance to >all stakeholders, and the approach at this stage was only to raise >questions. This was not an official document and was not part of the >WSIS negotiation process. > > > >He later on reminded that the two bases for negotiations for Chapter 3 >on Internet Governance would be the Geneva Principles and the WGIG >report, since the text on Internet Governance would have to facilitate >the implementation of the Geneva principles. > > > >The USA delivered a series of general comments on the procedural >aspects of this consultation and questioned the overly technical >content of the Food for Thought paper, as well as the fact that the >WGIG report should not be considered as a basis for negotiations. This >was reiterated a second time by the US delegation later on during the >discussion. The UK, on behalf of the EU, only recognized that the >structure of this paper was a good base for negotiations. However both >delegations would give more comments during PrepCom-3. > > > >Further to a question from Greece, Dr. Tim Kelly clarified that the >WSIS ES received so far more than 300 pages of comments, so that the >compilation had been made in a selective way to set down a readable >and useful document. The compilation also included some contributions >from non accredited entities, such as CS caucuses. > > > >Geneva principles > >Nicaragua, on behalf of GRULAC, said that the information society >should focus on people and that WSIS opened an excellent opportunity >to make progress in building the Information Society through the >Internet. Internet Governance needs to be transparent, democratic and >multi-stakeholder oriented, in accordance with the provisions of the >Geneva Declaration. > > > >Pakistan, on behalf of the Asian Group, underlined that the discussion >on basic IG principles agreed in Geneva should in no way be reopened >in Phase 2. Security and stability of the internet should be only >considered as one of the eight principles agreed in Geneva, as also >supported later on by Brazil (who also asked what the difference >between the Geneva Principles and the Guidance principles was), Iran >and El Salvador. Honduras argued that security and stability of the >internet should not prevail over the other principles, such as access >for all and an equitable distribution of resources. > > > >Internet Governance working definition > >Pakistan stated that the democratic and transparent nature of IG >should be clearly highlighted in the working definition adopted in >Tunis, which should not be limited to its descriptive aspects. Iran >added that the prescriptive part of the definition should also be >retained. El Salvador stressed that the text to be adopted in Tunis >should guarantee that this definition, which was a very good basis, is >not definitive. Bertrand de la Chapelle (www.wsis-online.net) >mentioned that the working definition represented a significant >progress, and gave a practical framework including national and >regional dimensions. > > > >Stakeholder participation > >Pakistan stressed the need to deal with stakeholder involvement in >accordance with the Geneva principles. Iran proposed that mention be >given to the shared responsibility of all stakeholders, including >corporate responsibility to create an enabling environment for the >development of ICTs. Mr. de la Chapelle underlined the need to mention >precisely the principle of a shared responsibility of all stakeholders >in the definition of IG. In addition, as based on the principles >agreed in Geneva, any mechanisms adopted should be multi-stakeholder >based. The Internet Society stressed the importance that internet >users participate in this process. > > > >Policy issues > >Nicaragua stressed that questions related to funding, access for all, >security and stability of the Internet, as well as multilingualism and >accountability should also be strong elements of IG. > > > >Francis Muguet (ENSTA) regretted that the scientific community had not >been included enough in the WGIG report. This was, he said, the reason >why many issues were ignored or misunderstood in the document, such as >the question of free software, technical aspects of DNS, or a >scientific approach to security and stability of the Internet, >including spam. > > > >Israel pointed to the need to prevent religious intolerance on the >Internet, as well as to combat the use of the Internet by terrorist >networks. Multilingualism should also be strongly promoted. > > > >The Internet Society asserted that Section 4-a., on infrastructures >and management of critical internet resources, did not include a >positive language yet (e.g. Internet Society's response to the WGIG >report). > > > >Development issues > >Brazil stressed the specific needs of developing countries, which are >looking for a better access to knowledge. Egypt welcomed the content >of the document in terms of development issues, noting that >discussions on other stakeholder comments had been very fruitful. >However, Egypt added that other elements contained in the WGIG report >should be retained in Chapter 3, such as access for all. > > > >Forum function > >Nicaragua briefly underlined the need for a constructive and open >debate on the IG-related work after Tunis. Pakistan, noting that none >of the four proposed forum models enjoyed any consensus, proposed more >detailed consideration of the issue. > > > >Brazil urged Member States to take a decision to fix up and improve >the IG system, which does not work up to its full capacity under its >current organization. Technical expertise, to be provided by ICANN, >and political guidance should both be developed in the Internet >governance system. Developing countries also need a better access at >the decision-taking level. Chairman Khan answered that the discussion >on how to fix the IG system should be more specific (such as the >creation of an international organization, or new relations between >ICANN and the GAP, etc.). Brazil later on clarified its position, >stressing the need to establish a global internet forum to address >policy issues, giving the example of religious intolerance or the .xxx >domain name. The Tunis outcome document should therefore give a >precise guidance to establish such a forum. > > > >Iran stressed that the four IG models developed by the WGIG report >were articulated around a "Forum+" arrangement, while the Food For >Thought document only referred to a forum in isolation. Participation >of States should be guaranteed at the international policy level to >prevent the IG model to be jeopardized by domestic interests. > > > >Based on the conclusion that the scientific community was not included >enough in the WGIG report, Francis Muguet (ENSTA) emphasized that IG >required an international legal framework for a multi-stakeholder >internet governance forum which could effectively work. Bertrand de la >Chapelle supported that the framework for IG follow-up should rather >be related to the global WSIS framework. The GFC definition of >follow-up provided three elements, but the policy dimension was still >in a void in the GFC proposal, in which a multi-stakeholder forum >framework for policy debate was still missing. The definition of >principles for multi-stakeholder participation in the IG Forum would >be one of the major concerns of all during PrepCom-3. > > > >Working methods for Sub-Committee A on Internet governance > >According to Brazil, there would be two ways to go ahead: the first >one is to follow and pick some elements of the Chair's proposal as a >basis for negotiations; the second option is that the Tunis Summit >would take note of the WGIG report and would take further decision. > > > >CCBI raised several questions about procedures and working methods >during PrepCom-3 with Sub-Committee B on IG, proposing that the >speaking time for business entities be more flexibly distributed, for >more productive contributions from observers to the process. CCBI also >requested that business entities could participate in the work of the >drafting groups. Ambassador Karklins answered that the allocation of >speaking slots for observer entities would be at the discretion of the >Chairman of the Sub-Committee, provided that it would fit with the 15 >minutes as decided. ICANN underlined as well that the participation of >NGOs and of other stakeholders was an important element in the >on-going negotiations, in order to maximize their expertise in the >process. > > >By closing the meeting, Chairman Khan encouraged stakeholders to have >formal and informal discussion on IG, to continue to send >contributions and to submit joint statements. > > >-- >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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Sep 23 12:06:21 2005 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:06:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] Chair's paper available In-Reply-To: <131293a2050923030852d5a94a@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd05092302225aaabae8@mail.gmail.com> <131293a2050923030852d5a94a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <954259bd050923090624c15e0@mail.gmail.com> Dear Jacqueline, I support Adam's comment on the formulation for civil society. Be careful about the formulations on roles of stakeholders in the WGIG report. They basically list distinct functions, do not provide for the notion of shared responsibility Bertrand On 9/23/05, Jacqueline Morris wrote: > > Adam > Isn't this text the "agreed language " from Geneva? Since this phase > is not supposed to renew debate on "agreed language" If it is in the > document, it's open for debate, right? SO it should either be out > totally, or the WGIG section on stakeholders be included? > Jacqueline > > On 9/23/05, Adam Peake wrote: > > Bertrand, thanks. > > > > A general comment is that the draft is only three and half pages. It > > is missing sections describing follow-up issues (forum and > > oversight), but even with those sections the total may only be about > > 5 pages. This is helpful as it tells us that comments on specific > > issues will be very short. Looking at sentences not paragraphs. > > > > The paragraphs that stands out as contentious reads: > > > > We strive to establish a transition to a new cooperation model > > that helps up [us] implement the "Geneva principles" regarding the > > role of the governments and all stakeholders. Institutional > > arrangements for Internet governance should be founded on a more > > solid democratic, transparent and multilateral basis, with stronger > > emphasis on the public policy interests of all governments, and with > > clarification of the relationships among different actors. > > > > Also, I don't like how CS is defined: > > > > Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, > > especially at community level, and should continue to play such a > > role. > > > > Avri has suggested replacement: > > > > Civil society has played an important role on Internet matters. > > This role has ranged from capacity building at the community level to > > the contribution of much of the technological innovation and to the > > creation of much of the content that makes the Internet what it is > > today. Civil Society should continue to play such a role. > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > At 11:22 AM +0200 9/23/05, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > >The Chair's paper in Group A (Internet governance) is now available > > >on the official site at : > > > > http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1962|0 > > > > > >Bertrand > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >governance mailing list > > >governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > > -- > Jacqueline Morris > www.carnivalondenet.com > T&T Music and videos online > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Sep 28 04:01:58 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:01:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: draft text on political oversight Message-ID: One of the key mistakes is to link the forum function with the oversight function. If a forum would get an "oversight function" it would be a political punchball from the first day and could not work. So keep the needed discussion for clarification seperate from the decision making and if you speak about decision making be as precise as possible. No carte blacnhe. Decisions only for very concrete cases. And it would be useful to define the criteria for such cases where a political decision is needed. Best wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jacqueline Morris Gesendet: Di 27.09.2005 16:56 An: Milton Mueller Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Fwd: Re: draft text on political oversight Even though you've already read it... we can still develop the thinking. I agree with Milton in general wrt his question/thinking through. But I think that the language could include a "such to be determined in subsequent negotiations" or something like that. About the case-by-case review - hate it. I haven't seen self-appointed case-by-case review work ever. What might work is to have an independent audit committee or somethign like, that determines itself what it should look at - or that can be appealed to by stakeholders. I'd love a peer-level muoltistakeholder oversight, but I know that won't happen. I think that strengthening the GAC won't work, cause then the policy and technical may start to get mixed up, and I think that they should be separate. I'd support ICANN being ICANN with some changes (per many of Jeanette and Avri's points), but not dealing with public policy. A separate venue for public policy, and ICANN could refer policy items to it for a (non-binding) recommendation if they so desired. Jacqueline On 9/27/05, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>> Milton Mueller 09/27/05 10:01 AM >>> > Some comments: > This is not an acceptable statement to me, although it is close and I > won't be upset if you read it as IGC. Key questions that you have not > thought through: > > Who decides when "full and equal multi-stakeholder participation" > exists in ICANN? > > Who decides when ICANN has "clear, transparent rules and > procedures commensurate with international norms and principles for > fair > administrative decision-making"? > > Case by case establishment of a review commission is a bad idea and > won't work. ICANN's current "independent" review commission (appointed > by ICANN) has been a complete failure. Who appoints this review > commission? > > You can't just duck these issues. > > I will suggest some language changes in the next message, if it is not > too late. > > Dr. Milton Mueller > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://www.digital-convergence.org > http://www.internetgovernance.org > > > >>> Jeanette Hofmann 09/27/05 7:31 AM >>> > Hi, Avri and I have drafted some language on political oversight. Text > > should be read this afternoon. We have to submit it by 2pm. Please have > > a look and let us know if we can read it on behalf of the IG caucus or > > if we have to invent another stakeholder group. > jeanette > > > Political Oversight > > 62b: 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 oversight organization for domain names and IP > addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard > to > ICANN: > > 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent role of > > stewardship in relation to ICANN and enters into an adequate > host-country agreement for ICANN. > > 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on > > its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the community > > of Internet users, private sector and governments. > > 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. ICANN must establish a review process for its decisions in the form > > of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission, established on a > > case-by-case basis. > > 5. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government > transfers the IANA function to ICANN. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com T&T Music and videos online _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Sep 28 13:47:07 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:47:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight stmt Message-ID: Why you did nit incorporate my proposal with regard to the need for contractual arrangements between ICANN and ccTLD Registries and Root Server Operators? w ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jacqueline Morris Gesendet: Mi 28.09.2005 17:37 An: Avri Doria Cc: Governance Governance Caucus Betreff: Re: [governance] oversight stmt Good with me as IG Caucus. Is this and IGC statement or opening up for CS? JAM On 9/28/05, Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > i have added the some woring in 5 that i think we can reach agreement > on. i also added a section 7 that may be more difficult for you to > swallow especially those who want an FC. > > i am wondering if there is any chance in this or any other world > where we can reach consensus on some text. the original text is > already on the record, so if we can reach agreement of better text, > that might be a good thing. > > if possible i would suggest that people recommend specific changes > that others can then discuss. > > a. > > > Political Oversight > > 62b: 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 oversight organization for domain names and IP > addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard to > ICANN be implemented in a reasonable time frame: > > 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent role of > stewardship in relation to ICANN. > > 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on > its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the community > of Internet users, civil society, the technical community, private > sector and governments. > > 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. ICANN must establish a process for extraordinary appeal of its > decisions in the form of an independent multi-stakeholder review > commission, established on a case-by-case basis. Just to be clear, we > are not calling for an 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. > > 6. ICANN's decisions, and any host country agreement must be required > to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through > international > treaties, e.g in regard to human rights treaties, privacy rights, trade > rules, and cybercrime treaties. Governement and International > organizations, > including NGOs, would have the right and repsonsibility of bringing > violations > of these requirements to the attention of ICANN and if satisfactory > resolution > cannot be reached using ICANN internal processes, would have the > right to > invoke the appeal process. > > 7. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government > transfers the IANA function to ICANN. > > 8. It is understood that achieving these > conditions will rely on negotiations between ICANN and the US > Government. It > is expected that the International multistakeholder community will > take part > in the process thought participation in ICANN process. It is also > expected > the the multistakeholder community will observe > and comment on the progress made in this process through the Forum. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Sep 19 11:11:38 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:11:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] First prepcom interventions In-Reply-To: <432ED089.4090803@wz-berlin.de> References: <432EC9CA.1030304@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <432ED089.4090803@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: I agree with Jeanette. These issues merit more than a couple of short sentences. Privacy of course important. And consumer rights have often been overlooked in the Internet governance discussion. But the relevant paragraph from the WGIG report is: "26 Consumer rights There is a lack of global standards for consumer rights over the Internet, for example in the international purchase of goods through e-commerce; as such, users have few if any means to enforce their rights, even when these rights are recognized by legislation. In the case of digital goods and online services, there are problems for the practical and full application of traditional consumer rights." 3 minutes... 300 words! Adam At 4:51 PM +0200 9/19/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Ralf, there are more opportunities in the coming days to address >specific issues. I think it would be good if you prepared a statement >that focuses on privacy and perhaps consumer rights. > >Besides, even it is not that obvious, my part is to point out those >issues in the report that are lacking or not treated adequately :-) >Also, we have send the statements to the translaters two hours ago. I >would not like to make changes unless absolutly crucial. Hope that's ok. > >jeanette > >Ralf Bendrath wrote: >> Thanks for these contributions. I am pleased to see part of the WGIG >> comments of the Privacy & Security WG in Jeanette's statement. The >> International Conference of Data Protection Commissioners that took >> place in Montreux last week has also referred to the summit and sent a >> strong message in its final declaration. >> >> >> We should pick up on this, in order to use its momentum (tactical >> details over a coffee, some of them are involved in national delegations >> here and should be supported). >> >> Therefore my suggestion: If there are 30 Seconds left, could you please >> add the last sentence below to this part? >> >> Existing text: >> <> discussions around privacy. Now, we all have to make sure that they are >> integrated in any documents adopted at the Tunis Summit. Privacy and >> data protection are too important in the Information Society to be >> forgotten in the struggles over the core technical resources of the >> Internet.>> >> >> New, to be added at the end: >> <> not far from here last week also has emphasized this and has sent a >> respective message to the WSIS in its Montreux declaration.>> >> >> Thanks! >> >> On another matter: >> >> Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> One disturbing rumor (we will find out for sure later today) is that >>> observers will be given 15 minutes speaking time every 6 hours of >>> discussion. As sub-committee A meets for 3 hours each day, it seems >>> we may only be able to speak every other day. Will will argue against >>> this. >> >> I am not sure about this. I understood that here they count the overall >> working hours, not per subcommittee. So if they start to have evening >> sessions, we might even get two interventions per day. >> >> Best, Ralf >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Sep 21 06:51:07 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 07:51:07 -0300 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponement oftoday's caucus meeting In-Reply-To: <433130D0.8060908@wz-berlin.de> References: <433130D0.8060908@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: People, Sorry for not being physically more present -- trying to work with the Brazilians as the events unravel at subcommittee A, which is the reason of my earlier arrival in Geneva. I would like to express my concern (which is the concern of the Brazilian NGOs working on Internet/ICT governance issues as well, like INDECS, the Digital TV civil society caucus, CDI-PE, Rits, the Softwarelivre.org group, several other members of the CRIS-Brasil campaign and so on) that, contrary to what the caucus managed to present in subcomm B (a unified statement built by a consensus effort, albeit in a rush, thanks to the great work of the Ralf-Bertrand duo among others), our presentation in subcomm A was piecemeal and the specific part on Internet governance mechanisms not based on consensus. I am afraid the presentation by Bill Drake is based on a vision which is not shared by many civil society organizations. We understand we do not want a "revolution" -- and this is mostly consensus -- but we need some significant changes in the mechanisms, first, to consider the set of priority issues which are not in the current ICANN-based system, and second, to take into account the need for practical actions regarding paragraph 48 of the WGIG report, among other reasons. If we endorse the statement as a consensus, we are in practice almost doing what ICANN wants us to do, ie., defend the creation of an innocuous consultative/advisory forum which might never be really taken seriously. I understand the opening statement by Adam tried to show this did not represent consensus, but I did a survey later on among Southern delegates (Brazil, India, Iran, Cuba among others) and most of them understood otherwise. Many of these delegates also wrongly associate model 2 of the WGIG report with the civil society caucus -- we must recall model 2 was built under the influence of ICANN-related people and business reps in the WGIG. Do we really want this perception to stay? What will be our consensus position? Just to make clear, my position (to which the Brazilian position has basically converged) was expressed in my "parallel" paper written during the last months of the WGIG. What are the other positions in the caucus on this which we could analyze and try to build a consolidated/consensus position? Or we just leave things as they are? fraternal regards --c.a. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272 - sexto andar 22270-060 Rio de Janeiro Brasil tel +55-21-2527-5494 fax +55-21-2527-5460 http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus , plenary at wsis-cs.org, Robert Guerra , Adam Peake Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:07:12 +0200 Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponement oftoday's caucus meeting > [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 everyone, unfortunately, weh need to postpone the IG caucus > meeting > for 40 minutes. I would suggest we start at 3.10 pm in room E 30/56. > The > reason is that Adam and I have been asked to attend the bureau > meeting > today. > > Please spread the word to those who might not have Internet access > this > morning so that we avoid people coming in vain and disappear again. > > Sorry again, hopefully see you at 3.10 pm then. > > jeanette > _______________________________________________ > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 22 06:45:31 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:45:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Consensus on the forum issue In-Reply-To: <4332651A.3070804@wz-berlin.de> References: <4332651A.3070804@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: Hi Jeanette, On 9/22/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > As far as I understand nobody opposes the idea of a forum in principle. Just to clarify, we are still speaking of the forum function when we say "forum", correct? If so, I am not opposed (in principle). > Nobody supports the position of the business sector, which doesn't even > recognize the need for a venue where Internet related issues can be > discussed. Probably because they support lots of open, transparent, bottom up venues already? > > I would like to know if this is a correct description of our controversy? > sounds about right to me. > If so, I would like to suggest a possible compromise between these two > differing views. > The civil society statement has language to the effect that the forum > can make decisions if all participating statekholders agree with this. > (Former versions of Bill's statement included this clause. I think it > only disappeared for the sake of brevity.) In other words, any extention > of the forum's authority would have to be consensus-based and bottom up. Hmm > > The second common element I see has been pointed out by Avri. In her > view, the forum has to earn its authority. It can only gain political > authority if it is regarded useful by those who participante in the forum. > Decision making authority for the forum would thus depend on two related > if's: consensus among the participants and legitimate outcomes. This > implies that the forum may grow over time. It would start in a very > modest way with nothing but advisory functions but its authority could > increase over time depending on its productivity and legitimacy. > What do people think? Can we find a consensus along these lines? I could buy into this if there were well defined limitations about the roles it could NOT grow to encompass. Maybe. Thanks for your hard work. It is a creative idea. -- 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 Tue Sep 27 09:03:41 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:03:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] draft text on political oversight Message-ID: ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann Gesendet: Di 27.09.2005 13:31 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] draft text on political oversight Hi, Avri and I have drafted some language on political oversight. Text should be read this afternoon. We have to submit it by 2pm. Please have a look and let us know if we can read it on behalf of the IG caucus or if we have to invent another stakeholder group. jeanette Political Oversight 62b: 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 oversight organization for domain names and IP addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard to ICANN: 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent role of stewardship in relation to ICANN and enters into an adequate host-country agreement for ICANN. 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the community of Internet users, private sector and governments. 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. ICANN must establish a review process for its decisions in the form of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission, established on a case-by-case basis. 5. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government transfers the IANA function to ICANN. Three additonal points: 1. ICANN has to be embedded into a set of contractual arrangements with ccTLD Managers and Root Server Operators 2. Transfer IANA function to ICANN would include the formal termination of the second MoU between ICANN and DOC (BTW, what will happen with the CRADA agreement? Any position?) 3. We should call for a reform of the GAC, including a rearrangment of the relationship between GAC and ICANN Baord for cases with a clear public policy dimension (tgoing beyond the "consultation procedure, as fixed under ICANN 2.0 bylaws). Best w _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Sep 28 04:50:14 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:50:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] protest statement drafted by Avri In-Reply-To: <433A5762.5050909@wz-berlin.de> References: <433A5762.5050909@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <131293a205092801507075b268@mail.gmail.com> I support ging ahead. Only question - what para 39? Jacqueline On 9/28/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Avri has redrafted our statement on exclusion of stakeholders from the > drafting groups. We weren't be able to discuss it in plenary this > morning due to lack of time. We would thus like to read this statement > this morning on behalf of the IG caucus. Any objections to that? I know, > you americans are still sleeping. Sorry... > jeanette > > Internet Governance Statement on the Decision to Exclude > Non-governmental stakeholders from Drafting Groups > > September 27, 2005 > > 0. We want to thank the chair for your personal efforts to ensure > transparency and inclusion. We also want to thank the many nations that > have supported the non-governmental organizations in our quest to fully > participate in this Prepcom. Now that it has become the practice of > some drafting groups to expel non-governmental participants, Civil > society is forced to protest > > Civil Society believes all non-governmental partners should be able to > make statements on the same basis as agreed for the subcommittees, to > remain in the room as observers for the entire session and to further > contribute at the discretion of the chair of the drafting groups. Such > procedures would put into practice the commitment to the "full > participation of all stakeholders" (e.g. Para 39.) > > 1. The decisions to exclude non-governmental stakeholders from > meaningful participation in the drafting groups are not acceptable as a > matter of principle. The WSIS and the WGIG have affirmed that governance > of the Internet must be based on real partnerships with the > participation of all stakeholders in an open, inclusive and transparent > manner. These principles are central to the Geneva documents. > > The decisions made to exclude non-governmental stakeholders from > meaningful participation in the drafting groups breaks these fundamental > conditions and undermines the legitimacy of all outcomes of the WSIS. > The sincerity of commitments made by some governments to these > principles is now open to question. > > 2. The decisions to exclude non-governmental stakeholders from the > drafting groups are not about rules and procedure, but rather a matter > of political courage and principle. In each meeting you have the choice: > to be inclusive or exclusive, to work in partnership, with transparency > and openness, or to chose not to do so. There was a great opportunity > here to move forward with all the progress we have made within the UN > and WSIS, but this has been a move backwards. > > 3. The Internet is the creation of the multi-stakeholder cooperation of > academia, civil society, governments, private sector and technologists. > There has never been a more successful multi-stakeholder partnership > than the one that has created and nurtured the Internet. Governments in > Geneva risk jeopardizing this partnership. > > 4. The WGIG process demonstrated that civil society organizations > contribute positively. Our exclusion deprives the Prepcom of valuable > knowledge, expertise and perspectives. Civil society has been, and will > continue to be, the main force for promoting capacity building and > development of the Internet in developing countries. Civil society > understands what is needed in order to continue that work, and exclusion > from the drafting groups makes it more difficult for us to continue that > work effectively. > > 5. The WSIS Plan of Action cannot be implemented by governments alone: > the active engagement of civil society actors is needed in the follow-up > stage; our exclusion today would discourage many from engaging after > Tunis and would therefore reduce the chances of effectively implementing > the ambitious Plan of Action of Geneva. > > 6. We strongly protest the decisions to exclude non-governmental > observers from the drafting groups. The Tunis declaration will be > meaningless if it is not seen as legitimate by all those involved in the > creation and evolution of the Internet, its applications, services and > content. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com T&T Music and videos online _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Sep 28 05:09:31 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 06:09:31 -0300 Subject: [governance] protest statement drafted by Avri In-Reply-To: <433A5762.5050909@wz-berlin.de> References: <433A5762.5050909@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: I agree with reading the statement this morning. We have very little time left. I talked to the head of the Brazilian delegation, he insisted this is a matter of procedure, and I was upset because there is always a margin for flexibility in these procedures (proven in practice), and because he was among the first to raise the issue in prepcom 2 and now at prepcom 3. To decide to be among the first to *explicitly* raise the issue puts Brazil in the contradictory position of being against the presence of non-governmental organizations in the discussions. The head of the delegation sensed this was a blunder, because this is not the policy Brazil practices nationally (contrary to all other countries which insist on this exclusion because they do the same within their borders), and, as Vittorio reports, later on decided to propose a more "tolerant" procedure. I asked him to drop from the Brazilian declarations any mention to "pluralist" or "multistakeholder" to be consistent with his position, he of course disagreed... --c.a. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272 - sexto andar 22270-060 Rio de Janeiro Brasil tel +55-21-2527-5494 fax +55-21-2527-5460 http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:42:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] protest statement drafted by Avri > Hi everyone, > > Avri has redrafted our statement on exclusion of stakeholders from > the > drafting groups. We weren't be able to discuss it in plenary this > morning due to lack of time. We would thus like to read this > statement > this morning on behalf of the IG caucus. Any objections to that? I > know, > you americans are still sleeping. Sorry... > jeanette > > Internet Governance Statement on the Decision to Exclude > Non-governmental stakeholders from Drafting Groups > > September 27, 2005 > > 0. We want to thank the chair for your personal efforts to ensure > transparency and inclusion. We also want to thank the many nations > that > have supported the non-governmental organizations in our quest to > fully > participate in this Prepcom. Now that it has become the practice of > some drafting groups to expel non-governmental participants, Civil > society is forced to protest > > Civil Society believes all non-governmental partners should be able > to > make statements on the same basis as agreed for the subcommittees, to > remain in the room as observers for the entire session and to further > contribute at the discretion of the chair of the drafting groups. > Such > procedures would put into practice the commitment to the “full > participation of all stakeholders” (e.g. Para 39.) > > 1. The decisions to exclude non-governmental stakeholders from > meaningful participation in the drafting groups are not acceptable as > a > matter of principle. The WSIS and the WGIG have affirmed that > governance > of the Internet must be based on real partnerships with the > participation of all stakeholders in an open, inclusive and > transparent > manner. These principles are central to the Geneva documents. > > The decisions made to exclude non-governmental stakeholders from > meaningful participation in the drafting groups breaks these > fundamental > conditions and undermines the legitimacy of all outcomes of the WSIS. > The sincerity of commitments made by some governments to these > principles is now open to question. > > 2. The decisions to exclude non-governmental stakeholders from the > drafting groups are not about rules and procedure, but rather a > matter > of political courage and principle. In each meeting you have the > choice: > to be inclusive or exclusive, to work in partnership, with > transparency > and openness, or to chose not to do so. There was a great opportunity > here to move forward with all the progress we have made within the UN > and WSIS, but this has been a move backwards. > > 3. The Internet is the creation of the multi-stakeholder cooperation > of > academia, civil society, governments, private sector and > technologists. > There has never been a more successful multi-stakeholder partnership > than the one that has created and nurtured the Internet. Governments > in > Geneva risk jeopardizing this partnership. > > 4. The WGIG process demonstrated that civil society organizations > contribute positively. Our exclusion deprives the Prepcom of valuable > knowledge, expertise and perspectives. Civil society has been, and > will > continue to be, the main force for promoting capacity building and > development of the Internet in developing countries. Civil society > understands what is needed in order to continue that work, and > exclusion > from the drafting groups makes it more difficult for us to continue > that > work effectively. > > 5. The WSIS Plan of Action cannot be implemented by governments > alone: > the active engagement of civil society actors is needed in the > follow-up > stage; our exclusion today would discourage many from engaging after > Tunis and would therefore reduce the chances of effectively > implementing > the ambitious Plan of Action of Geneva. > > 6. We strongly protest the decisions to exclude non-governmental > observers from the drafting groups. The Tunis declaration will be > meaningless if it is not seen as legitimate by all those involved in > the > creation and evolution of the Internet, its applications, services > and > content. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.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 Sep 29 05:14:19 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:14:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] What could happen this morning in subcom A Message-ID: I agree with Jeanettes observation that the EU Proposal risks to open the door for a too detailed and heavy governmental cloud over the day-to-day operations. While 64 (introduction) limits the activities to "the level of principles", the following subpoints a. to e. are an invitation to leave this level downwards. If you remember the .eu nighmare you sould be warned about the practical consequences of such an approach. If a. to e. is a bargaining chip, it is fine. Question remains, is the critical mass which is grouping behind 64, big enough to move US and China? Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann Gesendet: Do 29.09.2005 10:59 An: Vittorio Bertola Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] What could happen this morning in subcom A Hi, we might have another opportunity to speak in the next subcommittee meeting tonight. My suggestion would be to have a look at the contributions from Argentina and the EU on para 62. These contributions seem to be regarded the most relevant ones. What do others think, should we comment on these proposals? http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt14rev2.doc I had brief chat with an experienced participant this morning. He expressed his surprise about the EU proposal. Considering the fact that the EU tries to express the middle ground, their proposal is too detailed, too government-centred ("too french") and obviously not coordinated with US. "As the Austrians would say, the US did not even ignore the EU proposal." The latest compilation of comments on the chair's paper still has the first version of our statement on para 62. This is very unfortunate. We completed our new version yesterday evening because we wanted to get it included in the new compilation as distributed this morning. jeanette Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Rumours are that Khan might let delegations comment the different > proposals for section 5 (i.e. forum + oversight), then adjourn the session > and reconvene it as a drafting group on section 5, chaired by himself. If > this happens, we will be confronted with the option of sitting silently, > or trying to speak and possibly be sent out. > > In any case, Jeanette is making our statement right now, so we've spoken; > but, in light of the possibilities that these WSIS rules of procedure are > adopted also for the forum, I am wondering whether we should not set > continued precedents of exclusion, so to continue raising the issue until > we get better treatment, or confront them with the risk of civil society > (and perhaps private sector) not supporting the forum due to its > dissatisfaction with actual possibilities for participation. I do not want > to take excessive action, but this needs some careful strategic thinking > in the near future. > > Getting back to Khan, another rumour is that he might come up with his own > attempt to merge existing proposals into a common text to start > discussions. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 12:34:04 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:34:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight stmt In-Reply-To: <433BDA4E.9040407@wz-berlin.de> References: <433BDA4E.9040407@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: On 9/29/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi McTim, would you care to explain what exactly it is you cannot sign? A statement that has no hope of being accepted by the people mentioned in the statement. I can pick nits if you want, but in general it is quite well written. > > thanks, jeanette You're welcome ;-) -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Thu Sep 29 13:54:39 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:54:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] press conference In-Reply-To: <433C2645.706@wz-berlin.de> References: <433C2645.706@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <131293a2050929105437a29bd5@mail.gmail.com> Fine by me. On 9/29/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Civil society plans to organize a press conference tomorrow. The content > and themes meeting suggested that focal points for the two subcommittees > should speak on behalf of the various working groups and caucuses. > > The current agreement is to circulate a statement that reflects our > position regarding multistakeholder participation in the drafting group. > In addition to that, three people will be able to speak with the press. > Since I leave tomorrow and probably won't be able to attend the press > conference, I'd like to suggest Avri to speak on behalf of the Internet > Governance caucus. Is that ok for everybody. > > We need to give a name tomorrow morning at the plenary meeting. please a > quick response from those listening. thank you, > jeanette > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com T&T Music and videos online _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 13:54:44 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:54:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] press conference In-Reply-To: <433C2645.706@wz-berlin.de> References: <433C2645.706@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: On 9/29/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Civil society plans to organize a press conference tomorrow. The content > and themes meeting suggested that focal points for the two subcommittees > should speak on behalf of the various working groups and caucuses. > > The current agreement is to circulate a statement that reflects our > position regarding multistakeholder participation in the drafting group. > In addition to that, three people will be able to speak with the press. > Since I leave tomorrow and probably won't be able to attend the press > conference, I'd like to suggest Avri to speak on behalf of the Internet > Governance caucus. Is that ok for everybody. seconded She represents the technical community as well, which I think should be mentioned as another excluded group. -- 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 Thu Sep 29 18:30:26 2005 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:30:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] press conference In-Reply-To: <433C2645.706@wz-berlin.de> References: <433C2645.706@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <433C6B02.3030903@gmx.net> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Civil society plans to organize a press conference tomorrow. The content >and themes meeting suggested that focal points for the two subcommittees >should speak on behalf of the various working groups and caucuses. > >The current agreement is to circulate a statement that reflects our >position regarding multistakeholder participation in the drafting group. >In addition to that, three people will be able to speak with the press. >Since I leave tomorrow and probably won't be able to attend the press >conference, I'd like to suggest Avri to speak on behalf of the Internet >Governance caucus. Is that ok for everybody. > > I am happy that Avri speaks for the Internet Governance caucus. Norbert Klein _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Sep 30 03:30:05 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:30:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] press conference In-Reply-To: <433C2645.706@wz-berlin.de> References: <433C2645.706@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <3035.156.106.217.12.1128065405.squirrel@156.106.217.12> On Gio, 29 Settembre 2005 19:37, Jeanette Hofmann disse: > The current agreement is to circulate a statement that reflects our > position regarding multistakeholder participation in the drafting group. > In addition to that, three people will be able to speak with the press. > Since I leave tomorrow and probably won't be able to attend the press > conference, I'd like to suggest Avri to speak on behalf of the Internet > Governance caucus. Is that ok for everybody. Yes, absolutely. I will be sending out asap to the list an assessment of where we are - we might want to use the press to join the chorus pressuring the EU to join the "Western paper" group. (Assuming that we like it, of course, but that was the general sentiment yesterday in the room.) -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Fri Sep 30 04:10:03 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:10:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] press conference In-Reply-To: <433CEC36.2060800@wz-berlin.de> References: <433C2645.706@wz-berlin.de> <433CEC36.2060800@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <131293a20509300110g268ffe54w74df67d0a5961661@mail.gmail.com> But please, don't focus too much on capacity building, as that is just one part of the many Forum functions. On 9/30/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > McTim wrote: > > On 9/29/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > >>Civil society plans to organize a press conference tomorrow. The content > >>and themes meeting suggested that focal points for the two subcommittees > >>should speak on behalf of the various working groups and caucuses. > >> > >>The current agreement is to circulate a statement that reflects our > >>position regarding multistakeholder participation in the drafting group. > >>In addition to that, three people will be able to speak with the press. > >>Since I leave tomorrow and probably won't be able to attend the press > >>conference, I'd like to suggest Avri to speak on behalf of the Internet > >>Governance caucus. Is that ok for everybody. > > > > > > seconded > > > > She represents the technical community as well, which I think should > > be mentioned as another excluded group. > > Yes, but not the African community as I was told last night again and > again. So, please, Avri, make strong references to development and > capacity building aspects. The forum model might offer good > opportunities to do so. > jeanette > > > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > nic-hdl: TMCG > _______________________________________________ > 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Fri Sep 30 05:39:19 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:39:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Canada's proposal on IG forum - its COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE In-Reply-To: <433D0633.2000304@wz-berlin.de> References: <50674.195.186.231.20.1128066748.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <433D0633.2000304@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <131293a20509300239i6c9f1a9fhf8fc5fefc6e24732@mail.gmail.com> Is the original Canada proposal still on the table or is it superceded by the Western countries text? On 9/30/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > As I said already on the plenary list in response to Parminder, I don't > think we should overrate the missing parts of the Canadian forum > proposal. My impression was that their proposal is less thought through > that it seems. We should definitely address the important parts that are > missing, but we should do it in a friendly manner taking into account > that they support a multistakeholder approach and are probably quite > open to our suggestions re the forum's scope and function. > jeanette > > William Drake wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Parminder is right. Upon inspection, it is entirely an ICT4D proposal, > > building on programs and approaches Canada/IDRC have supported > > previously---generally useful but not at all what WGIG or CS previously > > had in mind. All capacity building for developing countries, seemingly to > > fit in to the topography of existing IG mechanisms, not dialogue, > > analysis, trend monitoring, soft law making as necessary with an eye > > toward improving them. Capacity building is of course critically > > important, but the other functions are needed. The caucus statement is > > much better that the Canadian, which makes no mention of the functions and > > foci we specified, listed below. > > > > If we get the chance to take the floor today, I hope the caucus will > > reiterate support for its own position and diplomatically note the > > comparative limitations of the Canadian one, which many parties do seem to > > be flocking toward, perhaps because it is the most detailed language from > > a government. They should read CS language too... > > > > Bill > > > > -------- > > IG Caucus List of Forum Functions > > > > > > a. inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for > > peer-level interaction where appropriate, for example in Birds of a > > Feather, working groups, study groups, plenaries, etc. > > > > b. comparative, cross-sectoral analysis of governance mechanisms, with an > > eye toward "lessons learned" and best practices that could inform > > individual and collective institutional improvements > > > > c. assessment and monitoring of horizontal issues applicable to all > > Internet governance arrangements, e.g. the promotion of transparency, > > accountability, inclusion, and other guidelines for "good governance," > > such as the WSIS principles; > > > > d. identification of weaknesses and gaps in the governance architecture, > > i.e. "orphaned" or multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly within > > the ambit of any existing body; > > > > e. identification of potential tensions between separately developed > > mechanisms, and possibly efforts to promote enhanced coordination among > > them; > > > > f. promotion of decentralized convergence among positions and initiatives, > > where possible; > > > > g. pre-decision agenda setting that could, inter alia, feed into the work > > of other bodies; > > > > h. provide a clearing house for coordination, resource mobilization, > > identification of new needs and gaps, in relation to supporting meaningful > > developing country participation and capacity building > > > > i. promote the usage of ICTs to allow remote participation in Internet > > governance processes; > > > > j. release recommendations, best practices, proposals and other documents > > on the various Internet governance issues. > > > > > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On > >>Behalf Of Parminder > >>Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 11:06 PM > >>To: plenary at wsis-cs.org > >>Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Canada's proposal on IG forum - its > >>COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Hi All, > >> > >>I am sorry to use the the already crowded plenary list to state > >>these views on > >>matters in front of sub-committee A , but I am not subscribed on > >>the IG CS > >>list and I really wanted to share this with all. > >> > >>I found a lot of enthusiasm in CS content and themes meeting on > >>the Canadian > >>proposal on the forum. Most of the support came because canadian proposal > >>seems strong on the MSP priciple. That's great, but we need the > >>'substance' > >>too - perhaps that may be more important. > >> > >>And if we look at the canadian proposal on the forum from 'substance' > >>or 'content;' angle, it is abysmal (excuse my use of strong language). > >> > >>It completely transforms the very purpose and agenda of the > >>'forum' as was > >>nicely laid out by WGIG reports points 43 to 47 - it was > >>supposed to be a > >>global IG policy deliberation space. But the canada proposal > >>makes it into a > >>capacity building body for developing countires etc- badly > >>reeking of WIPO's > >>technical assistence programs which suppose that 'they' know > >>everything and > >>the those with poor capacities (read, developing counteries)need to > >>be 'taught' what the right frameworks and concepts are. > >> > >>The canadian proposal (cut-pasted at the end of the email) opens in this > >>fashion -- > >> > >> > >>>>>We commit to establishing a new forum mechanism, dedicated to > >>>>>enhancing the > >> > >>capacity of all stakeholders, particularly those from developing > >>countries, to > >>participate fully and effectively in all forums relevant to Internet > >>governance. >>> > >> > >>Were we looking for a forum for this purpose, I thought we wanted it for > >>policy deliberation, advise, taking new issues (see WGIG report, > >>pt.s 43 to > >>47).... Capacity building is only one of the functions of the > >>forum, and it > >>comes way down on the list....... > >> > >>Why is there an attempt to cut out such needed global policy > >>spaces by subtly > >>substituting them with 'capacity building' bodies. And why should > >>the CS be in > >>a hurry to accept that - do we have such aversion to global public policy > >>deliberations and policy development. > >> > >>This is a very status quo-ist view..... Things are fine as they > >>are..... And > >>lets obfuscate and confuse substantial policy issues, since developing > >>countires in any case have poor capacities, and are liable to miss the > >>subterfuge. > >> > >>CS need not be enthused about it just because MSP principle is > >>promised - MSP > >>for what....... > >> > >>I thought CS always wanted a forum as proposed by WGIG - the > >>canadian proposal > >>is NOT about the same 'forum'. And if anyone has some doubt, see > >>the fact that > >>canada has even proposed to move the 'forum' section to the part 4 of the > >>working document. This section deals with development aspects of > >>Internet. So > >>the forum is now about building capapcity of developing countires > >>- on issues > >>already decided and firmly established..... It is about > >>development (building > >>capacities of developing countires to adopt to dominant paradigms)and not > >>about the the 'way forward' (which would put the 'forum' in part > >>5 on the 'way > >>forward'). Pl see canadian proposal below... > >> > >>In stating the above, I don't mean dis-respect for any one's > >>views. This is > >>how I see the whole thing..... I may not have followed the IG > >>debate well, And > >>I will be glad to be corrected on the issues I have put here...... > >> > >>Regards > >> > >>Parminder > >>_____________________________________________ > >> > >>Canada's proposal > >> > >>Proposed Terms of Reference for Forum on Internet Governance To > >>be inserted > >>either in section 4 (Development), or section 5 (The Way Forward) > >> > >>================ > >>NEW PARAGRAPH (# to be determined) > >> > >>We commit to establishing a new forum mechanism, dedicated to > >>enhancing the > >>capacity of all stakeholders, particularly those from developing > >>countries, to > >>participate fully and effectively in all forums relevant to Internet > >>governance. Recognizing the rapid development of technology and > >>institutions, > >>we propose that the forum mechanism periodically be reviewed to > >>determine the > >>need for its continuation. Further, we propose that it be > >>constituted as a > >>neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process chiefly to > >>facilitate the > >>exchange of information and best practices and to identify issues > >>that are not > >>otherwise being adequately addressed. > >>The forum mechanism should be viewed as a continuation of > >>the "multistakeholder" approach of the WSIS, building on the > >>valuable lessons > >>learned in the WSIS and WGIG processes, in particular I the open WGIG > >>consultations. > >> > >>We call upon all stakeholders to engage in and fully support this > >>important > >>new mechanism. The forum mechanism should be established in a > >>timely fashion > >>to: > >>. Strengthen and enhance stakeholders' engagement in existing > >>and future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly for those from > >>developing countries; > >>. Develop capacity to participate in discussions and decisions > >>on pertinent topics under consideration in relevant institutions; > >>. Encourage the full involvement and participation of all > >>stakeholders and experts engaged in Internet governance to > >>benefit from their > >>expertise, including those of the academic and scientific communities, to > >>facilitate coordination and collaboration, and to avoid duplication; > >>. Make full use of the tools of the information society to > >>conduct capacity building activities, minimizing the need for > >>conferences and > >>face-to-face meetings; and > >>. Establish ongoing electronic forums on pertinent topics and, > >>when appropriate, create a permanent on-line record for future > >>use in capacity > >>development activities, and to continue to add value over time. > >> > >> > >>- > >> > >>Parminder > >> > >>www.ITforChange.net > >>IT for Change > >>Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities > >> > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- 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 klohento at panos-ao.org Fri Sep 30 08:24:42 2005 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (klohento at panos-ao.org) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:24:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] press conference In-Reply-To: <433CEC36.2060800@wz-berlin.de> References: <433C2645.706@wz-berlin.de> <433CEC36.2060800@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <433D2E8A.5040609@panos-ao.org> >So, please, Avri, make strong references to development and >capacity building aspects. The forum model might offer good >opportunities to do so. > > Thanks for that Jeanette :-) KL >jeanette > > >>-- >>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 wdrake at cpsr.org Tue Sep 27 09:38:40 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:38:40 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] draft text on political oversight Message-ID: <62367.195.186.224.205.1127828320.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, I know things are moving very fast, we need to have texts, and people are working very hard to keep up and be prepared when we have speaking opportunities. So it may be that you have already submitted this to the secretariat, in which case I'm too late. I tried several days ago to say we need to start having a focused discussion on four oversight issues and to decide how to proceed if there was no agreement, but there was no response, everyone's too busy. Now we're here. If you have not submitted this to the secretariat, I alas would suggest that you do not. It strikes me as a very non-consensual, essentially status quo position. There are clearly people in the caucus who would in fact want to see a new oversight mechanism that includes greater government involvement in a multistakeholder setting, although specific models that respond to what's on the table now have not been advanced (IGP had a paper a month or so ago, that's the only thing that comes to mind immediately). The choice has now been framed---US on one side, developing countries on the other with their Council, and the EU seeking the middle ground, with GAC perhaps to be pulled out of ICANN and made an IGO or otherwise "evolved" into something where governments have more authority in relation to the ICANN board, and also taking on the IANA role. Arguably, none of these choices are attractive unless there's a great deal more specification of the scope of authority etc. As I said last night, I would have thought it safer to have a statement acknowledging that there are various problems at present but stating that the caucus, like the international community more generally, is divided on the best soution to these, with some favoring reform within the existing ICANN context, and others favoring a reconfiguration closer to the EU or developing country models. I suspect everyone could have lived with that. Hopefully this won't turn into a problem. I'm sorry I can't be there to help, but Markus told me yesterday that UNICT has agreed to publish the WGIG book in time for Tunis if I can get the entire manuscript to them early next week. Wasn't expecting this. So from here I'm going to have to hide out and work and listen on the web. Will see some of you at the WGIG dinner tomorrow and catch up. Best of luck, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 1:31 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] draft text on political oversight > > > Hi, Avri and I have drafted some language on political oversight. Text > should be read this afternoon. We have to submit it by 2pm. Please have > a look and let us know if we can read it on behalf of the IG caucus or > if we have to invent another stakeholder group. > jeanette > > > Political Oversight > > 62b: 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 oversight organization for domain names and IP > addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard to > ICANN: > > 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent role of > stewardship in relation to ICANN and enters into an adequate > host-country agreement for ICANN. > > 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on > its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the community > of Internet users, private sector and governments. > > 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. ICANN must establish a review process for its decisions in the form > of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission, established on a > case-by-case basis. > > 5. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government > transfers the IANA function to ICANN. > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Tue Sep 27 10:55:46 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:55:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] draft text on political oversight Message-ID: <62423.195.186.224.205.1127832946.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi Jeanette, > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de] > We had to submit by two, CPSR's listserv needed a full hour to circulate > my statement. Yes the server has been slow this morning and I wrote to the guy who maintains it. He's in San Francisco, nine hours behind, hasn't responded yet. It's possible he had to make a software tweak or something. CPSR is moving all its email to a commercial provider in the next couple of weeks so there will be 24x7 support and probably much better performance. Sorry about the bad timing, shouldn't happen again after the change over. > > I tried several days ago to say we need to start having a focused > > discussion on four oversight issues and to decide how to > proceed if there > > was no agreement, but there was no response, everyone's too busy. Now > > we're here. > > This is not true, Bill. There were many replies to your message. Just > have a look at the thread. There were two threads, one called oversight, another I tried to start with the add on, (four decision points). The latter, which posed four specific points, got about three responses. Anyway, it doesn't matter where or how, I'm just saying we haven't really made significant progress toward consensus positions on some of the difficult institutional issues and didn't want to see someone sending an outraged post hoc statement. > I can't imagine that the statement will cause problems. I didn't even > introduce myself as coordinator of the IG caucus to avoid confusion on > the status and origin of the statement. Yes I heard that, good call. But for the purpose of document submission, will we simply not do something labeled as the caucus? > Regarding your hiding plans. As far as I remember you organize a side > event on political oversight tomorrow. I suppose some of us will see you > there? :-) Yes, just didn't mention. Again, for those who are around, please do come, it might help us on the consensus dimension: The Internet Governance Oversight Function Wednesday, 28 September, 13:00-15:00 Room XVI Chairperson: William Drake, President, CPSR; Geneva (former WGIG member) Speakers: · Carlos Afonso, Director of Planning, Information Network for the Third Sector; Member, Brazil's Internet Steering Committee; Rio de Janeiro (former WGIG member) · Izumi Aizu, Deputy Director, Institute for HyperNetwork Society; Secretary, Internet Governance Task Force of Japan; Tokyo · Avri Doria, Research Consultant; member, CPSR; Providence, Rhode Island (former WGIG member) · Raul Echeberria, Executive Director/CEO, Latin America and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry; Montevideo (former WGIG member) · Jeanette Hofmann, Researcher, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung; Co-Facilitator, WSIS Internet Governance Caucus; Berlin · Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, Professor, International Communication Policy and Regulation, University of Aarhus; Aarhus (former WGIG member) _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Tue Sep 27 11:53:24 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:53:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Oversight: Are we forgetting principles? Message-ID: >>> Jeanette Hofmann 09/27/05 11:31 AM >>> >Let me start by reminding us that we are >not the only ones who are on a blind flight. The governments do very >much the same thing. Absolutely. I was talking about them as much as or more than CS. >Alas, it turned out we had to deliver already >today. To not speak at all did not sound like a good option. >So, we offered what we had. I hope I made it clear in my earlier message that I had no objection to some intervention from people in CS. That you spoke for Boell Foundation is fine with me. >You make us look like complete dilettants, which we are not, Milton. :-) ....pass the knife! No, the oversight proposal, especially the review committee part, was not well thought out. My amendments to it were just as improvised. Bret Fausett has added a good perspective on host country agreements. Lots of things to discuss here. >There is basically nothing ripe yet. This is why we find this an >interested process, don't we? Let's not push for decisions when decisions are not ripe, that's all. It's fun to rearrange organs, but the patient has to live in the end. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Wed Sep 28 04:51:31 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:51:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] protest statement drafted by Avri Message-ID: <62947.195.186.175.34.1127897491.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, Fine with at least one awake gringo... Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 10:42 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] protest statement drafted by Avri > > > Hi everyone, > > Avri has redrafted our statement on exclusion of stakeholders from the > drafting groups. We weren't be able to discuss it in plenary this > morning due to lack of time. We would thus like to read this statement > this morning on behalf of the IG caucus. Any objections to that? I know, > you americans are still sleeping. Sorry... > jeanette > > Internet Governance Statement on the Decision to Exclude > Non-governmental stakeholders from Drafting Groups > > September 27, 2005 > > 0. We want to thank the chair for your personal efforts to ensure > transparency and inclusion. We also want to thank the many nations that > have supported the non-governmental organizations in our quest to fully > participate in this Prepcom. Now that it has become the practice of > some drafting groups to expel non-governmental participants, Civil > society is forced to protest > > Civil Society believes all non-governmental partners should be able to > make statements on the same basis as agreed for the subcommittees, to > remain in the room as observers for the entire session and to further > contribute at the discretion of the chair of the drafting groups. Such > procedures would put into practice the commitment to the “full > participation of all stakeholders” (e.g. Para 39.) > > 1. The decisions to exclude non-governmental stakeholders from > meaningful participation in the drafting groups are not acceptable as a > matter of principle. The WSIS and the WGIG have affirmed that governance > of the Internet must be based on real partnerships with the > participation of all stakeholders in an open, inclusive and transparent > manner. These principles are central to the Geneva documents. > > The decisions made to exclude non-governmental stakeholders from > meaningful participation in the drafting groups breaks these fundamental > conditions and undermines the legitimacy of all outcomes of the WSIS. > The sincerity of commitments made by some governments to these > principles is now open to question. > > 2. The decisions to exclude non-governmental stakeholders from the > drafting groups are not about rules and procedure, but rather a matter > of political courage and principle. In each meeting you have the choice: > to be inclusive or exclusive, to work in partnership, with transparency > and openness, or to chose not to do so. There was a great opportunity > here to move forward with all the progress we have made within the UN > and WSIS, but this has been a move backwards. > > 3. The Internet is the creation of the multi-stakeholder cooperation of > academia, civil society, governments, private sector and technologists. > There has never been a more successful multi-stakeholder partnership > than the one that has created and nurtured the Internet. Governments in > Geneva risk jeopardizing this partnership. > > 4. The WGIG process demonstrated that civil society organizations > contribute positively. Our exclusion deprives the Prepcom of valuable > knowledge, expertise and perspectives. Civil society has been, and will > continue to be, the main force for promoting capacity building and > development of the Internet in developing countries. Civil society > understands what is needed in order to continue that work, and exclusion > from the drafting groups makes it more difficult for us to continue that > work effectively. > > 5. The WSIS Plan of Action cannot be implemented by governments alone: > the active engagement of civil society actors is needed in the follow-up > stage; our exclusion today would discourage many from engaging after > Tunis and would therefore reduce the chances of effectively implementing > the ambitious Plan of Action of Geneva. > > 6. We strongly protest the decisions to exclude non-governmental > observers from the drafting groups. The Tunis declaration will be > meaningless if it is not seen as legitimate by all those involved in the > creation and evolution of the Internet, its applications, services and > content. > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Thu Sep 22 09:58:25 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:58:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] Sept 22 / IG subcomittee (A) excutive summary In-Reply-To: <003401c5bf7c$5c9bee20$1bd96a9c@jgsnotebook> References: <003401c5bf7c$5c9bee20$1bd96a9c@jgsnotebook> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050922225625.0a318640@211.125.95.185> Many thanks Jeremy and others at SubcomA from Civil society reporting about the ongoing debate. Since I plan to come to PrepCom3 from next Monday till the end, these reports provide very valuable reference that help me understand the context and better prepared. Please keep on your good work, and see you all soon! izumi At 09:48 05/09/22 -0400, Jeremy Shtern wrote: >Hi Michael and others who may not want to read 11 pages of scrambled >notes in UN speak, > >Here is a quick and dirty executive summary of this (Thurs) AM's >Subcommittee A meeting on Internet governance; > >-they discussed the items described in the chair's document in general >terms. >- decided that drafting groups will be formed to work on getting >language on specific issues >- these groups will be limited number to accommodate smaller delegations >- stakeholders (NGOs, CS and PS) role in them is still open: will either >be A) closed completely (Brazil, Iran China etc) ; B) allowed in as >observers only with some speaking rights (Singapore, el Salvador etc); >C) allowed full participation in negotiations (US, most strongly). This >was to be decided right away through a consultation co-ordinated by >Singapore and el Salvador. Singapore came back and said that it was >agreed upon that it will be alright to allow stakeholders to attend at >the outset, they will be invited to present statements. Thereafter there >is unresolved tension between 2 views: >1). That they would then be asked to leave, negotiation would occur >without stakeholders in the room >2). Instead be allowed to remain in the room to observe with no right to >speak. > >- the consultation will continue and results will be announced first >thing tomorrow on the status of stakeholder (CS, International NGOs, PS) >participation in the draft groups/ negotiation >- The chair will diffuse a nondocument for discussion to serve as the >basis for the negotiation over language. It is different from the >document that he put out today, but has not been seen but is believed to >be based on the WGIG report, his initial chair non document and the >comments received on both. It is a non status document. >- Tomorrow, the chair will announce what the status of stakeholders is >in the drafting groups, diffuse his nonpaper and give the marching >orders on these drafting groups (number, theme, schedule, deliverables >etc). > >Hope that helps a little. > > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >=-=-= >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 > >Universit$Bq(Bde Montr$BqB(Bl >d$BqQ(Bartement 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 Gurstein, >Michael >Sent: September 22, 2005 8:24 AM >To: Robert Guerra; Izumi AIZU >Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org >Subject: [not_spam] Re: [governance] Sept 22 / Morning subcomittee notes > > >Robert and all, > >Thanks very very much for the on-going notes (they give a strong sense >of the process) but it would help a lot for those of us following at a >distance if we could have an occasional "wrap-up" of the current state >of play (sorry for the on-going tv sports metaphors), but what we are >getting through the lists is a play by play and some of the internal >strategic discussions and banter, but there isn't much stepping back and >giving one a sense of either the current score or overall what is >happening with the game, the league standings, the drive for the >Championship Cup etc.etc.... > >This may not matter much as the game is being played out on the ground, >but this approach certainly doesn't build a strong (or informed) base of >supporters. > >MG > >-----Original Message----- >From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra >Sent: September 22, 2005 2:12 PM >To: Izumi AIZU >Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Sept 22 / Morning subcomittee notes > > >My complete notes are on my blog @ > > > > > > >On 22-Sep-05, at 1:15 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > OK, the webcast came back now. I missed the first portion > > of Chair's summary, but so Singapore and El Salvador will report back > > tomorrow morning, right? > > >yes. they will report back in the morning with what consensus (if >any) they can come up with. > > > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Tue Sep 27 06:51:57 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:51:57 +0900 Subject: [governance] CS positon 1230? In-Reply-To: <001f01c5c34e$7fd702f0$9fe16a9c@jgsnotebook> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050927175950.0795d740@211.125.95.185> <001f01c5c34e$7fd702f0$9fe16a9c@jgsnotebook> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050927194904.07da2eb0@211.125.95.185> Now, Adam, sitting next to me, is reading the text Jeannette and Avir compiled taking comments on this list, from CS IG caucus. This is interesting, in addition to the first 5 min slot, the Chair is flexible enought to allow more intervention closer to the points as they negotiate. izumi At 06:30 05/09/27 -0400, Jeremy Shtern wrote: >Immediately on returning from break at 1230, the chair just asked if CS >had a position or input on the forum function. No one answered, so he >moved on to government. > >I send this message in case the IG cacus had comments to make but is not >currently in the room. I can't see who is or isn't in the lower deck >from where I am sitting. >-JS >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >=-=-= >Jeremy Shtern, > >candidat doctoral et chercheur au Laboratoire de Recherche sur les >Politiques de Communication/ >Ph.D candidate & researcher at the Communications Policy Research >Laboratory > >Universit$Bq(Bde Montr$BqB(Bl >d$BqQ(Bartement 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 Izumi AIZU >Sent: September 27, 2005 5:08 AM >To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: [not_spam] Re: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments at >plenary - Sept 27 AM > >I also think while waiting for the decision of our participation in >drafting >groups, we are already losing the opportunites for almost two days. > >Just sitting inside the drafting group room quietly is better than >kicking >out, but for that we cannot make any substantive comments but just >being there watching governments going ahead for the negotiation. > >I think we should put equal amount of energy for making subtantive >comments, especially as they approach to the core issues of oversight >and forum we should really make our own position clear to them >in time, not after. > >Let us first discuss about that this afternoon at the IG caucus >meeting in Geneva, and welcome all online comments for that. > >Thanks, > >izumi > >At 17:52 05/09/27 +0900, Adam Peake 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! > >_______________________________________ > > > >I read some text this morning. As the CS plenary decided that we > >should not present the draft discussed in content and themes and > >various CS lists, we dropped that text for now. What I think I said > >(pretty on the fly) was: > > > >Good morning Mr. Chair > > > >Thank you for your personal efforts to ensure transparency and > >inclusion, your efforts since the publication of the WGIG report are > >much appreciated. > > > >However, Civil Society is disappointed that we will not be able to > >participate fully in the drafting groups. And that the rules and > >procedures for this prepcom now seem unclear to all. > > > >Could you explain the situation regarding drafting groups? > > > >We note your new compilation document of comments received, and are > >pleased to see that some civil society comments have been included. > >But also note some have not been included. For example last Friday > >we made comments about 43c. These comments were also mentioned by a > >government in sub committee yesterday. But they are not mentioned > >in your new document, nor were they mentioned during the drafting > >group meeting that discussed 43 yesterday. Did we have rights to > >speak in that drafting group? Could we have reminded the group that > >we had already submitted comments and those comments were already on > >the prepcom3 website. > > > >I think you can understand our confusion. Can we join and speak in > >drafting groups? Are our comments made to sub-committee A being > >taken into consideration? > > > >We would appreciate clarity on this. We were expecting some > >resolution yesterday. > > > >Thank you. > > > >END. > > > >Izumi has sent some notes with the chair's response you should > >already have seen. > > > >I think bad precedence is being set. Above was read in my name and > >that of GLOCOM and on behalf of the IG caucus so is my > >responsibility, I thought something had to be said. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Adam > >_______________________________________________ > >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 -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Tue Sep 27 20:09:27 2005 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:09:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] A Host Country Agreement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I was attempting to distinguish from entities like the UN which have a treaty behind them. If there is a treaty, which (as you note) there is in the case of the R.C., then that leads neatly and routinely to a HQ agreement if the treaty contemplates a secretariat. Maybe I've become overly legalistic, but this seems to me to be a fundamental difference from the (current) ICANN case.... On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > Dear Bret and Michael, > > > > The Red Cross (ICRC) is possible precedance. The ICRC was established as > private entity under the Swiss Civil Code. Its' international juridical > status (including immunities) is based on the Headquareters Agreement > between the ICRS and Switzerland. Apart from the similarities there is one > important difference. The ICRC's mandate is based on the Geneva Conventions > for the protection of prisioners of war, etc. By analogy ICANN+ should have > complete or part of its mandate (GAC) anchored in international law. > International legal basis could be developed through one of the following > options: > > > > - international framework convention > > - US government unilateral declaration (civil society/Milton's proposal) > > - instant customary law (US government practice of non-intervention in > running DNS-system) strenghten by soft law declaration > > > > > > I agree that "privileged status" is not the most favourable setting for the > promotion of transparency and efficiency. However - based on the current IG > debate - any IG institutional arrangement (Forum, ICANN+, ?) will be > cearefully controlled by various stakeholders. > > > > Jovan > > -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's @#$% hot here.<-- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Wed Sep 21 09:50:20 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:50:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] update from subcomittee In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050921123912.04f5d9c0@pop.gn.apc.org> References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050921123912.04f5d9c0@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <0CCBC236-7629-4A80-A0EA-FDA9D4F060DD@lists.privaterra.org> yup. no working groups have yet been created. at least not today. perhaps tomorrow... regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 21-Sep-05, at 1:39 PM, karen banks wrote: > robert > > do you mean a drafting/working group > > karen > > At 11:38 21/09/2005, Robert Guerra wrote: > >> from room... >> >> it seems that the subcommittes will be formed this afternoon. no >> details have been mentioned yet. stay tunded. >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Tue Sep 27 08:50:50 2005 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (klohento at panos-ao.org) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:50:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Af Caucus contributions on some documents / contributions sur quelques documents In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050927115413.05532910@pop.gn.apc.org> References: <433843AB.5040601@panos-ao.org> <6.2.0.14.0.20050927100903.0548b840@pop.gn.apc.org> <6.2.0.14.0.20050927115413.05532910@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <4339402A.60209@panos-ao.org> Well...we didn't discuss that...You can use my organization Panos Institute West Africa..or DAPSI.. (Diaspora Africaine pour la Société de l'Information). The two are accredited. KL karen banks a écrit : > dear ken > > I need the name of an accredited organisation to submit on behalf of > the African Caucus > > please let me know urgently.. > > karen > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Sep 28 11:04:41 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:04:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Nomination: APC/Anriette Esterhuysen In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928153110.04c18930@pop.gn.apc.org> References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928153110.04c18930@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: i endorse the nomination as well. a. On 28 sep 2005, at 16.34, karen banks wrote: > dear internet governance caucus list > > I would like to nominate Anriette Esterhuysen, APC's Executive > Director, as > a speaker for the Summit. > > I would like to have the IG caucuses support for the nomination > (though we > can probably try to nominate through other caucuses also). > > Many of you know anriette, she is a powerful speaker, always > provocative > and insightful and greatly respected in the broad ICTD community > generally, > and specifically in africa. > > I will try to find a cv also. > > karen > ps.. i think we should ask the CSB to get an extension on this process > until at least friday no? > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.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 Sep 28 11:13:15 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:13:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Nomination: APC/Anriette Esterhuysen In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928153110.04c18930@pop.gn.apc.org> References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928153110.04c18930@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <433AB30B.6040907@wz-berlin.de> I second this nomination. In fact, I am very glad that Anriette is willing to do this. jeanette karen banks wrote: > dear internet governance caucus list > > I would like to nominate Anriette Esterhuysen, APC's Executive Director, as > a speaker for the Summit. > > I would like to have the IG caucuses support for the nomination (though we > can probably try to nominate through other caucuses also). > > Many of you know anriette, she is a powerful speaker, always provocative > and insightful and greatly respected in the broad ICTD community generally, > and specifically in africa. > > I will try to find a cv also. > > karen > ps.. i think we should ask the CSB to get an extension on this process > until at least friday no? > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Wed Sep 28 13:26:17 2005 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (klohento at panos-ao.org) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:26:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] Updated version of oversight stmt. In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928180035.0484f420@pop.gn.apc.org> References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928180035.0484f420@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <433AD239.1080603@panos-ao.org> Dear all: It seems to me, there is no reference to developing countries in the statement, and since in my opinion developing countries don't have *enough* opportunities to be participate in ICANN body and governance mechanisms, I propose (in line with the African Caucus statement) that a small addition is made to point 2 (in capital letters) which could read : please edit the English if needed. 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on its Board[add,] and throughout its organizational structure[add:s,] 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 DEVELOVING COUNTRIES PARTICIPATION. Ken Lohento karen banks a écrit : >thanks avri > >changes in [] > >karen >----- > >Political Oversight > >62b: 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 [add:with]in 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[add,] and throughout its organizational structure[add:s,] of the >community >of Internet users, national governments, civil society, the technical >community, >business associations, non profit organizations and non-business >organizations. > >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[add:,] must be >required to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through >international treaties in regard to, inter alia, human rights treaties, >privacy rights, and trade rules. > >karenb: not that important, but wonder if we should break 6. into two paras >- one on compliance, one on right to invoke binding appeals process - also, >a long para and easier to read if broken up > >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. > >7. Once all of the above conditions are met, the US Government >shall transfer the IANA function to ICANN. > >8. It is expected that the International multistakeholder community >will take part in the process through participation in the ICANN process. >It is also expected that the multistakeholder community will observe and >comment on the progress made in this process through the proposed Forum. > > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.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 Sep 28 13:31:35 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:31:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Nomination: APC/Anriette Esterhuysen In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928153110.04c18930@pop.gn.apc.org> References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928153110.04c18930@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <3044.156.106.225.194.1127928695.squirrel@156.106.225.194> Support the nomination, support the request for extension, think that, if we can get Anriette nominated elsewhere, perhaps we should use our slot (assuming that it works by caucus slots, I must confess I didn't understand the process in the end) to nominate some "Internet people": it would be odd to have a Summit in which the hot issue will be Internet governance, and not to have any civil society speaker from the Internet community (either one of us, or a well-known Internet guru that we might find fit to the purpose). -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... On Mer, 28 Settembre 2005 16:34, karen banks disse: > dear internet governance caucus list > > I would like to nominate Anriette Esterhuysen, APC's Executive Director, > as > a speaker for the Summit. > > I would like to have the IG caucuses support for the nomination (though we > can probably try to nominate through other caucuses also). > > Many of you know anriette, she is a powerful speaker, always provocative > and insightful and greatly respected in the broad ICTD community > generally, > and specifically in africa. > > I will try to find a cv also. > > karen > ps.. i think we should ask the CSB to get an extension on this process > until at least friday no? > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.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 Sep 28 13:38:34 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:38:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] CLARIFICATION?: Drafting groups' meetings today In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928113505.058b8bb0@pop.gn.apc.org> References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928113505.058b8bb0@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <3054.156.106.225.194.1127929114.squirrel@156.106.225.194> On Mer, 28 Settembre 2005 12:36, karen banks disse: > can you clarify (or do you know) - no drafting groups on para 62? - > forum/oversight? Don't know if anyone replied - I can only read my email twice a day or so... - but there are no drafting groups yet on section 5 (62-65). I imagine that, now that proposals have arrived on the missing paras, the Chair might create one later this evening, or try to sort out differences in bilateral meetings, or give up and announce PrepCom 3B... no, just kidding (for the moment) :-) -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Sep 29 05:50:29 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:50:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] APC text on Forum function In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050929103335.0602a710@pop.gn.apc.org> References: <3042.156.106.225.194.1127982958.squirrel@156.106.225.194> <433BACFB.4070604@wz-berlin.de> <6.2.0.14.0.20050929103335.0602a710@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <3058.156.106.225.194.1127987429.squirrel@156.106.225.194> On Gio, 29 Settembre 2005 11:35, karen banks disse: > Establish transparent membership criteria that is consistent with: > > - The Geneva Principles on participation from multiple stakeholder groups > (paragraph 48 of the WSIS Declaration of Principles) > > - The technical, legal, public policy and other areas of expertise > required > to respond to the range of issues related to the BROAD definition of > internet governance > > - Regional and linguistic diversity and the disparities that exist in > relation to economic development and access to the information society, > within countries and between countries > > Convene a public nomination process that is open to: > > - Governments > - Business entities > - The technical community > - Academic and educational institutions > - Civil society organizations > - Community based organizations and grassroots communities Sorry, you know that I'm picky on this, but: why not individuals? The Internet has grown through policy and standards making processes that were open to anyone showing up (either physically or electronically), without asking for an organizational accreditation; the Internet community is very keen on keeping this principle. Also, we are trying the accreditation way at ICANN... with, honestly, unsatisfying results. Why don't we/you simply say that the forum and its processes should be open to anyone who wants to participate in any capacity? -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Fri Sep 30 06:05:33 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 19:05:33 +0900 Subject: [governance] CORRECTION: Today's IG Caucus meeting 1:30 pm - 2:30pm @E1058 In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050930105129.047addd0@pop.gn.apc.org> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050930165743.08c33d50@211.125.95.185> <6.2.0.14.0.20050930105129.047addd0@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050930190312.0acba850@211.125.95.185> NO, It will be E1058, I spoke with Phillip and other lady this morning during CS plenary face to face and they clearly told me that this is not the same room as we had before. E3056/58 has been reserved for the whole two weeks from 14:30 to 16:30, but NOT for other time, that is why we need to change the room. Unless, Karen, you made another change this remains to be E1058. Sorry for the confusion. izumi At 10:53 05/09/30 +0100, karen banks wrote: >hi izumi > >Room E3056/58 - behind room XX (not room E1058, which i'm sure was a typo ;) > >and, i heard that subcom will meet from 3-6 and plenary will reconvene at >7pm.. > >any confirmation? (ccing congo staff who seemed to know) > >karen > >At 08:57 30/09/2005, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >Internet Governance Caucus will meet this afternoon, > >1:30 - 2:30 pm, at Room E1058. > > > >We need to "wrap up" this PrepCom3 activities and discuss, > >if possible and necesarry, about the next course of actions > >to Tunis. > > > >Of course, the final plenary will begin from 3 pm and it is > >unlikely for them to reach any tangible conclusion today, > >we may not have clear sense of direction this afternoon, > >but let's see. > > > >izumi > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >governance mailing list > >governance at lists.cpsr.org > >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Tue Sep 27 10:23:50 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:23:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Forum Function: statement read and support Message-ID: This statement is quite good. I support it. I suspect other IGP partners will also. My only warning is to recall the sage who said, "be careful what you ask for - you might get it." I can just begin to feel the sweat and blather that would accompany the creation of the Forum and subsequent jockeying to control it. >>> karen banks 09/27/05 7:18 AM >>> dear all We had an opportunity to input on the forum function this morning in sub-committee - with insufficient time to prepare/consult. Avri and jeanette drafted a statement based on the CS response to the WGIG report and comments posted in the governance list this past week, but there were some changes based on based on a discussion this morning based on: - UN secretary general initiating the free standing organisation - toning down on the language about treaties As we clearly don't have consensus on this, but had to make the most of the opportunity, the statement was read by adam, submitted by GLOCOM, but not on behalf of the caucus. We will need to discuss this at the meeting this afternoon 2.30 - room e3056/58 to see if there is broader support for the statement the text follows.. karen, avri, jeanette Adam Peake, GLOCOM, Sub-Committee A, 10:00-1300 session, Sep 27 We also recognize that while some policy issues are dealt with in the existing institutional structure there is a lack of space in particular for cross cutting issues. There is no global-mulit-stakeholder forum to address Internet-related public policy issues. We recommend the UN SG to initiate a forum that incorporates the Geneva principles for significant multi-stakeholder participation. We recommend that the forum not be anchored in any existing specialized international organization, but rather be organized as a legally free-standing entity Stakeholders from all sectors must be able to participate in such a forum as peers. We recommend that the forum provides the following functions: a. inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for peer-level interaction. b. comparative, cross-sectoral analysis of governance mechanisms, with an eye toward "lessons learned" and best practices that could inform individual and collective institutional improvements c. assessment and monitoring of horizontal issues applicable to all Internet governance arrangements, e.g. the promotion of transparency, accountability, inclusion, and other guidelines for "good governance," such as the WSIS principles; d. identification of weaknesses and gaps in existing governance mechanisms, especially multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly within the scope of any existing body; e. efforts to promote enhanced coordination among existing governing bodies f. provide a clearing house for coordination and resource mobilization to supporting meaningful developing country participation and capacity building; g. release recommendations, best practices, proposals and other documents on the various Internet governance issues. We recommend that operations are designed in such a way that physical attendance is not strictly required and disadvantaged stakeholders (developing countries, civil society organizations, individuals) are proactively supported. We recommend the forum have clear organization and decision-making procedures. It is also important that the structure that will be given to the forum is able to produce practical results. The forum will not have a mandate to negotiate hard instruments like treaties or contracts. However, in very exceptional circumstances when all stakeholders agree that more formal arrangements are desirable, the forum could request an appropriate international organization to negotiate such instruments. The forum focuses on the development of soft law instruments such as recommendations, guidelines, declarations, etc. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.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 Sep 28 11:59:34 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:59:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight stmt Message-ID: >>> karen banks 09/28/05 11:40 AM >>> >karenb: I would like rikke to take a look at the above if possible (am >ccing) - do we need to refer to the cybercrime treaty? is is not an >international treaty (not yet anyway) and the less said about it the better I agree with this. I was referring to cybercrime treaties generically not THE Cybercime Convention of CoE, but would not care about losing any reference to it to avoid confusion. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Wed Sep 28 13:36:16 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:36:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Nomination: APC/Anriette Esterhuysen Message-ID: Having observed the WSIS and WGIG processes for several years now, I have been progressively impressed with the role played by APC and its staff/leadership. Therefore I think this nomination of Anriette is very appropriate and I support it. I emphasize the organizational element of the nomination not just the personal, because I believe there is a level of accountability and responsiveness that the organizational framework brings to the table. There are many other good individuals, of course. >>> Jeanette Hofmann 09/28/05 11:13 AM >>> I second this nomination. In fact, I am very glad that Anriette is willing to do this. jeanette karen banks wrote: > dear internet governance caucus list > > I would like to nominate Anriette Esterhuysen, APC's Executive Director, as > a speaker for the Summit. > > I would like to have the IG caucuses support for the nomination (though we > can probably try to nominate through other caucuses also). > > Many of you know anriette, she is a powerful speaker, always provocative > and insightful and greatly respected in the broad ICTD community generally, > and specifically in africa. > > I will try to find a cv also. > > karen > ps.. i think we should ask the CSB to get an extension on this process > until at least friday no? > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.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 Wed Sep 28 15:14:29 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:14:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Updated version of oversight stmt. Message-ID: Right, Bill, my point is precisely that - we cannot "cherry pick" policy. What we are doing here is telling governments that they have to actually HAVE a policy before they can control any aspects of what ICANN does. That way, we limit the potential for abuse and arbitrariness. Otherwise, you get the arbitrary interventions accompanied by the declaration, "this is a public policy issue." and of course, ANYTHING important or controversial can be declared a "public policy issue." And further, in most cases, I believe that consensus international agreements provide some important protections regarding basic human rights. Most trade rules in their general formulations re: telecom policy are progressive, e.g., they would stop ICANN from discriminating on the basis of national origin when it controls entry into markets, they would favor competition over monopoly, etc. As for WIPO rules, sure, some of them are bad. But that battle has to be fought in WIPO and in national legislatures. It is unrealistic - indeed, an absurd fantasy - to think that if ICANN is exempted from international law that it will do what we want it to do and that suddenly, IPR interests will be weakened relative to us. I've been in ICANN longer than most if not all of you. I know better than that. WIPO would like to get ICANN to create new rights in names for international organizations and impose them through its control of the DNS, for example. Under my idea, it would have to get a new international treaty negotiated and ratified to do that. Which is harder? >>> karen banks 09/28/05 2:03 PM >>> hi > 6. ICANN's decisions, and any host country agreement[add:,] must be > required to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through > international treaties in regard to, inter alia, human rights treaties, > privacy rights, and trade rules. bill said: [COMMENT: I UNDERSTAND MILTON'S THINKING, BUT WE CANNOT CHERRY PICK POLICY FRAMEWORKS WE LIKE, E.G. HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTIONS; INTER ALIA ENTAILS MUCH MORE. MANY OF ICT POLICY REGIMES ARE DEEPLY PROBLEMATIC. WHY NOT SAY WIPO'S RULES, WHICH ARE FREQUENTLY A PUBLIC INTEREST DISASTER, AND ARE PERHAPS ABOUT TO GET WORSE WITH THE WEBCASTING TREATY? WHY NOT THE ITU'S INTERNATIONAL TELECOM CONVENTION? EQUALLY THE ITU'S INTERNATIONAL TELECOM REGULATIONS, WHICH MANY MEMBER STATES WANT TO RENEGOTIATE SOON, INTER ALIA TO ENCOMPASS THE INTERNET, VOIP, ETC? HOW ABOUT THE CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATING COE TREATY? ONE COULD GO ON. THIS IS A CAN OF WORMS, NO?] yes - this was my concern re mentiong the cybercrime treaty (and trade rules for that matter) - but i guess the point here is about ICANN internationlising and needing to be accountable - i would imagine the HR caucus would like very much to see something which ensures accountability to international HR frameworks. I am going to see rikke now and will ask her about this.. (she hasn't responded to this thread yet) 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 karenb at gn.apc.org Tue Sep 27 05:09:15 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:09:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Af Caucus contributions on some documents / contributions sur quelques documents In-Reply-To: <433843AB.5040601@panos-ao.org> References: <433843AB.5040601@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050927100903.0548b840@pop.gn.apc.org> thanks ken shall incorporate into document karen At 19:53 26/09/2005, klohento at panos-ao.org wrote: >Dear all/ Salut tous > >I'm sending you on behalf of the group two documents on which many people >have worked on: >- one is a document prepared jointly by the African Caucus and the >Education and Research Caucus on multilingualism and education; in French >only, sorry. It will be read by Cisse Kane in the coming minutes, to the >Subcommittee A plenary (works on Internet Governance) Thanks to Alex >Corenthin (among others). >- the second is a comment of the African Caucus on the last internet >governance document being presently discussed. This contribution was >presented to the Civil Society Caucus on Internet Governance today and >took into account some of the recommendations made; this document will be >presented by Emmanuel Njenga to the subcommittee A plenary in some >minutes. We took into account comments made by Mawaki and Anriette. > > >We still have to prepare our contribution on internet governance >mechanisms and follow-up. > > >Thanks all > >Best _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Tue Sep 27 06:54:46 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:54:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: Af Caucus contributions on some documents / contributions sur quelques documents In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050927100903.0548b840@pop.gn.apc.org> References: <433843AB.5040601@panos-ao.org> <6.2.0.14.0.20050927100903.0548b840@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050927115413.05532910@pop.gn.apc.org> dear ken I need the name of an accredited organisation to submit on behalf of the African Caucus please let me know urgently.. karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Sep 28 13:35:46 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:35:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Updated version of oversight stmt. In-Reply-To: <433AD239.1080603@panos-ao.org> References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928180035.0484f420@pop.gn.apc.org> <433AD239.1080603@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: <3052.156.106.225.194.1127928946.squirrel@156.106.225.194> If we still have time to edit this (but, given developments, we need to give a statement by tomorrow morning at last), I am willing to support this addition, but I would then also mention civil society and Internet users, not just developing countries. In the end, we're the only advocates for civil society, while developing country governments are already very vocal about participation from the South. In general, I think I can live with almost whatever version of the statement and with the last one in particular, the important thing is that we make our points. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... On Mer, 28 Settembre 2005 19:26, klohento at panos-ao.org disse: > Dear all: > > It seems to me, there is no reference to developing countries in the > statement, and since in my opinion developing countries don't have > *enough* opportunities to be participate in ICANN body and governance > mechanisms, I propose (in line with the African Caucus statement) that a > small addition is made to point 2 (in capital letters) which could read > : please edit the English if needed. > > 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on > its Board[add,] and throughout its organizational structure[add:s,] 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 DEVELOVING COUNTRIES > PARTICIPATION. > > Ken Lohento > > karen banks a écrit : > >>thanks avri >> >>changes in [] >> >>karen >>----- >> >>Political Oversight >> >>62b: 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 [add:with]in 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[add,] and throughout its organizational structure[add:s,] of >> the >>community >>of Internet users, national governments, civil society, the technical >>community, >>business associations, non profit organizations and non-business >>organizations. >> >>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[add:,] must be >>required to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through >>international treaties in regard to, inter alia, human rights treaties, >>privacy rights, and trade rules. >> >>karenb: not that important, but wonder if we should break 6. into two >> paras >>- one on compliance, one on right to invoke binding appeals process - >> also, >>a long para and easier to read if broken up >> >>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. >> >>7. Once all of the above conditions are met, the US Government >>shall transfer the IANA function to ICANN. >> >>8. It is expected that the International multistakeholder community >>will take part in the process through participation in the ICANN process. >>It is also expected that the multistakeholder community will observe and >>comment on the progress made in this process through the proposed Forum. >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>governance mailing list >>governance at lists.cpsr.org >>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Wed Sep 28 13:37:55 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:37:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] Updated version of oversight stmt. In-Reply-To: <433AD239.1080603@panos-ao.org> References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928180035.0484f420@pop.gn.apc.org> <433AD239.1080603@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050929023653.0b0c36d0@211.125.95.185> I think this is a good suggestion and I support the inclusion of this, details can be modified if necesarry. izumi At 19:26 05/09/28 +0200, klohento at panos-ao.org wrote: >Dear all: > >It seems to me, there is no reference to developing countries in the >statement, and since in my opinion developing countries don't have >*enough* opportunities to be participate in ICANN body and governance >mechanisms, I propose (in line with the African Caucus statement) that a >small addition is made to point 2 (in capital letters) which could read >: please edit the English if needed. > >2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on >its Board[add,] and throughout its organizational structure[add:s,] 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 DEVELOVING >COUNTRIES PARTICIPATION. > >Ken Lohento > >karen banks a 馗rit : _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Wed Sep 28 13:56:37 2005 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:56:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Updated version of oversight stmt. In-Reply-To: <433AD239.1080603@panos-ao.org> References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928180035.0484f420@pop.gn.apc.org> <433AD239.1080603@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: while I happen to agree with the sentiment, there are many other groups pushing for this and it's going to happen what's less obviously going to happen is representation of individual users and civil society groups... On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, klohento at panos-ao.org wrote: > Dear all: > > It seems to me, there is no reference to developing countries in the > statement, and since in my opinion developing countries don't have > *enough* opportunities to be participate in ICANN body and governance > mechanisms, I propose (in line with the African Caucus statement) that a > small addition is made to point 2 (in capital letters) which could read > : please edit the English if needed. > > 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on > its Board[add,] and throughout its organizational structure[add:s,] 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 DEVELOVING COUNTRIES PARTICIPATION. > > Ken Lohento > > karen banks a écrit : > >> thanks avri >> >> changes in [] >> >> karen >> ----- >> >> Political Oversight >> >> 62b: 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 [add:with]in 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[add,] and throughout its organizational structure[add:s,] of the >> community >> of Internet users, national governments, civil society, the technical >> community, >> business associations, non profit organizations and non-business >> organizations. >> >> 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[add:,] must be >> required to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through >> international treaties in regard to, inter alia, human rights treaties, >> privacy rights, and trade rules. >> >> karenb: not that important, but wonder if we should break 6. into two paras >> - one on compliance, one on right to invoke binding appeals process - also, >> a long para and easier to read if broken up >> >> 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. >> >> 7. Once all of the above conditions are met, the US Government >> shall transfer the IANA function to ICANN. >> >> 8. It is expected that the International multistakeholder community >> will take part in the process through participation in the ICANN process. >> It is also expected that the multistakeholder community will observe and >> comment on the progress made in this process through the proposed Forum. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.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 @#$% hot here.<-- -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Sep 21 03:56:04 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:56:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Today's Subcommittee A meeting In-Reply-To: <20050920200755.YCQK1251.morpheus1.pacific.net.sg@LAINATABLET> References: <20050920200755.YCQK1251.morpheus1.pacific.net.sg@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: <43311214.40602@wz-berlin.de> Hi Laina, I guess you covered it quite well. Civil society structures follows that of the prepcom. Since the work on the final documents for Tunis are now structured along two subcommittees (A for Internet Governance, B for "follow up"), the Internet Governance has become a channel for all input relating to the scope of subcommittee A. The IG caucus meets every day at 2.30 pm in room E 3056 on the third floor. We are now in the stage where we begin to collect concrete language from the various caucuses, which are to be included in our own draft. We want to contribute our statement on Friday afternoon to ensure that it will be taken into consideration by the governments' drafting group. (Not sure I mentioned this, Amb Khan has not appointed a drafting group yet. Some people expect this to happen towards the weekend.) jeanette Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > > Thanks Jeanette for that detailed input on the proceedings of this morning > and for all that great work. > > I was wondering if you may also wish to explain to this group, the "new > working methods" as decided by the content and themes plenary. You did touch > upon this at the end of your mail, but perhaps reiterating it could ensure > everyone is on the same page. From what I understand, the idea is to mirror > the workings of the governmental discussions, i.e. now the Internet > Governance caucus has become sort of the Subcommittee A working group for > civil society inputs coordinated by you, and there is a new caucus for > Subcomittee B, which Betrand de La Chapelle is coordinating. > > The idea from what I understood it, is an attempt to get a more organised > effort from civil society to make a better impact on this PrepCom 3 process. > Thanks Jeanette and Adam for clarifying how the various caucuses can > participate in IG caucus verbally and for distributing the IG Caucus inputs > to the WGIG process to be used as a basis for further discussion. I also > believe the consistent time slot 2.30pm to 4.30pm in a consistent room, Room > E3056/58, combined with this mailing list will keep the process transparent, > efficient and effective for many of us new comers. > > Perhaps you or Adam may wish to further clarify to others, since many may > not have been in the room either last night or tonight or are even here in > Geneva for that matter. > > Best Regards, > Laina Raveendran Greene > Values and Ethics Caucus member > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 10:31 AM > To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Today's Subcommittee A meeting > > Hi, > > as I just learned from Rik, I am supposed to give an overview on the meeting > of Subcommittee A. While I took some notes, they are not half as systematic > as those Rik provided on yesterday's plenary meeting. > Frankly, I would be more sorry about this if anything of great relevance had > happened in this meeting. > Today's meeting was devoted to general comments on the WGIG report. The > governments spoke for a bit more than two hours. None of the statements was > surprising. Most governments reiterated what they have said all along. The > perhaps nicest statement came from Norway. While the delegate was talking I > considered asking him to join the civil society Internet Governance caucus > :-) > > Here are my notes from the Norway statement: > > Norway: overarching principle, allow the Internet to grow, need to ensure > stability, appreciate groups consensus; welcome that IG definition is not > only about root zone but also security, crime, capacity building, human > rights. > There is no global forum for dialogue, need for new model, merits ne forms > of institutional coordination. Need for forum with full involvement, > governments, private sector, civil society; should be linked to UN, allows > for meaningful participation of all, incl. > development areas. > Forum should be designed lightweight, efficient, IG should build on existing > strctures, but with stronger recogniztion of public policy issues; welcome > working group to recognize freedom of expression as one of the most > important public policy issues! > > China commented almost exclusively, and in a very emotional way, on > yesterday's plenary discussion on the accredition of the chinese human > rights group. > The US statement followed the Chinese statement. It didn't respond to the > Chinese intervention. It was fairly general and didn't contribute anyting > concrete. > > Civil society used its 15 min. time slot today for 5 interventions. Adam has > already posted them. We will have another 15 minutes, which we can divide > between Thursday and Friday. We have no speaking time left for tomorrow. > > From what we picked up today, the whole week will be devoted to statements > on several parts of the WGIG report. The actual drafting will not start > before the weekend. Amb. Khan asked all stakeholders to deliver in the > coming days written text ("language") for the final Tunis document. In other > words, the time for comments is more or less over. We have to draft input > now for the final documents. > > The Internet Governance caucus thus asks all other working groups and > caucuses to deliver text that shall be included in our contribution to the > Tunisia documents. The basis for our contributions should be the civil > society position paper on the WGIG report. > This position paper can be found here: > > http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/contributions/co55.doc > > To conclude, what we have to do in the following days is to choose speakers > and topics for the second speaking slot, and to draft text for our > contribution for the final documents. > > Hopefully, I didn't forget too much and I don't sound too confused, jeanette > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ronda at panix.com Thu Sep 29 10:29:17 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:29:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function In-Reply-To: <20050929222090.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <20050929222090.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: Yupe - having some actual education about the Internet and its origins would have been something one would have hoped that the WSIS process would have spent some resources on - to start the process off on a sound note. But perhaps people had to get interested in why this is important, which maybe is only now happening. In any case it is good it happens. The interconnection of dissimilar but peer networks is a critical part of the nature of the Internet, and that is why the creation of ICANN was a serious problem from the beginning. Under IANA, there was a mailing list of the administrators of the cctld's where there was some form of consultation process and discussion of what was happening with regard to the decisions being made. I only saw the mailing list at the time when ICANN was in the works, but ICANN was a serious diversion from the way that there had been an effort to have a collaborative process with feedback in the whole creation and development of the Internet. The problems introduced by the way that ICANN was created, and what was created are serious. This is the critical problem that WSIS had to deal with, but it just seemed that it got lost in other issues. In any case, the problem of creating an international public management form for the Internet's infrastructure will continue to be a critical problem that needs solution, or else there will be a serious danger to the integrity of the Internet. Any claims that there is "no problem" are seriously mistaken. On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > > So true. And these principles, including that of shared responsibility > ensures that we can then count on it as the NGN. Interesting that few people > involved in the IP NGN issues are involved in IG issues. I think this is > key. > > Meanwhile, whilst I was in Geneva, I heared rumours that some delegations > (not to be named) are hoping to use the lack of info of the public Internet > and how this open architecture works, to tell delegates that want to control > the Internet, to agree to have their own DNS and IP system, without telling > them that that would be introducing an alternative root system, thereby > fragmenting the open and public architecture of the Internet. Not sure how > this has progressed over the last few days, but I was concerned about this. > I was also concerned that some CS players were feeding this confusion by > making such statements too. Thanks for this info. I hadn't noticed discussion of this on the list before (though the posts have become too voluminous to read them all lately). This is the critical danger that exists. WSIS had to recognize this danger early on and take measures to counter it. > > This gets emotions high. Also they are not making a difference between > oversight of new names and existing one (especially TLDs) and also the > difference between management of IP address allocation issues which is not > really under ICANN or US gov as such. DNS wise, The Somalia? And Libya? Management of the IP addresses is under an entity that the US created and that is ultimately also under ICANN as far as I understood. The IP addresses is in fact what is critical to the operation of the Internet. It is serious there hasn't been more public discussion of this. > examples were being circulated as saying the US can get a CCTLD off the > Internet if they like to. Apparently coincidentally or NOT, these countries > were in discussions or something with the US when it happened. I thought there were examples of how ICANN took names out of the root, and I know of at least one case where ICANN's mismanagement led to one entity losing its domain name and someone hijacking it. So there is a real problem with ICANN as an entity that is not legitimate and not created as an entity capable of dealing with a very serious obligation. > > As far as I know, the individuals running the master and the copies around > the world of the root server, will usually not allow this to happen. It may > have happened because the administrator did not pay their dues for the CCTLD > or something. Between this and IP issues, there may also be concern that as > we go IP NGN globally, allocation issues will also be important and not sure > they understand how this will be done. I was involved in APNIC';s early days > and I do know misconceptions governments have about this. Being part of and > having a say in APNIC is not something they know how to do, as these are new > cultures to them. > > Getting the facts right would certainly help diffuse the emotions running > high in Geneva. Not break it but diffuse it. Yes there is a problem of governments getting it right. It doesn't help to have a situation where the key issues are not being made clear, but instead secondary issues are being raised to cloud what is really at stake. The process needs open information and discussion, rather than obfuscation. > Thanks for sharing your thoughts and ideas Ronda. Thanks Laina for this info about what is happening and the background you have given. > > Laina > Ronda > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ronda Hauben > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 3:55 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Laina Raveendran Greene > Cc: 'Lee McKnight'; wdrake at ictsd.ch > Subject: Re: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function > > > About 'end-to-end' and 'open architecture' > > Actually the architectural principle for the internet was 'open > architecture' which meant that all the info about the the communicating > networks would function as peers of each other,rather than requiring that > any one become a component of another." > > A definition of open architecture is "Open architecture...describes the > structure of the Internet, which is built on standard interfaces, protocols, > a basic data format, and a uniform identifier or addressing mechanism. All > the information needed regarding the interconnection aspects is publicly > available." > > The end to end principle has been promoted as the essence of the Internet, > but the Internet is not any single network (which goes from one end to > another end.). The Internet is a network of networks. > > So it is important that this interconnection of dissimilar networks be > recognized in characterizing the Internet, as this is the conception of its > origin and what its nature is. This is what makes it possible for so many > dissimilar networks to be interconnected in today's Internet. > > Ronda > > http://umcc.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/birth_tcp.txt > > http://www.circleid.com/article/96_0_1_0_Chttp://www.circleid.com/article/96 > _0_1_0_C > > http://umcc.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/birth_tcp.txt > > > On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > >> >> Agreed with you Lee. There is a need to remind people about the >> openess of the Internet and the spirit in which it was created and >> spread around the world. In our statement, we tried to remind >> delegates that the Internet was created by individuals with a high >> sense of shared responsibility and trust, and any efforts for IG, >> whether improving the status quo, creating a forum and/or new >> oversight mechanisms, should all be done within these same spirit. >> >> Currently, as Amb Klarkin pointed out, we are at a unique juncture of >> public and private international law coming together. It has happened >> before from the 60s to 90s, with the rise of MNCs and international >> law moving towards the application of "soft laws" and increase of >> private international law applications. Now we have the civil society >> equation, which is new to some agencies especially the likes of ITU. >> It is a very unique juncture of the creation of a "new form of >> cooperation" between stakeholders and a new form of "soft law" (even >> moving beyond what we have in PIL....a term used in public >> international law vis a vis MOUs e.g. lke the one we had on GMPCS on LEOs > etc..). >> >> Laina >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee McKnight >> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:21 PM >> To: wdrake at cpsr.org; wdrake at ictsd.ch; governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function >> >> Karen, Bill, >> >> I appreciate your intent Karen and APC's intent but agree with Bill >> that 'binding international agreements' on openness is a >> contradication in terms that will never fly. >> >> Language more along the lines that the forum's efforts should keep in >> mind the need to preserve the Internet's essential features, such as, >> 'openness etc..' might have the opposite effect of making agreement >> easier, since then the forum is signalling the techies that it will not > muck things up. >> >> Lee >> >> Prof. Lee W. McKnight >> School of Information Studies >> Syracuse University >> +1-315-443-6891office >> +1-315-278-4392 mobile >> >>>>> wdrake at cpsr.org 09/29/05 5:55 AM >>> >> Karen, >> >>>> In the context of the evolving public and technical policy landscape >> of >>>> the Internet there will be a need to concretize binding >> international >>>> agreements that relate to: >>>> >>>> - the architectural principles of the Internet, including >>>> interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle >> >> I am very strongly opposed to putting this in the forum, and believe >> it will provide the USA and business with a big opening to reject the >> forum outright. I hope you will reconsider, it's dangerous. >> >> Rest is consistent more or less with IGcaucus etc. >> >> BD >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.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 froomkin at law.miami.edu Thu Sep 29 10:39:26 2005 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:39:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function In-Reply-To: <20050929222090.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <20050929222090.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: This sounds like a distorted version of the following (real) set of facts: ICANN for some time took the view that if a ccTLD refused to sign an agreement with it (promising to do whatever ICANN told it to) and/or refused to pay what ICANN demanded, then ICANN would act very very very slowly on IANA updates if the ccTLD wanted to change contact details and, more importantly, even if the ccTLD need to change the IP address of the registry due to changing providers/equipment/whatever. (ditto redelegations within the country). This had operational consequences and remains one of the chief exhibits for the thesis that ICANN has done more operational harm than good. To the US government's credit, in respons to complaints from unhappy governments, the MOU was amended to forbid this behavior and IANA, as I understand it from the absence of subsequent complaints, did in fact clean up its act. I have frequently argued, and believe, that any attempt by the US or anyone else to remove a ccTLD from the root would fail for three reasons. First the root server operators would rebel (they'll put with a lot but not that); Second the ccTLDs would rebel even up to the point of splitting the root; Third, it wouldn't actually work since a goverment could set up its own DNS or just send around files of IP numbers linking to directory services by other means as a temporary workaround. For all the above reasons, I believe the threat that the US goverment would be dumb enough to try to remove a ccTLD is remote; alas, ICANN did a mild form of that with its IANA games -- but even that won't happen again. On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > This gets emotions high. Also they are not making a difference between > oversight of new names and existing one (especially TLDs) and also the > difference between management of IP address allocation issues which is not > really under ICANN or US gov as such. DNS wise, The Somalia? And Libya? > examples were being circulated as saying the US can get a CCTLD off the > Internet if they like to. Apparently coincidentally or NOT, these countries > were in discussions or something with the US when it happened. > > As far as I know, the individuals running the master and the copies around > the world of the root server, will usually not allow this to happen. It may > have happened because the administrator did not pay their dues for the CCTLD > or something. Between this and IP issues, there may also be concern that as > we go IP NGN globally, allocation issues will also be important and not sure > they understand how this will be done. I was involved in APNIC';s early days > and I do know misconceptions governments have about this. Being part of and > having a say in APNIC is not something they know how to do, as these are new > cultures to them. > > Getting the facts right would certainly help diffuse the emotions running > high in Geneva. Not break it but diffuse it. > > Thanks for sharing your thoughts and ideas Ronda. > > Laina > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ronda Hauben > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 3:55 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Laina Raveendran Greene > Cc: 'Lee McKnight'; wdrake at ictsd.ch > Subject: Re: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function > > > About 'end-to-end' and 'open architecture' > > Actually the architectural principle for the internet was 'open > architecture' which meant that all the info about the the communicating > networks would function as peers of each other,rather than requiring that > any one become a component of another." > > A definition of open architecture is "Open architecture...describes the > structure of the Internet, which is built on standard interfaces, protocols, > a basic data format, and a uniform identifier or addressing mechanism. All > the information needed regarding the interconnection aspects is publicly > available." > > The end to end principle has been promoted as the essence of the Internet, > but the Internet is not any single network (which goes from one end to > another end.). The Internet is a network of networks. > > So it is important that this interconnection of dissimilar networks be > recognized in characterizing the Internet, as this is the conception of its > origin and what its nature is. This is what makes it possible for so many > dissimilar networks to be interconnected in today's Internet. > > Ronda > > http://umcc.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/birth_tcp.txt > > http://www.circleid.com/article/96_0_1_0_Chttp://www.circleid.com/article/96 > _0_1_0_C > > http://umcc.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/birth_tcp.txt > > > On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > >> >> Agreed with you Lee. There is a need to remind people about the >> openess of the Internet and the spirit in which it was created and >> spread around the world. In our statement, we tried to remind >> delegates that the Internet was created by individuals with a high >> sense of shared responsibility and trust, and any efforts for IG, >> whether improving the status quo, creating a forum and/or new >> oversight mechanisms, should all be done within these same spirit. >> >> Currently, as Amb Klarkin pointed out, we are at a unique juncture of >> public and private international law coming together. It has happened >> before from the 60s to 90s, with the rise of MNCs and international >> law moving towards the application of "soft laws" and increase of >> private international law applications. Now we have the civil society >> equation, which is new to some agencies especially the likes of ITU. >> It is a very unique juncture of the creation of a "new form of >> cooperation" between stakeholders and a new form of "soft law" (even >> moving beyond what we have in PIL....a term used in public >> international law vis a vis MOUs e.g. lke the one we had on GMPCS on LEOs > etc..). >> >> Laina >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee McKnight >> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:21 PM >> To: wdrake at cpsr.org; wdrake at ictsd.ch; governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function >> >> Karen, Bill, >> >> I appreciate your intent Karen and APC's intent but agree with Bill >> that 'binding international agreements' on openness is a >> contradication in terms that will never fly. >> >> Language more along the lines that the forum's efforts should keep in >> mind the need to preserve the Internet's essential features, such as, >> 'openness etc..' might have the opposite effect of making agreement >> easier, since then the forum is signalling the techies that it will not > muck things up. >> >> Lee >> >> Prof. Lee W. McKnight >> School of Information Studies >> Syracuse University >> +1-315-443-6891office >> +1-315-278-4392 mobile >> >>>>> wdrake at cpsr.org 09/29/05 5:55 AM >>> >> Karen, >> >>>> In the context of the evolving public and technical policy landscape >> of >>>> the Internet there will be a need to concretize binding >> international >>>> agreements that relate to: >>>> >>>> - the architectural principles of the Internet, including >>>> interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle >> >> I am very strongly opposed to putting this in the forum, and believe >> it will provide the USA and business with a big opening to reject the >> forum outright. I hope you will reconsider, it's dangerous. >> >> Rest is consistent more or less with IGcaucus etc. >> >> BD >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> _______________________________________________ >> > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's @#$% hot here.<-- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Thu Sep 29 10:12:21 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:12:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function Message-ID: Ronda, Agreed, the Internet is by definition a network of networks (even if no definition has been formally adopted). For rhetorical and tactical purposes, as I have explained in much earlier missives, keeping Karen's language but dropping the 'binding intl agrrement' aspect is, in my opinion, worthwhile. Longer more detailed explanations don;t fit into these types of docs well, but I can imagine future litigation/arbitration/disputes where having the language in helped the forces of good, whomever they may be in that future instance, carry the day. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Ronda Hauben 09/29/05 9:54 AM >>> About 'end-to-end' and 'open architecture' Actually the architectural principle for the internet was 'open architecture' which meant that all the info about the the communicating networks would function as peers of each other,rather than requiring that any one become a component of another." A definition of open architecture is "Open architecture...describes the structure of the Internet, which is built on standard interfaces, protocols, a basic data format, and a uniform identifier or addressing mechanism. All the information needed regarding the interconnection aspects is publicly available." The end to end principle has been promoted as the essence of the Internet, but the Internet is not any single network (which goes from one end to another end.). The Internet is a network of networks. So it is important that this interconnection of dissimilar networks be recognized in characterizing the Internet, as this is the conception of its origin and what its nature is. This is what makes it possible for so many dissimilar networks to be interconnected in today's Internet. Ronda http://umcc.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/birth_tcp.txt http://www.circleid.com/article/96_0_1_0_Chttp://www.circleid.com/article/96_0_1_0_C http://umcc.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/birth_tcp.txt On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > > Agreed with you Lee. There is a need to remind people about the openess of > the Internet and the spirit in which it was created and spread around the > world. In our statement, we tried to remind delegates that the Internet was > created by individuals with a high sense of shared responsibility and trust, > and any efforts for IG, whether improving the status quo, creating a forum > and/or new oversight mechanisms, should all be done within these same > spirit. > > Currently, as Amb Klarkin pointed out, we are at a unique juncture of public > and private international law coming together. It has happened before from > the 60s to 90s, with the rise of MNCs and international law moving towards > the application of "soft laws" and increase of private international law > applications. Now we have the civil society equation, which is new to some > agencies especially the likes of ITU. It is a very unique juncture of the > creation of a "new form of cooperation" between stakeholders and a new form > of "soft law" (even moving beyond what we have in PIL....a term used in > public international law vis a vis MOUs e.g. lke the one we had on GMPCS on > LEOs etc..). > > Laina > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee McKnight > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:21 PM > To: wdrake at cpsr.org; wdrake at ictsd.ch; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function > > Karen, Bill, > > I appreciate your intent Karen and APC's intent but agree with Bill that > 'binding international agreements' on openness is a contradication in terms > that will never fly. > > Language more along the lines that the forum's efforts should keep in mind > the need to preserve the Internet's essential features, such as, 'openness > etc..' might have the opposite effect of making agreement easier, since then > the forum is signalling the techies that it will not muck things up. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>>> wdrake at cpsr.org 09/29/05 5:55 AM >>> > Karen, > >>> In the context of the evolving public and technical policy landscape > of >>> the Internet there will be a need to concretize binding > international >>> agreements that relate to: >>> >>> - the architectural principles of the Internet, including >>> interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle > > I am very strongly opposed to putting this in the forum, and believe it will > provide the USA and business with a big opening to reject the forum > outright. I hope you will reconsider, it's dangerous. > > Rest is consistent more or less with IGcaucus etc. > > BD > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.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 Mon Sep 19 14:51:52 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 03:51:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] First prepcom interventions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/20/05, Lee McKnight wrote: > Nothing against our good friends at Georgia Tech, but can we at Syracuse > reclaim Milton, thanks. > No. Organizational affiliation must be an accredited WSIS organization. Adam > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>> Jeanette Hofmann 09/19/05 12:53 PM >>> > Carlos, could you be more specific, please? We have gained some time > due > to the fact that our interventions have been postponed to tomorrow. We > > can deliver edited versions (not new statements!) by tomorrow morning. > > Corrections and improvements can be suggested right now. But, please, > keep in mind that each statement should not be longer than 300 words. > Suggestions that only make the statements longer are not helpful. > > jeanette > > carlos a. afonso wrote: > > Adam, I am not sure how to handle this, but some of the statements > are > > not necessarily caucuses' consensus nor may represent what civil > society > > believes should be said in those precious 15 minutes -- although > mostly > > CS will probably agree with them (but there are diverging views > > regarding at least one statement). How to express this in your > opening > > statement without giving the impression we are a bunch of > disorganized > > fellows? :) > > > > --c.a. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:29:43 +0900 > > Subject: [governance] First prepcom interventions > > > > > >>As you may have seen from Rik Panganiban's note to the plenary list > >>this morning, prepcom has so far focused on China and human rights > >>issues. Great fun and important stuff. Nice to see the US, UK (EU) > > >>and Canada taking a bit of a stand on human rights. > >> > >>As far as Internet governance is concerned we hope sub-committee A > >>will start work this afternoon. > >> > >>One disturbing rumor (we will find out for sure later today) is that > > >>observers will be given 15 minutes speaking time every 6 hours of > >>discussion. As sub-committee A meets for 3 hours each day, it seems > > >>we may only be able to speak every other day. Will will argue > >>against this. > >> > >>Other civil society organizations have kindly agreed to give the IG > >>caucus the full 15 minutes speaking time today. Five of us will > >>speak: > >> > >>Speakers for Civil Society > >>Sub-Committee A (Internet Governance) > >>Monday, 19 September > >> > >>1. Mr. Adam Peake, from GLOCOM, on behalf of the Civil Society > >>Internet Governance Caucus > >>2. Ms. Magaly Pazello, from DAWN, on behalf of the Civil Society > >>Internet Governance Caucus > >>3. Mr. William Drake, from CPSR, on behalf of the Civil Society > >>Internet Governance Caucus > >>4. Mr. Milton Mueller, from the Georgia Institute of Technology, on > >>behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > >>5. Ms. Jeanette Hofmann, from the Heinrich Boell Foundation, on > >>behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > >> > >>We had to prepare text for the interpreters, those files are > >>attached. > >> > >>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 > -- 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 Tue Sep 27 13:35:41 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:35:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Civil society shut out of the drafting groups In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5AB0F7EC-505A-48F5-88CC-7FFC98E2CE10@lists.privaterra.org> Lee: two quick comments: 1. Civil society can stay in the room if the countries , all of them, in the drafting room agree that it's ok. if not, then the default is to go to the rules of procedure that state that CS has to leave after making a statement . 2. it seems that Brazil agreed with having CS in the room only after a specific directed question by the chair if it in fact was siding with china or not. The broad question right now is what to do - i see three possible options: 1. do nothing and accept the decision. 2. Have CS as a whole issue a statement - that is, if there is agreement 3. If there is no overall consensus by CS - then individual NGOs are free, as they normally are, to issue a statement . Many govts are quite supportive of CS and are very upset at the development by china to push CS out, when in fact there is some flexibility. They are looking for CS to react in a strong fashion. Will we? let's see... regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 27-Sep-05, at 5:48 PM, Lee McKnight wrote: > Vittorio, > > My tactical advice, now that civil society is a political football, > is play the game. > > If some governments/diplomats insist on silencing civil society, > and by extension also the business and technical community, nothing > happens to ICANN or IANA - not in this decade. So it's their choice > to run out of bounds, or not. Civil society can't stop them, but it > can protest the violation of the new rules of the multistakeholder > game. > > If instead the forces of realism and enlightenment - good for > Norway! - prevail, then you are there to try to help move the > process in a positive direction. > > So presumably the EU will now feel the need at the meeting tonight > to agree to throw some muscle and tilt the US way on this issue (of > civil society/biz participation); Brazil seems to have realized the > strategic error of lining up too closely with China and Iran on > this issue. > > So in a way this whole tiff can be beneficial in reaching a > compromise outcome developing and industrialized countries can live > with. > > good luck, > > Lee > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>>> "Vittorio Bertola" 09/27/05 10:09 AM >>> >>>> > Following up to my earlier message on the matter (report from drafting > group III)... today at 1:45pm, at the start of drafting group IV, > China > and Brazil, supported by Iran, took the floor and asked the Chair (now > Canada) whether further instructions had been received on civil > society > and private sector participation in the drafting groups, and in any > case > pointing out that according to phase I procedures and instructions > given > at the governmental bureau meeting, non-gov persons should have > been sent > out of the room after making an initial statement, and that it was > highly > inappropriate for the Chair not to have managed to get proper > instructions > from Amb. Khan to this extent. > > The Chair repeatedly proposed to keep the compromise reached in the > morning, to let non-gov persons assist silently and respond if > asked. US, > UK/EU and Australia spoke in favour of keeping this procedure, and in > general noted that non-gov participation is highly beneficial, and no > actual conclusion had been reached, not even at the bureau. > > In the end, the Chair asked Brazil and China how serious they were; > Brazil > said that it could live with the Chair's compromise; China however > insisted. Thus, the Chair asked the people from civil society and > private > sector to give a brief statement and then leave. Ralf courteously > protested the decision before giving the statement and leaving. > > I can say that the Italian delegation is absolutely unhappy with the > Chair's decision, and that the issue will likely brought up at the EU > Coordination meeting tonight at 6pm. In the meantime, civil society > should > decide whether and how to react. > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org] > <------ > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Tue Sep 27 14:04:44 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:04:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Civil society shut out of the drafting groups In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I will leave discussions on and about Brazil and it's openness and inclusion to CS @ UN fora to NGOs who have dealt with them in other fora. The same goes for other countries - it's better to get a better picture from those from the country in question. My personal opinion is that i can't really say. I just don't have enough information on their voting record related to CS at UN meetings. Can someone help us out? regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 27-Sep-05, at 7:57 PM, Lee McKnight wrote: > Robert, > > OK, if you/CS want or feel the need to play hardball, and some > allies are encouraging you to do so, then call CNN yourself, or the > NYTimes. And the FT, Le Monde and Die Zeit. There have to be some > reporters in the halls hungry for a story right? So far your > (occasional?) mis-treatment seems to be the main story, because of > what it suggests might be the fate of us all on a future more-UN- > influenced net. > > My point re Brazil is that at the moment of truth they realized a > Lula/worker's party/champion of the landless government would look > foolish if they helped dispossess civil society. So they backed > off. Of course they may claim some other reasons, but I don't think > they want to be the story you may help some journalist write. For > China this is a chance to flex some muscle on the international > stage, and be a featured player in the story, so no surprise they > are making people notice their views. > > good luck! > > Lee > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>>> Robert Guerra 09/27/05 1:35 PM >>> >>>> > Lee: > > two quick comments: > > > 1. Civil society can stay in the room if the countries , all of them, > in the drafting room agree that it's ok. if not, then the default is > to go to the rules of procedure that state that CS has to leave after > making a statement . > > 2. it seems that Brazil agreed with having CS in the room only after > a specific directed question by the chair if it in fact was siding > with china or not. > > The broad question right now is what to do - i see three possible > options: > > 1. do nothing and accept the decision. > 2. Have CS as a whole issue a statement - that is, if there is > agreement > 3. If there is no overall consensus by CS - then individual NGOs are > free, as they normally are, to issue a statement . > > Many govts are quite supportive of CS and are very upset at the > development by china to push CS out, when in fact there is some > flexibility. They are looking for CS to react in a strong fashion. > Will we? let's see... > > > > > regards, > > Robert > > -- > Robert Guerra > Managing Director, Privaterra > > > > > > On 27-Sep-05, at 5:48 PM, Lee McKnight wrote: > > >> Vittorio, >> >> My tactical advice, now that civil society is a political football, >> is play the game. >> >> If some governments/diplomats insist on silencing civil society, >> and by extension also the business and technical community, nothing >> happens to ICANN or IANA - not in this decade. So it's their choice >> to run out of bounds, or not. Civil society can't stop them, but it >> can protest the violation of the new rules of the multistakeholder >> game. >> >> If instead the forces of realism and enlightenment - good for >> Norway! - prevail, then you are there to try to help move the >> process in a positive direction. >> >> So presumably the EU will now feel the need at the meeting tonight >> to agree to throw some muscle and tilt the US way on this issue (of >> civil society/biz participation); Brazil seems to have realized the >> strategic error of lining up too closely with China and Iran on >> this issue. >> >> So in a way this whole tiff can be beneficial in reaching a >> compromise outcome developing and industrialized countries can live >> with. >> >> good luck, >> >> Lee >> >> >> >> Prof. Lee W. McKnight >> School of Information Studies >> Syracuse University >> +1-315-443-6891office >> +1-315-278-4392 mobile >> >> >> >>>>> "Vittorio Bertola" 09/27/05 10:09 AM >>> >>>>> >>>>> >> Following up to my earlier message on the matter (report from >> drafting >> group III)... today at 1:45pm, at the start of drafting group IV, >> China >> and Brazil, supported by Iran, took the floor and asked the Chair >> (now >> Canada) whether further instructions had been received on civil >> society >> and private sector participation in the drafting groups, and in any >> case >> pointing out that according to phase I procedures and instructions >> given >> at the governmental bureau meeting, non-gov persons should have >> been sent >> out of the room after making an initial statement, and that it was >> highly >> inappropriate for the Chair not to have managed to get proper >> instructions >> from Amb. Khan to this extent. >> >> The Chair repeatedly proposed to keep the compromise reached in the >> morning, to let non-gov persons assist silently and respond if >> asked. US, >> UK/EU and Australia spoke in favour of keeping this procedure, and in >> general noted that non-gov participation is highly beneficial, and no >> actual conclusion had been reached, not even at the bureau. >> >> In the end, the Chair asked Brazil and China how serious they were; >> Brazil >> said that it could live with the Chair's compromise; China however >> insisted. Thus, the Chair asked the people from civil society and >> private >> sector to give a brief statement and then leave. Ralf courteously >> protested the decision before giving the statement and leaving. >> >> I can say that the Italian delegation is absolutely unhappy with the >> Chair's decision, and that the issue will likely brought up at the EU >> Coordination meeting tonight at 6pm. In the meantime, civil society >> should >> decide whether and how to react. >> -- >> vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org] >> <------ >> http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> >> > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 07:18:56 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:18:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] draft text on political oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Morning Lee, On 9/27/05, Lee McKnight wrote: > > There's this not insignificant matter that neither ICANN nor IANA has to do a thing China >or the UN tells it to.So while in UN halls the need to kiss up to governments is naturally >strong. But out on the net it's not : ) You've hit the nail on it's head IMO. I thought we were actually trying to build a workable future IG structure here. If there is no hope of getting cooperation from IANA/ICANN/USG then what is our implementation mechanism? We just build it outside the current governance structure, and hope they listen to us sometime in the future? That does not seems to be workable to 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 Sat Sep 17 18:16:54 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:16:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Please give feedback to Position Paper In-Reply-To: <431d6dac.1b8080d3.06a2.3180@mx.gmail.com> References: <431d6dac.1b8080d3.06a2.3180@mx.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Max I just read the position paper you are working on about Internet governance and found it valuable. I have a few quick comments to make 1. Good to see A3 where you explain the nature of the Internet as a resource 2. Good to see A5 and the explaination of the Internet as a means to empower people (I wouldn't call the Internet a tool - it is a system). It is good to see you refer to it as a space also, but I wondered if there was some reason you didn't refer to the user who is so empowered as the 'netizen'. Later you use the term netizen but never really connect it with the potential for participation and empowerment that you attribute to the Internet. 3. A problem I have with the activities ongoing with regard to Internet governance is that the need to have online means of participation is something I see critical. This makes netizenship possible. Instead 'civil society' has been introduced as a 'representative' of people. The whole point of Internet governance is that netizens don't need 'representatives'. They can participate to represent themselves. If 'civil society' wants to make sure that there are online processes so that netizens can participate in internet goverannce, that would be a helpful role that 'civil society' could play. But it doesn't seem appropriate to me to substitute 'civil society' for netizenship. 4. Do you know "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet"? It is online at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120 There is a 'draft declaration of the rights of netizens' online there that may prove helpful to you. Good to see this document. Please keep me informed of its progress. with best wishes Ronda -- Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Max Senges wrote: > Hello > > > > During the last weeks I have been drafting a �Position Paper on the > Future Governance of the Internet� for the Committee for the > Democratization of the United Nations ( www.kdun.de > ). I would greatly appreciate if you could find > the time to give some feedback. > > > > I am not an expert, so please excuse my outsider (�common sense�) > approach. > > > What is the original input of the paper > > > There are two ideas put forward in the paper which I believe might be > worthwhile to consider: > > > > Internet Constitution > > To establish cyberspace as the global democratic space capable of > changing the way humans interact, communicate and deal with each other, > the paper suggests to start working on an Internet Constitution. This > Constitution would serve to define the fundamental norms, values, rights > and duties each user (netizen) has to agree and comply to when > participating in cyberspace. Like this, the ethics and good behavior in > this virtual environment could be discussed and agreed upon. This > Constitution � when setup to be ratified by each individual netizen - > could furthermore represent the acknowledgement of cyberspace as a new > global territory for human activity and development. > > > > Community Based Governance > > To construct the internet with most intelligence at the ends of the > network (to connect �intelligent� clients over a �dumb� network of > cables) has proven to be a good and remarkably flexible and resistant > architecture. Inspired by this setup it is suggested to allow and > encourage self defined user communities to develop and implement their > respective governance and regulatory framework (e.g. for web auctions, > or collaborative content and mail filters) while limiting the power of > central internet governance institutions to coordination, mediation and > facilitation between the interests of stakeholders. (Please read the > paper as I have tried to explain the approach there in more detail.) > > > > > Wiki > > > I have setup a wiki on which you can review and edit the text. > > The wiki can be found under www.un-collaboratory.net > . > > In case you do not have the time to use the wiki, I attached the draft > paper as word rtf. > > > > Looking forward to your input > > Max > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------- > > > > > Max Senges > > UOC PhD student > Carrer Hospital 973o 2a > 8001 Barcelona, Espa�a > > Tel: +34 627193395 > @: MaxSenges at gmail.com > > > > Link to Programme Presentation > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Thu Sep 22 10:49:24 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:49:24 -0300 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponement oftoday's caucus meeting In-Reply-To: References: <433130D0.8060908@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: Agreed. --c.a. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272 - sexto andar 22270-060 Rio de Janeiro Brasil tel +55-21-2527-5494 fax +55-21-2527-5460 http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: McTim To: "carlos a. afonso" Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:10:05 +0200 Subject: Re: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponement oftoday's caucus meeting > ,Hi Carlos, > > On 9/21/05, carlos a. afonso wrote: > > > > > Specifically regarding McTim questions, we all know that ICANN > wants to > > survive fundamentally as it is -- I bet you know that too. :-) > > Certainly, any org wants to survive. I also know they are undergoing > a series of reform processes that began a long time ago (pre-WGIG). > I > am confident ICANN will survive, but also confident the reforms will > mean more transparency and inclusiveness. Now we need more CS > participation in those processes. > > -- > 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 Sep 29 04:40:25 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:40:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] US speaking + followup on CS participation In-Reply-To: References: <3082.156.106.225.194.1127930365.squirrel@156.106.225.194> Message-ID: <3048.156.106.225.194.1127983225.squirrel@156.106.225.194> On Gio, 29 Settembre 2005 9:51, McTim disse: > On 9/28/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> If I got it well... sorry, didn't get it well, I hope someone has more >> precise wording and wouldn't want to say something incorrect, but... the >> US just said that they cannot accept any language that might imply that >> they would not maintain their role of guarantee in the day-to-day >> management of the Internet. > > This was wholly expected, no? Sure, but... my feeling (speaking personally) is that the EU released a position a bit too radical (I can't give you more details, but I can tell you that if Italy was asked to give a national position before an EU one was developed, that would be that no governmental oversight over the DNS would be needed, but just a horizontal relationship between the forum and ICANN) and that provoked eventually the strong public reaction from the US, which had previously refrained from stating that clearly. At the same time, it is clear that either the US is available to make some concessions, even if minimal, or no deal will be possible. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Thu Sep 29 05:02:55 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:02:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight stmt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2CF62B3F-775B-40CB-8F0F-C2A105E3C797@acm.org> On 29 sep 2005, at 10.07, McTim wrote: > > 1. Many Thanks and well done on the potential compromise position. thanks. and thanks to all of you for helping this get done is such a short deadline pressured time. now lets see if we can pull off another one for this evening subcommittee meeting. even less time then before. > > 2. I don't think there is anyone in the caucus who stands for "no > change ever ever" i did not mean that those positions existed in the IGC, but rather among the nations. and there is at least one 'no change ever ever' govt. > > In my industry, we adapt or die. IG is constantly evolving. An example > of this is this week's traffic from ARIN PPML. did not see that. can you send a ptr? > > BTW, where do you stand on IPv6 PI? i find Tony's arguments intriguing. i tend to support it technically (anything to make the routing table smaller) but am not sure about it from a policy perspective. so what do you think of it. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Sep 29 08:13:02 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:13:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight stmt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <433BDA4E.9040407@wz-berlin.de> Hi McTim, would you care to explain what exactly it is you cannot sign? thanks, jeanette McTim wrote: > dear gentlepeople, > > I can't sign on to this doc for a variety of reasons, but please don't > see this as blocking consensus. Consensus as I understand it does not > mean unaniminity. If you see this as a block, please consider me as > abstaining. > > > -- > 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 apeake at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 15:59:13 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 04:59:13 +0900 Subject: [governance] press conference In-Reply-To: References: <433C2645.706@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: Agree, Avri's a v. good choice. Adam On 9/30/05, McTim wrote: > On 9/29/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > Civil society plans to organize a press conference tomorrow. The content > > and themes meeting suggested that focal points for the two subcommittees > > should speak on behalf of the various working groups and caucuses. > > > > The current agreement is to circulate a statement that reflects our > > position regarding multistakeholder participation in the drafting group. > > In addition to that, three people will be able to speak with the press. > > Since I leave tomorrow and probably won't be able to attend the press > > conference, I'd like to suggest Avri to speak on behalf of the Internet > > Governance caucus. Is that ok for everybody. > > seconded > > She represents the technical community as well, which I think should > be mentioned as another excluded group. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > nic-hdl: TMCG > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Sep 30 03:41:42 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:41:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] press conference In-Reply-To: References: <433C2645.706@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <433CEC36.2060800@wz-berlin.de> McTim wrote: > On 9/29/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >>Civil society plans to organize a press conference tomorrow. The content >>and themes meeting suggested that focal points for the two subcommittees >>should speak on behalf of the various working groups and caucuses. >> >>The current agreement is to circulate a statement that reflects our >>position regarding multistakeholder participation in the drafting group. >>In addition to that, three people will be able to speak with the press. >>Since I leave tomorrow and probably won't be able to attend the press >>conference, I'd like to suggest Avri to speak on behalf of the Internet >>Governance caucus. Is that ok for everybody. > > > seconded > > She represents the technical community as well, which I think should > be mentioned as another excluded group. Yes, but not the African community as I was told last night again and again. So, please, Avri, make strong references to development and capacity building aspects. The forum model might offer good opportunities to do so. jeanette > > > -- > 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 Tue Sep 27 17:22:12 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:22:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] draft text on political oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9F7C33F9-73C3-45ED-8314-89C89F5D0FA4@psg.com> On 27 sep 2005, at 16.28, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > For that matter why should a technical body like ICANN attempt > (incompetently!) to regulate matters of public policy? i do not understand in what way ICANN is a technical body. it is perhaps technical policy, but it mostly all about policy and contracts as far as i can tell. very little technology is done there. i expect most of them don't have a clue about the technology only about business models and contract details. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Tue Sep 27 10:27:00 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:27:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: draft text on political oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050927232605.0953e2f0@211.125.95.185> It was read by Jeannete, but not as CS or even CS Internet Governance caucus statement, but on behalf of her organization. OF course, she was called on by the chair as the Civil Society, but I think her interntion was clear. izumi At 10:04 05/09/27 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>> Milton Mueller 09/27/05 10:01 AM >>> >Some comments: >This is not an acceptable statement to me, although it is close and I >won't be upset if you read it as IGC. Key questions that you have not >thought through: > >Who decides when "full and equal multi-stakeholder participation" >exists in ICANN? > >Who decides when ICANN has "clear, transparent rules and >procedures commensurate with international norms and principles for >fair >administrative decision-making"? > >Case by case establishment of a review commission is a bad idea and >won't work. ICANN's current "independent" review commission (appointed >by ICANN) has been a complete failure. Who appoints this review >commission? > >You can't just duck these issues. > >I will suggest some language changes in the next message, if it is not >too late. > >Dr. Milton Mueller >Syracuse University School of Information Studies >http://www.digital-convergence.org >http://www.internetgovernance.org > > > >>> Jeanette Hofmann 09/27/05 7:31 AM >>> >Hi, Avri and I have drafted some language on political oversight. Text > >should be read this afternoon. We have to submit it by 2pm. Please have > >a look and let us know if we can read it on behalf of the IG caucus or > >if we have to invent another stakeholder group. >jeanette > > >Political Oversight > >62b: 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 oversight organization for domain names and IP >addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard >to >ICANN: > >1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent role of > >stewardship in relation to ICANN and enters into an adequate >host-country agreement for ICANN. > >2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on > >its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the community > >of Internet users, private sector and governments. > >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. ICANN must establish a review process for its decisions in the form > >of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission, established on a > >case-by-case basis. > >5. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government >transfers the IANA function to ICANN. > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.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 froomkin at law.miami.edu Tue Sep 27 10:28:54 2005 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:28:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] draft text on political oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am with Milton. Why would we we want a stronger (nontransparent!) GAC? For that matter why should a technical body like ICANN attempt (incompetently!) to regulate matters of public policy? On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Milton Mueller wrote: >>>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter 09/27/05 9:03 AM >>> >> 3. We should call for a reform of the GAC, including a >> rearrangment of the relationship between GAC and >> ICANN Baord for cases with a clear public policy dimension >> (tgoing beyond the "consultation procedure, as fixed >> under ICANN 2.0 bylaws). > > I do not agree with this. > > --MM > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 @#$% hot here.<-- -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Tue Sep 27 10:56:14 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:56:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: draft text on political oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <131293a205092707565a7247ff@mail.gmail.com> Even though you've already read it... we can still develop the thinking. I agree with Milton in general wrt his question/thinking through. But I think that the language could include a "such to be determined in subsequent negotiations" or something like that. About the case-by-case review - hate it. I haven't seen self-appointed case-by-case review work ever. What might work is to have an independent audit committee or somethign like, that determines itself what it should look at - or that can be appealed to by stakeholders. I'd love a peer-level muoltistakeholder oversight, but I know that won't happen. I think that strengthening the GAC won't work, cause then the policy and technical may start to get mixed up, and I think that they should be separate. I'd support ICANN being ICANN with some changes (per many of Jeanette and Avri's points), but not dealing with public policy. A separate venue for public policy, and ICANN could refer policy items to it for a (non-binding) recommendation if they so desired. Jacqueline On 9/27/05, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>> Milton Mueller 09/27/05 10:01 AM >>> > Some comments: > This is not an acceptable statement to me, although it is close and I > won't be upset if you read it as IGC. Key questions that you have not > thought through: > > Who decides when "full and equal multi-stakeholder participation" > exists in ICANN? > > Who decides when ICANN has "clear, transparent rules and > procedures commensurate with international norms and principles for > fair > administrative decision-making"? > > Case by case establishment of a review commission is a bad idea and > won't work. ICANN's current "independent" review commission (appointed > by ICANN) has been a complete failure. Who appoints this review > commission? > > You can't just duck these issues. > > I will suggest some language changes in the next message, if it is not > too late. > > Dr. Milton Mueller > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://www.digital-convergence.org > http://www.internetgovernance.org > > > >>> Jeanette Hofmann 09/27/05 7:31 AM >>> > Hi, Avri and I have drafted some language on political oversight. Text > > should be read this afternoon. We have to submit it by 2pm. Please have > > a look and let us know if we can read it on behalf of the IG caucus or > > if we have to invent another stakeholder group. > jeanette > > > Political Oversight > > 62b: 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 oversight organization for domain names and IP > addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard > to > ICANN: > > 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent role of > > stewardship in relation to ICANN and enters into an adequate > host-country agreement for ICANN. > > 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on > > its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the community > > of Internet users, private sector and governments. > > 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. ICANN must establish a review process for its decisions in the form > > of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission, established on a > > case-by-case basis. > > 5. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government > transfers the IANA function to ICANN. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com T&T Music and videos online _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Tue Sep 27 11:31:38 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:31:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Oversight: Are we forgetting principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <433965DA.9060206@wz-berlin.de> Hi, Milton, > Let me begin by thanking those in Geneva for their incredibly hard and > often quite talented work. I understand the need to improvise out there > and to seize opportunities to influence the governmental negotiators. > > I do however feel concerned about the degree to which we are "flying > blind" on the key issue of political oversight of ICANN. As Bill Drake > pointed out a few days ago, Civil Society (and governments, too) really > didn't do their homework on this issue. thank you for your nice words. Let me start by reminding us that we are not the only ones who are on a blind flight. The governments do very much the same thing. There are lots of governments or groups thereof who havn't formed an opinion yet on either the forum or the oversight function. Although we agreed that > unilateral US control was not desirable or viable, IGC never had a > full-fledged discussion of the risks and benefits of altering current > oversight arrangements. The WGIG report did not provide us with a well > thought-out set of alternatives, instead producing sketchy "models" that > raised more questions than they answered. That might have to do with the matter at hand. My impression is that we (both civil society and governments) need lots of iterative turns to come to clear positions. > > Now we are in a situation of thrashing about superifical ideas on the > fly, I'd like to respectfully disagree. Avri and I both follow these debates for a long time. We have both an idea of what the distinguished caucus members think about these issues, and we did try to be fair to both sides. When we started drafting this morning we still thought we would have time until tomorrow. Alas, it turned out we had to deliver already today. To not speak at all did not sound like a good option. So, we offered what we had. which to an external observer kinda looks like a medical operating > room with the surgeon saying, "let's move the heart over here and put > the liver over there," and his assistant saying, "no, let's sew it onto > the lungs over here," and the janitor walking by and saying, "seems to > me you could yank that whole mess out and he'd be better off," etc., > etc. You make us look like complete dilettants, which we are not, Milton. > > When we are reduced to that level of improvisation, isn't it clear that > we should back off and recognize that the issue isn't ripe yet, and seek > continued negotiations among governments, inclusive of civil society and > private sector? Doesn't the idea of a lightweight framework convention > seem like a better way to proceed? There is basically nothing ripe yet. This is why we find this an interested process, don't we? > > Our interventions on the Multistakeholder Forum have been much better, Drafted by the same people, I am glad to say. > but here again we seem to have forgotten the issue of accountability, > democracy and legitimacy - how do people get onto this forum, how do we > prevent it from being captured by a small group that can never be > dislodged, etc. I would hope it is not too late for CS to articulate > certain governance principles, such as rotating officers, some kind of > democratic procedure for selecting people, etc. As I said, today's statements should get us going. They are just a beginning, a "food for though" to use UN language. We have now lots of time for more interventions. Provide us with detailed, consensual proposals and we present them. jeanette > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 avri at acm.org Tue Sep 27 17:30:56 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:30:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] MODIFIED draft text on political oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I am afraid we are at an impasse. I cannot accept the notion of the forum as an oversight body for ICANN. The idea of having an independent external review formed in extraordinary cases, i.e. when the internal procedures of a more developed ICANN (truly MSH etc) were unable to resolve an issue are about as far as i could ever agree to. the idea of something like the forum being the one to decide when the MOU conditions were met is inconceivable to me. i do admit that the piece we hurriedly wrote was inadequately writen. i do not admit to their being too little thought put into it. but of course i will happily agree that understanding the full complexity of what will happen as time goes on is beyond any of us. an no, i will also not subscribe to a framework convention, which would be controled by nations and where civil society (and the private sector as well as the internet community) would have no voice in negotiations at all. personally, i think that would be a disaster on a par with model 4, which i think is an abomination. a. On 27 sep 2005, at 16.14, Milton Mueller wrote: > My proposed additions in ALL CAPS, deletes in [brackets] > > >>>> Jeanette Hofmann 09/27/05 7:31 AM >>> >>>> > Political Oversight > > 62b: We recognize that the time has come for a change in the political > > oversight of ICANN [the logical Internet infrastructure]. We do not > recommend > the creation of a new oversight organization for domain names and IP > addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard > to > ICANN: > > 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its [pre-eminent > role of > ] > stewardship OVER [in relation to] ICANN AND THE DNS ROOT and enters > into > an adequate host-country agreement for ICANN. > > 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on > > its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the community > > of Internet users, private sector and governments. THE WSIS > MULTISTAKEHOLDER FORUM WOULD DECIDE WHEN THIS MILESTONE HAD BEEN > REACHED. > > 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. THE WSIS MULTISTAKEHOLDER FORUM WOULD DECIDE WHEN THIS > MILESTONE HAD BEEN REACHED. > > 4. ICANN'S DECISIONS MUST BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH PUBLIC POLICY > CONSTRAINTS NEGOTIATED THROUGH INTERNATIONAL TREATIES; E.G., WTO TRADE > RULES, HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES, CYBERCRIME CONVENTIONS, ETC. GOVERNMENTS > AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO INVOKE A DISPUTE > PROCEDURE WHEN IT BELIEVED ICANN ACTIONS VIOLATED THE TERMS OF > ESTABLISHED INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC POLICY. > [4. ICANN must establish a review process for its decisions in the > form > > of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission, established > on a > > case-by-case basis.] > > 5. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government > transfers the IANA function to ICANN. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Tue Sep 27 18:07:33 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 00:07:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] MODIFIED draft text on political oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 27 sep 2005, at 23.43, Milton Mueller wrote: >>>> Avri Doria 09/27/05 5:30 PM >>> >>>> >> I am afraid we are at an impasse. I cannot accept the >> notion of the forum as an oversight body for ICANN. >> > > I didn't propose that MSF be an "oversight" body. I merely pointed out > that someone (not ICANN) has to decide when ICANN meets the conditions > you specify to be granted the full control of the root. Obviously. And > that is either the USG (which is the situation now) or....someone > else. > It seems to me that MSF is the least objectionable option here, but I > agree it is not a good one. The problem highlights the major problems > with your proposal. I believe that would put the MSF in the position of oversight. the basis of asking the US to recommit to its previous commitments is that they should follow the rules of the MOU. As for the rest the pressure has to come from within the ICANN and from without based on public opinion now that this has been forced to light. Certainly the MSH, as part of the public gadfly, should follow the progress and should scream if the changes are not made or are not adequate, but, the forum should be no be put in a juridical position. > > >> The idea of having an independent external review formed in >> extraordinary cases, i.e. when the internal procedures of a more >> developed ICANN (truly MSH etc) were unable to resolve an issue are >> about as far as i could ever agree to. >> > > Whenever there is a big and important dispute, the worst thing you can > possibly do is construct the dispute resolution mechanism, rules and > decision makers ex post. That is not the point. According to point 4 the mechanism should already be developed, it should only be instantiated when needed. > That is just so fundamental to institutional > design it hardly bears repeating. The burden of doing this will be so > great that almost no review of ICANN Decisions will ever be possible, > because accepting a dispute would plunge everyone involved into so > much > work and uncertainty that they will do anything to avoid it. The only work that should be required is chosing the pannel according to the process that has already been defined. > > >> an no, i will also not subscribe to a framework convention, which >> would be controled by nations and where civil society (and the >> private sector as well as the internet community) would have no voice >> > > >> in negotiations at all. >> > > Huh? CS and PS can have a voice if govts agree to give them one. Which > is right where we are now, eh? How is it that you trust governments to > give you a voice in WSIS but not in a framework convention? In both > cases, governments have the same formal powers. In both cases, if > CS is > to be included it will be becaiuse governments agree to give them that > role. Reliance on a FC per se doesn't change anything. I do not trust governments in general to give us anything we do not fight to get, though i do trust some to be on our side. FC's are normally seen as treaty negotiating bodies, and while i may feel that CS, once it is better organized deserves a voice in such matters, I also believe the time has not yet come when we can get that. At this point an FC would be a form of national oversight with CS at best in a minor advisory role. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Wed Sep 28 09:57:38 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:57:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] MODIFIED draft text on political oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04F022F6-EF08-43F6-BC5D-4468049CF252@acm.org> Hi, this one I can agree with. in fact i think it is an important addition to the scheme and should be added to the CS IG position. in addition i think this requirement (in great specificity) should be part of any host country agreement (treaty) that may be negotiated. a. On 28 sep 2005, at 15.40, Milton Mueller wrote: > One aspect of my response to Avri/Jeanette political oversight > statement > is significant but has not attracted any comment: > > >>> 4. ICANN'S DECISIONS MUST BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH PUBLIC POLICY >>> CONSTRAINTS NEGOTIATED THROUGH INTERNATIONAL TREATIES; E.G., WTO >>> > TRADE > >>> RULES, HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES, CYBERCRIME CONVENTIONS, ETC. >>> > GOVERNMENTS > >>> AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO INVOKE A >>> > DISPUTE > >>> PROCEDURE WHEN IT BELIEVED ICANN ACTIONS VIOLATED THE TERMS OF >>> ESTABLISHED INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC POLICY. >>> > > There is all this talk about how governments need to be involved in > the > "public policy" decisions. Basically, this approach calls their bluff. > It says, "ok, when governments have actually decided among themselves > what the policy is, and can produce specific rules and procedures > embodying that policy, then they can intervene - otherwise they > cannot. > > > This is an idea that deserves widespread consideration. Unfortunately, > what many governments seem to have in mind when they talk about their > authority over "public policy" is a desire to intervene at will in > ICANN > or other processes whenever they ex post facto deem something as being > of policy interest - .xxx being a case in point. But governments do > not > have, and should not have, a right to make up "public policy" on the > fly, following no rules or procedures. This idea binds them to > intervening in cases when there are known public policies established > through legitimate processes. I note that it also fits in well with > the > statement of Rikke Joergenson of the human rights caucus calling for > Internet-related organizations to be compliant with established human > rights norms. > > I may not have found the best way to implement this idea, but please > help me move forward on it. > > > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Wed Sep 28 10:33:24 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:33:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] MODIFIED draft text on political oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I think you minimize the conditions, but essentially the proposal recognizes the fact that the US is in in control of this process. I think you minimize the role the forum and the rest of the community can have in terms of pressuring the council and the gov't to complete their business in reasonable time and according to the requirements we are trying to put forward. especially if the WSIS report endorses the proposal - though that is not likely. As mild as you think this is, even this proposal gets a negative endorsement from the US. and ICANN's point of view is unprintable. To pretend that there is any other possibility is a pipe dream. a. On 28 sep 2005, at 15.28, Milton Mueller wrote: > For all practical purposes, Avri's position amounts to this: status > quo > plus forum. > > That is, the US government would decide (unilaterally) when and under > what conditions to fully privatize (give to ICANN) the root; ICANN and > USG would settle on some review mechanism which, based on past > performance, is likely to be perfunctory. As Stephane B. said, > let's be > factual about this. > > Describing the option in this way is not necessarily a criticism - > compared to other models, this option may be better - but it is an > attempt to be perfectly honest and clear about what is being > proposed. I > also seriously doubt that there is consensus on this within CS, not to > mention among governments. But as a default for CS it is not all bad, > given governments' propensity to exclude. > > >>>> Jacqueline Morris 09/28/05 5:44 AM >>> >>>> > Hi > I think that we can have language that requires futher discussion re > development of some of the more detailed points.I don't think that we > need to thrash everything out in detail right now in a rush, once the > concepts of MSF, reformed ICANN and independent review are agreed to > and accepted. > > I agree that ICANN would need some sort of independent review body as > a "last resort". I do not think it should be the Forum. I agree with > Avri that this independent review would be already constituted before > it is needed, and simply "turn on" to respond to requests for review > on particular decisions. This could include the choosing of the panel > members in advance. > > I also doubt that a framework convention is the way to go. > > Jacqueline > On 9/27/05, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am afraid we are at an impasse. I cannot accept the notion of the >> forum as an oversight body for ICANN. >> >> The idea of having an independent external review formed in >> extraordinary cases, i.e. when the internal procedures of a more >> developed ICANN (truly MSH etc) were unable to resolve an issue are >> about as far as i could ever agree to. the idea of something like >> the forum being the one to decide when the MOU conditions were met >> > is > >> inconceivable to me. >> >> i do admit that the piece we hurriedly wrote was inadequately >> writen. i do not admit to their being too little thought put into >> it. but of course i will happily agree that understanding the full >> complexity of what will happen as time goes on is beyond any of us. >> >> an no, i will also not subscribe to a framework convention, which >> would be controled by nations and where civil society (and the >> private sector as well as the internet community) would have no >> > voice > >> in negotiations at all. personally, i think that would be a >> > disaster > >> on a par with model 4, which i think is an abomination. >> >> a. >> >> On 27 sep 2005, at 16.14, Milton Mueller wrote: >> >> >>> My proposed additions in ALL CAPS, deletes in [brackets] >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> Jeanette Hofmann 09/27/05 7:31 AM >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> Political Oversight >>> >>> 62b: We recognize that the time has come for a change in the >>> > political > >>> >>> oversight of ICANN [the logical Internet infrastructure]. We do >>> > not > >>> recommend >>> the creation of a new oversight organization for domain names and >>> > IP > >>> addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with >>> > regard > >>> to >>> ICANN: >>> >>> 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its [pre-eminent >>> role of >>> ] >>> stewardship OVER [in relation to] ICANN AND THE DNS ROOT and >>> > enters > >>> into >>> an adequate host-country agreement for ICANN. >>> >>> 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation >>> > on > >>> >>> its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the >>> > community > >>> >>> of Internet users, private sector and governments. THE WSIS >>> MULTISTAKEHOLDER FORUM WOULD DECIDE WHEN THIS MILESTONE HAD BEEN >>> REACHED. >>> >>> 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. THE WSIS MULTISTAKEHOLDER FORUM WOULD DECIDE WHEN THIS >>> MILESTONE HAD BEEN REACHED. >>> >>> [4. ICANN must establish a review process for its decisions in the >>> form >>> >>> of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission, established >>> on a >>> >>> case-by-case basis.] >>> >>> 5. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government >>> transfers the IANA function to ICANN. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> governance mailing list >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >>> _______________________________________________ >>> governance mailing list >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> >> > > > -- > Jacqueline Morris > www.carnivalondenet.com > T&T Music and videos online > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Wed Sep 28 13:39:33 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:39:33 +0900 Subject: [governance] Updated version of oversight stmt. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050929023818.0b0c2850@211.125.95.185> I think we have made very good progress and since now the governments are negotiating the very section we are trying to point, let's put our statement at the next spaking slot that is tomorrow morning at SubCom A. And special thanks to all those who worked this hard question. izumi At 13:07 05/09/28 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote: >I can live with this. > >Dr. Milton Mueller >Syracuse University School of Information Studies >http://www.digital-convergence.org >http://www.internetgovernance.org > > > >>> Avri Doria 09/28/05 12:54 PM >>> >I have attempted to combine Milton and Karen's comments with my >concerns. >does this work? > >we need, if at all possible to reach closure tonight if we want this >statement to be >included for consideration. > >almost last call folks. > >a. > >---- > >Political Oversight > >62b: 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 in 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 structure of the community >of Internet users, national governments, civil society, the technical > >community, >business associations, non profit organizations and non-business >organizations. > >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, and trade rules. 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. > >7. Once all of the above conditions are met, the US Government >shall transfer the IANA function to ICANN. > >8. It is expected that the International multistakeholder community >will take part in the process through participation in the ICANN >process. >It is also expected that the multistakeholder community will observe >and >comment on the progress made in this process through the proposed >Forum. > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.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 Sep 28 14:00:45 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:00:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Updated version of oversight stmt. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <433ADA4D.7040602@wz-berlin.de> ok, we seem to have enough support for this new version to present it tomorrow as a consolidated version on behalf of the IG caucus. Will send the latest version to the secretariat now. je Milton Mueller wrote: > I can live with this. > > Dr. Milton Mueller > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://www.digital-convergence.org > http://www.internetgovernance.org > > > >>>>Avri Doria 09/28/05 12:54 PM >>> > > I have attempted to combine Milton and Karen's comments with my > concerns. > does this work? > > we need, if at all possible to reach closure tonight if we want this > statement to be > included for consideration. > > almost last call folks. > > a. > > ---- > > Political Oversight > > 62b: 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 in 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 structure of the community > of Internet users, national governments, civil society, the technical > > community, > business associations, non profit organizations and non-business > organizations. > > 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, and trade rules. 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. > > 7. Once all of the above conditions are met, the US Government > shall transfer the IANA function to ICANN. > > 8. It is expected that the International multistakeholder community > will take part in the process through participation in the ICANN > process. > It is also expected that the multistakeholder community will observe > and > comment on the progress made in this process through the proposed > Forum. > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.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 Sep 29 05:54:26 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:54:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] accountability In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <433BB9D2.1030105@wz-berlin.de> Milton Mueller wrote: > >>the fundamental problem on the table, greater accountability >>to governments with respect to ICANN's core activities. >>On the one hand, it may be that the majority >>of us don't think there is a need for such accountability > > > The difference in perspective here is "accountability to whom?" ICANN > is already completely accountable to one government and the addition of > more governments per se does not get me excited, it just means > geopolitical conflict and less clarity about the conditions and criteria > of accountability. I want more accountability to the PUBLIC, especially > the Interet using and supplying public. Think of it as an extension of > the subsidiarity principle: we can interact with ICANN and its > structures directly. If the structure is more democratized, even more > so. > I think it is this aspect where our latest statement leaves a lot to be desired. At Bill's panel on the oversight function I mentioned two elements of a system of check and balance I could think of: an appeals body and the forum as a new public space that might help generating an informed public, which goes beyond those few people who are involved in ICANN. In my view, this is not good enough. We need a more dense structure of accountability. (The RIRS and rootserver operators come to mind. They work as peers and thereby create a form of accountability and sanity check.) However, as people here say, it is too early to work on the details of such a accountability structure. The achievement of the prepcom will be a rough consensus on the future direction. The work on the details will start in a couple of months. It is not as if we were missing a train here. I will send the Canadian proposal with my next mail. It is not on the ITU server yet. jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Thu Sep 29 11:21:34 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:21:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function Message-ID: <50526.81.62.139.82.1128007294.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Milton > On 2005-09-29 10:46:51 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote: > > From: Milton Mueller > > I don't get it Bill. Not saying I disagree, I just have no idea what you > > are saying. How can the invokation of interopability and e2e "provide > > the USA and business with a big opening to reject the forum outright"? The problem is not the invocation, the problem is this: "In the context of the evolving public and technical policy landscape of the Internet there will be a need to concretize binding international agreements...The forum should monitor this evolving landscape with a view to the initiation of a process to concretize such international agreements." This is no fly territory to the US, business, and probably other OECD governments. Creeping council... BD _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Sep 30 03:24:12 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:24:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] press conference Message-ID: Avri has my full support. w ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Norbert Klein Gesendet: Fr 30.09.2005 00:30 An: Jeanette Hofmann Cc: 'Governance Governance Caucus' Betreff: Re: [governance] press conference Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Civil society plans to organize a press conference tomorrow. The content >and themes meeting suggested that focal points for the two subcommittees >should speak on behalf of the various working groups and caucuses. > >The current agreement is to circulate a statement that reflects our >position regarding multistakeholder participation in the drafting group. >In addition to that, three people will be able to speak with the press. >Since I leave tomorrow and probably won't be able to attend the press >conference, I'd like to suggest Avri to speak on behalf of the Internet >Governance caucus. Is that ok for everybody. > > I am happy that Avri speaks for the Internet Governance caucus. Norbert Klein _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Tue Sep 20 13:30:57 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:30:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Today's Subcommittee A meeting Message-ID: <43304751.3080602@wz-berlin.de> Hi, as I just learned from Rik, I am supposed to give an overview on the meeting of Subcommittee A. While I took some notes, they are not half as systematic as those Rik provided on yesterday's plenary meeting. Frankly, I would be more sorry about this if anything of great relevance had happened in this meeting. Today's meeting was devoted to general comments on the WGIG report. The governments spoke for a bit more than two hours. None of the statements was surprising. Most governments reiterated what they have said all along. The perhaps nicest statement came from Norway. While the delegate was talking I considered asking him to join the civil society Internet Governance caucus :-) Here are my notes from the Norway statement: Norway: overarching principle, allow the Internet to grow, need to ensure stability, appreciate groups consensus; welcome that IG definition is not only about root zone but also security, crime, capacity building, human rights. There is no global forum for dialogue, need for new model, merits ne forms of institutional coordination. Need for forum with full involvement, governments, private sector, civil society; should be linked to UN, allows for meaningful participation of all, incl. development areas. Forum should be designed lightweight, efficient, IG should build on existing strctures, but with stronger recogniztion of public policy issues; welcome working group to recognize freedom of expression as one of the most important public policy issues! China commented almost exclusively, and in a very emotional way, on yesterday's plenary discussion on the accredition of the chinese human rights group. The US statement followed the Chinese statement. It didn't respond to the Chinese intervention. It was fairly general and didn't contribute anyting concrete. Civil society used its 15 min. time slot today for 5 interventions. Adam has already posted them. We will have another 15 minutes, which we can divide between Thursday and Friday. We have no speaking time left for tomorrow. From what we picked up today, the whole week will be devoted to statements on several parts of the WGIG report. The actual drafting will not start before the weekend. Amb. Khan asked all stakeholders to deliver in the coming days written text ("language") for the final Tunis document. In other words, the time for comments is more or less over. We have to draft input now for the final documents. The Internet Governance caucus thus asks all other working groups and caucuses to deliver text that shall be included in our contribution to the Tunisia documents. The basis for our contributions should be the civil society position paper on the WGIG report. This position paper can be found here: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/contributions/co55.doc To conclude, what we have to do in the following days is to choose speakers and topics for the second speaking slot, and to draft text for our contribution for the final documents. Hopefully, I didn't forget too much and I don't sound too confused, jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Sep 21 03:33:39 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:33:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Today's Subcommittee A meeting Message-ID: Thanks Jeanette, here are two additional points: 1. the Chinese statement made clear very explicitly that China does not accept the special role of "one single government", but, and this is interesting, it said also, that "security and stability of the Internet" should not be undermined when chanigng the oversight model. And, even more, it made also clear that China prefers an "evolutionary process", which indicates that China sees Tunis only as one checkpoint and not as the end of the story. 2. The EU remained rather general but repeated the formlation from the EU Council 2005 decision that it is in favour of a "new cooperative model" without specifiying how the new model could like. Best wolfgang ________________________________ Von: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann Gesendet: Di 20.09.2005 19:30 An: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Today's Subcommittee A meeting [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, as I just learned from Rik, I am supposed to give an overview on the meeting of Subcommittee A. While I took some notes, they are not half as systematic as those Rik provided on yesterday's plenary meeting. Frankly, I would be more sorry about this if anything of great relevance had happened in this meeting. Today's meeting was devoted to general comments on the WGIG report. The governments spoke for a bit more than two hours. None of the statements was surprising. Most governments reiterated what they have said all along. The perhaps nicest statement came from Norway. While the delegate was talking I considered asking him to join the civil society Internet Governance caucus :-) Here are my notes from the Norway statement: Norway: overarching principle, allow the Internet to grow, need to ensure stability, appreciate groups consensus; welcome that IG definition is not only about root zone but also security, crime, capacity building, human rights. There is no global forum for dialogue, need for new model, merits ne forms of institutional coordination. Need for forum with full involvement, governments, private sector, civil society; should be linked to UN, allows for meaningful participation of all, incl. development areas. Forum should be designed lightweight, efficient, IG should build on existing strctures, but with stronger recogniztion of public policy issues; welcome working group to recognize freedom of expression as one of the most important public policy issues! China commented almost exclusively, and in a very emotional way, on yesterday's plenary discussion on the accredition of the chinese human rights group. The US statement followed the Chinese statement. It didn't respond to the Chinese intervention. It was fairly general and didn't contribute anyting concrete. Civil society used its 15 min. time slot today for 5 interventions. Adam has already posted them. We will have another 15 minutes, which we can divide between Thursday and Friday. We have no speaking time left for tomorrow. From what we picked up today, the whole week will be devoted to statements on several parts of the WGIG report. The actual drafting will not start before the weekend. Amb. Khan asked all stakeholders to deliver in the coming days written text ("language") for the final Tunis document. In other words, the time for comments is more or less over. We have to draft input now for the final documents. The Internet Governance caucus thus asks all other working groups and caucuses to deliver text that shall be included in our contribution to the Tunisia documents. The basis for our contributions should be the civil society position paper on the WGIG report. This position paper can be found here: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/contributions/co55.doc To conclude, what we have to do in the following days is to choose speakers and topics for the second speaking slot, and to draft text for our contribution for the final documents. Hopefully, I didn't forget too much and I don't sound too confused, jeanette _______________________________________________ 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Sep 22 04:51:47 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:51:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Subcommittee A meeting, 21.9.05 Message-ID: <433270A3.8010607@wz-berlin.de> Hi, here are yesterday's notes on the Subcommittee A meeting taken by Milton Mueller. Sorry for the delay. Subcommittee A (Internet Governance) Wednesday Sept 21 2005 Malaysia Bridging the digital divide is most important. Negative effects of Internet. pornography. issues of security trust etc prevents people from using e-commerce. If left unchecked could grow to be the demon of the Internet. Want a global mechanism to counter and to promote use of Internet. Interconnection costs. IP address management, root server. Public policy issues outside the purview of ICANN. Responsibility rests on sovereign nations. Barbados WGIG has discharged its responsibilities with distinction. Excellent basis for addressing challenges. Single country should not exert disproportionate influence, this situation must end. Governance structure should be based on geographical representation. Interconnection costs. Capacity building. consumer protection and privacy legislation necessary to promote widest use of internet. spam, illegal intrusion, etc. all stakeholders needed to solve these problems. Uruguay public policies - balanced, concise. costs of interconnection. an extremely sensitive and important pub pol issue. Models 2 and 3 can create an appropriate basis for solutions. Philippines appreciate WGIG report. Sri Lanka IP addressing policy should ensure regional and country-specific allocations. Interconnection should be based on cost-sharing. Kenya supports African group statement. supports Forum, but financial implications deserve careful consideration. Equitable distribution of resources important. GAC ICANN strengthened to deal with public policy issues. F/OSS, use of African languages. Sovereign equality of states and responsibility for public policy, shared at regional and international levels. We should be at a problem-solving stage now. Bangla Desh in 2000 govt took a policy on ICT. legislative and regulatory issues. Egypt Mexico Supports Forum. Invites subcommittee to work on its conceptualization to make it a reality. Supports privacy and harmonization of national legislation. Enhance user trust. Senegal ....More small developing country support for interconnection cost. Thailand positive and negative aspects of internet. crime, viruses, hacking, spam, etc. UN Development Fund for Women Strongly supports Forum function. Commend WGIG for recommendation in para. 43. would like to see same guarantees in all IG structures. CCBI no need for a new "centralized" policy making process; i.e. against forum. govts not the driver of internet policy. governments need to understand role of industry self-regulation. Alcatel says that intelligence in the network improves the internet and is compatible with end to end. Russia Doesn't like definition, offers ITU definition. USA Understandable definition. a working definition. It would be difficult to say that it is the only definition. Numerous comments made by multi-stakeholder community on the definition, containing a variety of views. WGIG is only one definition among many. All should be given consideration. Chair: Is it a working definition? USA: It certainly does lend itself to much work. Chair asserts in numerous contexts that they will not start from scratch in any areas. Most efficient way to address these subjects is not to reopen question of definition. Roles and Responsibilities Policy authority is a sovereign right of states. Iran Saudi Arabia WGIG spent a lot of time on these issues. Canada: WGIG not a negotiating body and its definitions cannot exclude others. Wants to add stuff about "knowledge" USA: speak in favor of DT7-E. That document contains a richness of views. Important to give them an opportunity to address their concerns. End OF NOTES je _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jac at apcwomen.org Thu Sep 22 07:04:09 2005 From: jac at apcwomen.org (Jac SM Kee) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:04:09 +0800 Subject: [governance] Subcommittee A meeting, 21.9.05 In-Reply-To: <433270A3.8010607@wz-berlin.de> References: <433270A3.8010607@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <43328FA9.6010706@apcwomen.org> actually, I think it was Indonesia (not Malaysia) who brought up pornography as a theme for discussion. Twice, once at the beginning, and at the end of the session. The delegate suggested it be a topic under 3c, and then as "negative use" of the internet. jac smk Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Hi, here are yesterday's notes on the Subcommittee A meeting taken by >Milton Mueller. Sorry for the delay. > > >Subcommittee A (Internet Governance) Wednesday Sept 21 2005 > >Malaysia >Bridging the digital divide is most important. Negative effects of >Internet. pornography. issues of security trust etc prevents people from >using e-commerce. If left unchecked could grow to be the demon of the >Internet. Want a global mechanism to counter and to promote use of >Internet. Interconnection costs. IP address management, root server. >Public policy issues outside the purview of ICANN. Responsibility rests >on sovereign nations. > >Barbados >WGIG has discharged its responsibilities with distinction. Excellent >basis for addressing challenges. Single country should not exert >disproportionate influence, this situation must end. Governance >structure should be based on geographical representation. >Interconnection costs. Capacity building. consumer protection and >privacy legislation necessary to promote widest use of internet. spam, >illegal intrusion, etc. all stakeholders needed to solve these >problems. > >Uruguay >public policies - balanced, concise. costs of interconnection. an >extremely sensitive and important pub pol issue. Models 2 and 3 can >create an appropriate basis for solutions. > >Philippines >appreciate WGIG report. H.> > >Sri Lanka >IP addressing policy should ensure regional and country-specific >allocations. Interconnection should be based on cost-sharing. > >Kenya >supports African group statement. supports Forum, but financial >implications deserve careful consideration. Equitable distribution of >resources important. GAC ICANN strengthened to deal with public policy >issues. F/OSS, use of African languages. Sovereign equality of states >and responsibility for public policy, shared at regional and >international levels. We should be at a problem-solving stage now. > >Bangla Desh >in 2000 govt took a policy on ICT. legislative and regulatory issues. > >Egypt > >Mexico >Supports Forum. Invites subcommittee to work on its conceptualization >to make it a reality. Supports privacy and harmonization of national >legislation. Enhance user trust. > >Senegal >....More small developing country support for interconnection cost. > >Thailand >positive and negative aspects of internet. crime, viruses, hacking, >spam, etc. > >UN Development Fund for Women >Strongly supports Forum function. Commend WGIG for recommendation in >para. 43. would like to see same guarantees in all IG structures. > >CCBI >no need for a new "centralized" policy making process; i.e. against >forum. govts not the driver of internet policy. governments need to >understand role of industry self-regulation. Alcatel says that >intelligence in the network improves the internet and is compatible with >end to end. > >Russia >Doesn't like definition, offers ITU definition. > >USA >Understandable definition. a working definition. It would be difficult >to say that it is the only definition. Numerous comments made by >multi-stakeholder community on the definition, containing a variety of >views. WGIG is only one definition among many. All should be given >consideration. > >Chair: Is it a working definition? > >USA: It certainly does lend itself to much work. > >Chair asserts in numerous contexts that they will not start from >scratch in any areas. Most efficient way to address these subjects is >not to reopen question of definition. > >Roles and Responsibilities >Policy authority is a sovereign right of states. > >Iran > >Saudi Arabia >WGIG spent a lot of time on these issues. > >Canada: WGIG not a negotiating body and its definitions cannot exclude >others. Wants to add stuff about "knowledge" > >USA: speak in favor of DT7-E. That document contains a richness of >views. Important to give them an opportunity to address their concerns. > >End OF NOTES > >je > > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > -- "Today I caught the scent of change. It moves me." - jhybeturtle/antagonyaunt www.apcwomen.org; www.genderIT.org; www.kryss.org; www.wao.org.my; www.sistersinislam.org.my _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Thu Sep 22 09:05:15 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:05:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] **Parallel Event to PrepCom-3: Gender and Internet Governance at WSIS** Message-ID: <131293a20509220605598aaa80@mail.gmail.com> **Parallel Event to PrepCom-3: Gender and Internet Governance at WSIS** Friday, September 23, 2005, 15:00-18:00 hours Room XXIII, Palais de Nations, Geneva Why should women be interested in Internet Governance? How can women's interests and concerns be better integrated/embedded into public policy discussions on Internet Governance? These are some of the questions that we will adress during the event organized by Association for Progressive Communications Women's Networking Support Programme (APC WNSP), FEMNET Communications, and the WSIS Gender Caucus. The objective of the event is to create space for discussion and develop reactions to the WSIS Working Group on Internet Governance Report. Chair: Magaly Pazello (DAWN, APCWNSP, GC) Contributors: Avri Doria (WGIG member, GC member), Jacqueline Morris (WGIG member, GC member), Karen Banks (WGIG member, GC member, APC WNSP) -- Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com T&T Music and videos online _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Sep 22 12:39:36 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:39:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] sub-committee A - ongoing issues Message-ID: Thanks Adam, if we get option 1 this would stimulate our plan B, to draft an own CS IG Declaration. best w ----Original Message----- From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org on behalf of Adam Peake Sent: Thu 9/22/2005 6:13 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] sub-committee A - ongoing issues [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, As you'll have seen from Jeremy Shtern and Robert Guerra's very helpful notes and blogs, Sub-Committee A (Internet governance) got complicated this morning. I'll try to explain what I think is happening and implications for civil society. After this morning's general discussion, at about 12 noon, Amb Khan (chair) suggested that drafting groups should be created to work on text for the rest of the process. He suggested these drafting groups would start work tomorrow. To help the work of the drafters, tomorrow morning the chair will distribute a text of the Chapter on Internet governance (perhaps his text will be online by 10AM Geneva local time?) He was very clear about the status of all the papers that have been made available to date: all are for our information, all are to aid discussion, they have no official status. So the purpose of the text the chair will deliver tomorrow is to focus attention on issues and to stimulate discussion. The meeting accepted that the chair would submit a text, they should accept it tomorrow without complaint. (some will remember the problems we had at an earlier prepcom when Adama Samassekou tried to introduce a non-paper... it caused all kind of trouble. This should not happen tomorrow.) Most governments said only a limited number of drafting groups should be created. Delegations do not have enough members for many additional groups. There was no decision on the number of groups, but it will be only a few. So it was agreed there will be drafting groups. The main issue then was rules of procedure for these drafting groups. Participation of observers was a contentious. The outcome is we are now faced with three options (1.) Observers will not be able to participate in drafting groups. Intergovernmental only. (2.) Observers will be able to make written or spoken comments at the start of a drafting group session and will then be asked to leave. (3.) Observers will be able to make written or spoken comments at the start of a drafting group session and will be able to stay as silent observers. Observers of course want option (3.) My feeling is that we might get (2.) but (1.) is not unlikely. I hope I am wrong. No decision was made today, but the governments have been asked to decide overnight. Option 1 and 2 will be very hard for us. The first time we would see text from drafting groups would be when it is presented to the Plenary. Under rules of procedure for the prepcom observers are allowed to participate in Plenary and speak, but we must submit our comments for each day before the Plenary session starts. Therefore we will not be able to comment on text until the day after it comes from the drafting group, and by that time government's in Plenary will have completed comments on the text we observers are only just beginning to address. Options 1 and 2 would make our comments and presence largely irrelevant. Governments suggested that civil society and private sector might appoint a few liaisons to work closely with the government chairs of the drafting groups, bringing information to their stakeholders. But as the drafting groups are likely to be working late into the day (perhaps night), this would not help us prepare timely and therefore relevant comments to plenary. Hopefully we will get option 3 tomorrow. Thanks, Adam _______________________________________________ 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 mail2claudia at yahoo.com Mon Sep 26 07:59:21 2005 From: mail2claudia at yahoo.com (Claudia) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 04:59:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] 26 sept - internet governance subcommittee notes In-Reply-To: <09877A30-411C-40C0-9505-4E4990E14952@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <20050926115921.70868.qmail@web34107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> more notes on SubCommittee A plenary this morning. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SubComA26-09.doc Type: application/msword Size: 44544 bytes Desc: 3236762013-SubComA26-09.doc URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Sep 26 09:53:59 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:53:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Update on subcommittee A drafting groups Message-ID: <3043.156.106.225.9.1127742839.squirrel@156.106.225.9> All, just a quick update on what's happening with subcommittee A drafting groups: this morning the Chair announced two "gatherings" with the countries that had spoken up regarding specific parts of his draft, namely one group for para 43, and another group for paras 45-48, to sort out the text. The first group met at 1:30pm, chaired by Raul Echeberria, formally from the governmental delegation of Uruguay, but also from the technical community (RIRs). There were about 20 people in the room; apart from me and Robert Guerra (who managed to governmental badges through our national delegations) also some non-gov people with non-gov badges peacefully managed to sit in the room, namely one from ICC, one from Cisco, and Paul Wilson from APNIC, who also took the floor in the discussion and proposed text. The discussion was quite open, no problem for whoever wanted to participate. Actually, in a number of cases governmental people were wondering where the usual civil society people were, or suggesting (when discussing text on CS role) to submit it to CS and then wait for feedback before proceeding. I am now attending the second group, chaired by Saudi Arabia. Again, there are non-gov people with non-gov badges in the room, however the climate is much more formal - it looks like a reduced-scale governmental plenary. I am not sure about what would happen if one of the non-gov people asked for the floor - if anyone will dare, I'll let you know the outcome. This, of course, does not eliminate the need to get formal acceptance for civil society representatives, and adequate speaking opportunities. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Mon Sep 26 11:28:49 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:28:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Language for SUB-COM A Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050926162241.052790d0@pop.gn.apc.org> dear all As announced this morning in plenary, all caucuses and working groups are invited to submit language for Chapter III of the operational document, based on the Chair's text. Our proposal is to approach this in two ways: a) edits to existing language b) our own (new) replacement language We are creating a compilation of all contributions, including either or both of the above, in a three column table formatted document. We have received proposed language from the following groups: Ethics and Values Caucus Privacy and Security Working Group/Human Rights Caucus Africa Caucus Gender Caucus Youth Caucus Informal Coalition on Financing We would like to create a first draft of 'compiled text' (not necessarily consensus text' ) by tomorrow morning - which we can then bring to the Sub-committee A workging group meeting in room E3056/58 at 2.30 pm. But, in order to do so, we need text by no later than 10-11am tomorrow morning. ** Request ** when you send language (either those of you who are submitting revisions to texts already submitted today, or new text), could you use the following formatting. - please underline new text - please strikethrough deleted text ** Please send texts to karenb at gn.apc.org ** Tracked changes (using for example MS Word tracking) are very difficult (in fact impossible) to cut and paste into a new document. thank you very much karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Tue Sep 27 04:45:29 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:45:29 +0900 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] compilation of comments on Khan's paper on IG online In-Reply-To: <4338FA5A.20805@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <4338FA5A.20805@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050927174113.07affe60@211.125.95.185> Yes, it is nice to see some CS comments in line with the governments'. However, there are certain areas where CS comments, such as one made on Para 43 (c) - regarding the role and responsibility of the Civil Society, were not included. Adam asked to clarify this this morning, together with a question on participation status of CS in drafting group. Here was the answer I took note: Khan (Chair) Nothing in UN happens automatically You have to lobby agressively . It's always an uphill struggle, to constitute gropus or like-minded countries, people, advocate. Your proposals are noted, reflected in draft documents, when you make contributions these are valuable comments, broaden don’t be disappointed. Your presence is very important. Your constituencies are also very important by governments. Your overall presence are setting presence. On the question of stakeholder participation in drafting groups. I kept information on this entirely clear fluid and flexible. We have not stalled the process. You would not have having satisfied customers if you have discussion on what is right and wrong, wheter we should create procedure during all the PrepCom. Bear with us trying to sit with us in the mean time, Ambasasdor Karklins is working on talking - probably there is no clarity as we have injected “constructive ambiguity”. As to your reflection of paragharps for comment and compilation, I will ask Dr. Kelly to answer. Tim Kelly: Compliation document take account all of your comments electronically easier- and writing- Para 43 and 44, discussed on Friday and yesterday, we have not commented all of these, because subcom A received report from drafting group All of them are available on the website. At 09:52 05/09/27 +0200, Ralf Bendrath 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! >_______________________________________ > >Just out this morning, and very nice again, with our language >submissions next to the governments's proposals. :-) > >Ralf > >------------------------ > >http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1998|0 > >Document WSIS-II/PC-3/DT/14 E >Compilation of comments received on the Chair痴 Paper (DT/10), >Chapter Three: Internet Governance >27 September 2005 > >This document contains a compilation of comments on Chapter Three: >Internet Governance, Chair痴 Paper (DT/10) received between the >publication of the paper on 23 September and 26 September. The >complete text of all the contributions received is available at: >http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/listing.asp?lang=en?&c_event=pc2|3&c_type=co|sca. > > >This is a working document that will be updated as additional >comments are submitted. >Please send comments and addition contributions to wsis-contributions at itu.int. >_______________________________________________ >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 aizu at anr.org Tue Sep 27 05:07:59 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:07:59 +0900 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments at plenary - Sept 27 AM In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050927175950.0795d740@211.125.95.185> I also think while waiting for the decision of our participation in drafting groups, we are already losing the opportunites for almost two days. Just sitting inside the drafting group room quietly is better than kicking out, but for that we cannot make any substantive comments but just being there watching governments going ahead for the negotiation. I think we should put equal amount of energy for making subtantive comments, especially as they approach to the core issues of oversight and forum we should really make our own position clear to them in time, not after. Let us first discuss about that this afternoon at the IG caucus meeting in Geneva, and welcome all online comments for that. Thanks, izumi At 17:52 05/09/27 +0900, Adam Peake 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! >_______________________________________ > >I read some text this morning. As the CS plenary decided that we >should not present the draft discussed in content and themes and >various CS lists, we dropped that text for now. What I think I said >(pretty on the fly) was: > >Good morning Mr. Chair > >Thank you for your personal efforts to ensure transparency and >inclusion, your efforts since the publication of the WGIG report are >much appreciated. > >However, Civil Society is disappointed that we will not be able to >participate fully in the drafting groups. And that the rules and >procedures for this prepcom now seem unclear to all. > >Could you explain the situation regarding drafting groups? > >We note your new compilation document of comments received, and are >pleased to see that some civil society comments have been included. >But also note some have not been included. For example last Friday >we made comments about 43c. These comments were also mentioned by a >government in sub committee yesterday. But they are not mentioned >in your new document, nor were they mentioned during the drafting >group meeting that discussed 43 yesterday. Did we have rights to >speak in that drafting group? Could we have reminded the group that >we had already submitted comments and those comments were already on >the prepcom3 website. > >I think you can understand our confusion. Can we join and speak in >drafting groups? Are our comments made to sub-committee A being >taken into consideration? > >We would appreciate clarity on this. We were expecting some >resolution yesterday. > >Thank you. > >END. > >Izumi has sent some notes with the chair's response you should >already have seen. > >I think bad precedence is being set. Above was read in my name and >that of GLOCOM and on behalf of the IG caucus so is my >responsibility, I thought something had to be said. > >Thanks, > >Adam >_______________________________________________ >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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Sep 27 06:21:50 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:21:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments at plenary - Sept 27 AM Message-ID: Dear all, just now, in the ifnormal IG Negotiation Group on Para. 52 ff. a remarkable event happend: 1. the chair treated all the languge from CS and PI euqally in the negotiation. 2. Other governments refered to the language proposed by the Human Rights Caucus# in the same way they refered to language proposed by governments and nobody objected. 3. when it cam to para 54 on authetifiaction, Ralph took the floor and a. said that he knows that he has no negotiation right but he wants to explain the Cuacus position and he did without being stopped by the chair. 4. when he ended, the chair asked Ralph some questions and asked also whether #he can agree# with the new labgiage. and Ralph said yes. 5. After an other intevention by Israel the CCBI rep took the floor and said that CCBI supports the position of the previous speaker and also explained the CCBI language proposal for the para. And also CCBI was not stopped. De fact, both itnerventiopn (Ralph and Heather( were treated equally to the governmental interveenttion. 6. After a short break, China, Saudi Arabia, Israel challenged this procedure refering to the #agreed rules of procedure#. UK/EU, US, Norway supported the involvement of observers in the very constructive dialogue. \7. The chair from Norway said th at there has been no agreement on the concrete procedure for informal groups so far and he has no instruction. He would need further consultations with the chair of the Subcommittee, thenpl;enary and the executive secretariat. The remaining time was 90 minutes so he prposed to continue as before but to give the observers onlt a right to answer questions from governmdnts and not to intervene on their own behalf. This got the consensus by all parties in the room. My impression is that this is a remarkable development and proofes that we should not push to aggressive for a #clear and final statement# about the rules but shouyld accept a playing field with gliding barriers on a case by case basis. Best wolfgang ________________________________ From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org on behalf of Adam Peake Sent: Tue 9/27/2005 10:52 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments at plenary - Sept 27 AM [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! _______________________________________ I read some text this morning. As the CS plenary decided that we should not present the draft discussed in content and themes and various CS lists, we dropped that text for now. What I think I said (pretty on the fly) was: Good morning Mr. Chair Thank you for your personal efforts to ensure transparency and inclusion, your efforts since the publication of the WGIG report are much appreciated. However, Civil Society is disappointed that we will not be able to participate fully in the drafting groups. And that the rules and procedures for this prepcom now seem unclear to all. Could you explain the situation regarding drafting groups? We note your new compilation document of comments received, and are pleased to see that some civil society comments have been included. But also note some have not been included. For example last Friday we made comments about 43c. These comments were also mentioned by a government in sub committee yesterday. But they are not mentioned in your new document, nor were they mentioned during the drafting group meeting that discussed 43 yesterday. Did we have rights to speak in that drafting group? Could we have reminded the group that we had already submitted comments and those comments were already on the prepcom3 website. I think you can understand our confusion. Can we join and speak in drafting groups? Are our comments made to sub-committee A being taken into consideration? We would appreciate clarity on this. We were expecting some resolution yesterday. Thank you. END. Izumi has sent some notes with the chair's response you should already have seen. I think bad precedence is being set. Above was read in my name and that of GLOCOM and on behalf of the IG caucus so is my responsibility, I thought something had to be said. Thanks, Adam _______________________________________________ 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 jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca Tue Sep 27 06:22:53 2005 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 06:22:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Subcomitee A notes: plenary Sept 27 (first half) In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050927175950.0795d740@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <001e01c5c34d$6c645520$9fe16a9c@jgsnotebook> Good Morning, We are in a recess. This morning's subcommittee A plenary has thus far focused on the chair's document section 5 Follow-up and future arraignments As, I suggest at least, it has been quite significant- the cards are being placed on the table. I will give the notes on what has transpired thus far in case some people on site but in other venus would like to come for the rest of the discussion. I will try to do a full summary at the conclusion of the session, but, for the time being, the major development has been the emergence of two very distinct approaches to Internet Gov, post WSIS: 1.) first suggested by Iran, seconded by numerous delegations: a governmental council for Internet Governnance public policy issues with a separate multi-stakeholder body for management of technology, both under the Aegis of the UN. 2.) First suggested by the EU, seconded by other developed countries including US, NZ, Aust etc. Which is the status quo option- keep everything in the existing institutions that have worked. As I said, I will try to do a more complete summary at the conclusion of the session but here are my (Very rough) notes for the time being: Sept 27 2005 Subcommittee A: plenary discussion of Section 5 Location: Assembly Hall Art Riley Cisco System- CCBI - discuss form function - business supports information exchanges, but should be limited - should not be duplicative of other issues - WSIS shows that many are engaging internet already and that they are being effective - Duplication of existing structures could cause competition, divert resources away from the relevant existing institutions Get this statement: CS- coalition on Financing - the internet exists as much in the physical network - the Internet is a global space, global public good, global public resources Adam Peake- CS IG cacus - seeks clarification on drafting groups, if CS language is being included Chair: - gives lecture about how ‘nothing in the UN happens automatically, even governments have to lobby’. - The overall setting is influenced by your presence - I have stalled the procedural matters by keeping it very informal - “just bear with us, try to make to the most of the present conditions” - “we have injected constructive ambiguity in this process” Secretariat - we took into account all of that was there Iran - we want to have stakeholders involved in management of the technology but, public policy issues left to the governments Russia India United Kingdom (EU) 62 Suggests Geneva principles +: - should not replace existing mechanisms, but should build on them - the new public/private model should contribute to the susatainable stability and robustness of the Internet by addressing appropriately public policy issues related to key elements of IG - the role of governments in the new model should be primarly focused on issues of public policy, excluding involvement in the day to day management of the Internet Russia - proposal of EU seems very interesting - we need to think about infrastructure as well. - Now we have a public infrastructure managed by 1 state, the UK proposal continues this - We cannont accept the EU proposal, need more reference to the WGIG Iran (See this document) - go back to para 48 of WGIG report - the first thing we believe that the consil should do is international public policy issues, then oversight of Internet resources management -approve rules and procedures for dispute resolution management - leave the functions to a reformed and nationalized existing institution, but should be responsible to intergovernmental council. - reads out text for new para 62 - involves putting ICANN IANA into a UN council on Internet governance. Brazil - Iranian proposal is quite reasonable. Oman - acting as though Geneva principles and WGIG report do not exist - find Iran’s report very interesting Japan - further discussion necessary. Associate with EU. Existing structures are important Columbia - vision of Columbia coincides with Iran’s vision, international council South Africa - Having listened to the proposals by the EU and Iran, we would like to align ourself with Iran - Instutations need to be legitimate to be acceptable to SA. - Come from a country where, just because there are structures in place that they are legitimate Cuba - supports the proposal made by Iran. - Goes to the heart of the issue, the outcomes of the first phase and based on the WGIG report New Zeeland - the existing mechanisms are not perfect but they work. They bring ever cheaper connectivity to ever increasing parts of the world. Public policy issues are already addressed in exising fora. Do not believe throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Saudi Arabia - the proposal put forward by Iran puts in place concret phases of work, we would like to see it in writing, side by side with the proposal of the EU Bangladesh - is there any proposal to put in a watchdog? - The regions are so different in the event of the implemtation of international IG? - Bigger states may try to influence smaller states and regions. Chair: - the real question is the relationship between the existing institutions of IGs and governments Bangladesh - governments change in each national context, therefore we need a bottom line set of principles to adhere to regardless of changing national priorities US - Associates with Japan on essential elements on security and stability as well as vital role played by many organizations - Internet society has raised two points they like to reflect. Change is best brought about through existing mechanisms, not without. Responsbility that all stakeholders have to increase the internet in the developing world. - Repsonsibilty for development, responsibilities of govs and stakeholders, Value and Innovations at the edges- how do we capture this in change? - They work from the bottom up. - The history of the Internet is the history of change from the bottom up. - We should not limit top down this bottom up process of change - Uses the word medium. Ghana (on behalf of Africa Group) - IG should be transparent and democratic - Would like to see the proposals in writing before commenting Singapore -Change is necessarcy -Singapore does not believe that the status quo today is satisfactory -far more responsive to the public policy imperatives expressed -let’s start thinking of what phase 1 would be of this evolutionary change would be -discussing a forum or a model at this point is a bit like talking about building a house when you haven’t scouted out the nehiborhood yet. -we need to advance in a phase by phase manner, but deliberatively China - an evolutionary approach? This process has been underway for two years. - Need to label this approach as progressive and evolutionary. - What the delegation of Iran said seemed relevant - We hope to have all the written texts first Algeria - evolution oui! Status quo, non! - A real change, not a virtual one. - The Iranian proposal is close to what we want. Venezula - the role of governments should be through a world internet council, and the the technical management should be separate. - Both should be under the agies of the UN. Switzerland - Swiss feels that the status quo is not satisfactory but favour evolution over revolution. - Internationalization (internalization?) of oversite functions and the ability of govs to exercise sovereignty over their CCTLDs - Needs to be incremental. The forum as we see it, seems to be a first stage. Mexico - EU proposals are perfect in line with Geneva declerations. We associate with them. Croatia - we align ourselves with New Zeeland and Singapore. - Clearly a need for profound change - However, we think we should exhaust existing institutions first through incremental change. - EU proposal is balanced. Australia - seconds ISOC, Japan, Croritia, US etc. - priority stability etc. - governance arraignments should foster innovations - existing have worked (see list in India submission of last week) - illogical to trade these for illdefined and unknown new elements - find the suggestion unprovable that a overarching new body could take this all on. - WSIS should be careful of suggestions that would divert resources away from ICT4D Chair List the exisiting institutions: Austriallia (Lists a bunch)- refers to Indian contribution of last week. Senegal - ongoging follow-up so that progressively we will go to this internet functions - this is why the African group has proposed that changes be made so that IG becomes more eficant, transparent, democratic - that is why we think follow-up is important Iran - we say yes to the principle of stability etc. - but, on top of that, we say that we should not scarify the principles of international management, transparency and democracy of the Internet towards those ends. - Interface between existing and future arraignments is a function of the oversight follow-up form, not the other way Barbados - find both EU and Iran proposals interesting - evolutionary changes- but evolution is not a consistent and slow process, can happen in leaps and bounds, espically as a result of technological change - by the time we finish this, Internet as we know it may not exisit, may not even be called the Internet, we see the issue of IG as work in progress. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-= 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 Izumi AIZU Sent: September 27, 2005 5:08 AM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [not_spam] Re: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments at plenary - Sept 27 AM I also think while waiting for the decision of our participation in drafting groups, we are already losing the opportunites for almost two days. Just sitting inside the drafting group room quietly is better than kicking out, but for that we cannot make any substantive comments but just being there watching governments going ahead for the negotiation. I think we should put equal amount of energy for making subtantive comments, especially as they approach to the core issues of oversight and forum we should really make our own position clear to them in time, not after. Let us first discuss about that this afternoon at the IG caucus meeting in Geneva, and welcome all online comments for that. Thanks, izumi At 17:52 05/09/27 +0900, Adam Peake 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! >_______________________________________ > >I read some text this morning. As the CS plenary decided that we >should not present the draft discussed in content and themes and >various CS lists, we dropped that text for now. What I think I said >(pretty on the fly) was: > >Good morning Mr. Chair > >Thank you for your personal efforts to ensure transparency and >inclusion, your efforts since the publication of the WGIG report are >much appreciated. > >However, Civil Society is disappointed that we will not be able to >participate fully in the drafting groups. And that the rules and >procedures for this prepcom now seem unclear to all. > >Could you explain the situation regarding drafting groups? > >We note your new compilation document of comments received, and are >pleased to see that some civil society comments have been included. >But also note some have not been included. For example last Friday >we made comments about 43c. These comments were also mentioned by a >government in sub committee yesterday. But they are not mentioned >in your new document, nor were they mentioned during the drafting >group meeting that discussed 43 yesterday. Did we have rights to >speak in that drafting group? Could we have reminded the group that >we had already submitted comments and those comments were already on >the prepcom3 website. > >I think you can understand our confusion. Can we join and speak in >drafting groups? Are our comments made to sub-committee A being >taken into consideration? > >We would appreciate clarity on this. We were expecting some >resolution yesterday. > >Thank you. > >END. > >Izumi has sent some notes with the chair's response you should >already have seen. > >I think bad precedence is being set. Above was read in my name and >that of GLOCOM and on behalf of the IG caucus so is my >responsibility, I thought something had to be said. > >Thanks, > >Adam >_______________________________________________ >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 Tue Sep 27 06:28:32 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:28:32 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Report from drafting group III, subcom A Message-ID: <3050.156.106.225.194.1127816912.squirrel@156.106.225.194> The drafting group would deal with paras 51-55, e.g. the section on privacy, personal data protection, consumer protection and freedom of expression. I think the result is acceptable, even if we had to deal with the US consistently weakening any statement in support of the aforementioned values, and in particular of legislative approaches in the field (I was a bit sad for their last minute addition of "national" in front of "consumer protection mechanisms", but alas, that's the reality). The Chinese and Arab delegations were surprisingly silent, the climate was productive and most of the session went into exchanges between the US & friends, the UK/EU, and some particularly active delegations (Norway, Singapore, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Israel). However, civil society proposals got broad support in principle and also in practice (especially from the EU ;-) ), even if, in practice, only a few of them were adopted. Before the break, Ralf was bold enough to raise his hand and take the floor to promote CS positions. This, however, caused a bit of havoc. During the break, the Chair was approached by China and two Arab delegations, who raised the issue that, according to the procedures agreed in phase I, civil society should not participate in the session. The EU delegation countered this on the basis that no agreement had been reached on Friday, and this was supported by a good number of delegations from Western countries and Latin America. The Chair (Norway) said that he had received no instructions to this purpose, so the meeting was sovereign, and that his compromise proposal was that non-gov members could stay and speak if directly addressed by some gov speaker or by the Chair. In the end, he managed to get all delegations to accept this proposal. So I think we've almost set a precedent, unless Khan explicitly counters the drafting group Chair's decision for the future. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Tue Sep 27 06:45:52 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:45:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Proposed Guidelines for CS Plenary In-Reply-To: References: <3065.156.106.225.9.1127753450.squirrel@156.106.225.9> Message-ID: <3900.156.106.225.194.1127817952.squirrel@156.106.225.194> On Mar, 27 Settembre 2005 10:48, west disse: > Dear Vitorio > > Thanks for your comments, I should request you to attend the WGWM meeting > at > noon in NGO lounge close to cafeteria, and to discuss your points with the > drafting group, as tomorrow we are aiming to finalize this document and > avoid reopening of the discussion as there is not much time and there are > other important issues such as statements and CS position on govts work. I > should also request all other people to come up with text or language for > the drafting group,assisting them to finalize the document and to be able > to > share the final version for adoption by tonight. > > I sincerely request your cooperation and understanding on this issue. > Best wishes I just came out of the previous meeting and found your email, will drop into your meeting asap. Speaking about my main concern - the definition of "civil society membership" - I am not sure about what to suggest. I understand the practical reasoning behind the idea of only allowing accredited organizations to be full participants in civil society, and denying individuals and non-accredited organizations the right to vote in the plenary. At the same time, I find it incredibly hard to accept. For example, if this charter is adopted, a big part (perhaps even the majority) of the Internet Governance Caucus - especially those who can't afford to come to Geneva, and thus didn't bother to find an organizational accreditation - will be deprived of their voting rights in the Civil Society Plenary. Others (as I did for past PrepComs) have found friendly organizations that have accepted to accredit them, but that won't let them have a vote in the reformed Plenary. Paradoxically, after the adoption of this Charter, as an Internet activist that managed to get credibility with the governmental delegation, I will have more influence on what my government says, than on what civil society decides. To me, this looks like a defeat. We could have tried to embrace something more innovative and forward-looking, rather than creating a sort of mockery of the governmental procedures, creating a second league of "onlookers" that will only be allowed to sit in the back rows of the Plenary, and (I hope) to speak, but not to vote. I would rather have conceived the Plenary as a free assembly of women and men, each equal to each other, and discussed separately how to certify the identity of each participant, and avoid capture. In any case, I also believe that drafting this fundamental document on a Friday, putting it to the Plenary on Tuesday, and approving it on Wednesday, is a bit too fast. I understand the desire to be productive, but I think we need more careful thoughts on this very basic matter. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Sep 27 06:46:02 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:46:02 -0300 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments at plenary - Sept 27 AM In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Amazing developments! After reading a draft statement from CS to protest on blocking our access, I went straight to one of the Brazilian reps to check if the BR delegation was supporting this idea -- he seemed surprised, indicating no one will be and is not blocking anything as far as his delegation knows. Bertrand's and Wolf's messages seem to confirm this, or even better! --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter To: plenary at wsis-cs.org, governance at lists.cpsr.org, plenary at wsis-cs.org Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:21:50 +0200 Subject: RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments at plenary - Sept 27 AM > [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, > > just now, in the ifnormal IG Negotiation Group on Para. 52 ff. a > remarkable event happend: > > 1. the chair treated all the languge from CS and PI euqally in the > negotiation. > 2. Other governments refered to the language proposed by the Human > Rights Caucus# in the same way they refered to language proposed by > governments and nobody objected. > 3. when it cam to para 54 on authetifiaction, Ralph took the floor > and a. said that he knows that he has no negotiation right but he > wants to explain the Cuacus position and he did without being stopped > by the chair. > 4. when he ended, the chair asked Ralph some questions and asked also > whether #he can agree# with the new labgiage. and Ralph said yes. > 5. After an other intevention by Israel the CCBI rep took the floor > and said that CCBI supports the position of the previous speaker and > also explained the CCBI language proposal for the para. And also CCBI > was not stopped. De fact, both itnerventiopn (Ralph and Heather( were > treated equally to the governmental interveenttion. > 6. After a short break, China, Saudi Arabia, Israel challenged this > procedure refering to the #agreed rules of procedure#. UK/EU, US, > Norway supported the involvement of observers in the very > constructive dialogue. \7. The chair from Norway said th at there has > been no agreement on the concrete procedure for informal groups so > far and he has no instruction. He would need further consultations > with the chair of the Subcommittee, thenpl;enary and the executive > secretariat. The remaining time was 90 minutes so he prposed to > continue as before but to give the observers onlt a right to answer > questions from governmdnts and not to intervene on their own behalf. > This got the consensus by all parties in the room. > > My impression is that this is a remarkable development and proofes > that we should not push to aggressive for a #clear and final > statement# about the rules but shouyld accept a playing field with > gliding barriers on a case by case basis. > > Best > > wolfgang > > > > ________________________________ > > From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org on behalf of Adam Peake > Sent: Tue 9/27/2005 10:52 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org > Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments at plenary - Sept 27 AM > > > > [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! > _______________________________________ > > I read some text this morning. As the CS plenary decided that we > should not present the draft discussed in content and themes and > various CS lists, we dropped that text for now. What I think I said > (pretty on the fly) was: > > Good morning Mr. Chair > > Thank you for your personal efforts to ensure transparency and > inclusion, your efforts since the publication of the WGIG report are > much appreciated. > > However, Civil Society is disappointed that we will not be able to > participate fully in the drafting groups. And that the rules and > procedures for this prepcom now seem unclear to all. > > Could you explain the situation regarding drafting groups? > > We note your new compilation document of comments received, and are > pleased to see that some civil society comments have been included. > But also note some have not been included. For example last Friday > we made comments about 43c. These comments were also mentioned by a > government in sub committee yesterday. But they are not mentioned in > your new document, nor were they mentioned during the drafting group > meeting that discussed 43 yesterday. Did we have rights to speak in > that drafting group? Could we have reminded the group that we had > already submitted comments and those comments were already on the > prepcom3 website. > > I think you can understand our confusion. Can we join and speak in > drafting groups? Are our comments made to sub-committee A being > taken into consideration? > > We would appreciate clarity on this. We were expecting some > resolution yesterday. > > Thank you. > > END. > > Izumi has sent some notes with the chair's response you should > already have seen. > > I think bad precedence is being set. Above was read in my name and > that of GLOCOM and on behalf of the IG caucus so is my > responsibility, I thought something had to be said. > > Thanks, > > Adam > _______________________________________________ > Plenary mailing list > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca Tue Sep 27 07:09:13 2005 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:09:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Subcomitee A notes: plenary Sept 27 (whole session) In-Reply-To: <001e01c5c34d$6c645520$9fe16a9c@jgsnotebook> Message-ID: <002701c5c353$e5729200$9fe16a9c@jgsnotebook> The plenary session of Subcommittee A has just concluded. An update on my earlier notes/ summary. It seems in fact that the global council on Internet Governance as proposed by Iran is not in place of the forum function as I had earlier described it, but something separate. Iran in fact supports the forum function as well. The chair summarized the two competing visions of the forum function as: EU (UK) and Brazil Brazil - has a proposal for the forum: - -linked to UN - interface with Inter gov bodies and other institutions on maters under their purview - identify appropriate issues and bring them to the appropriate bodies - identify issues not dealt with elsewhere - connect other groups - contribute to capacity building in developing countires - promote and acces on an ongoing basis the WSIS principles in IG. EU - we think in balance there is an advantage to having a forum. - Should not have an oversight function - Should work with exiting organizations and institutions - Should not dominate work done elsewhere - Should have a clear mandate. A drafting group was formed, but not on this issue. It will be discussed further in the afternoon subcommittee A meeting. There were concerns raised about some elements of the particular visions of the forum articulated, but no direct objection to the establishment of the forum itself (save for one delegation which said the global council of Internet Governance- which is also still just an idea on the table- would do the same functions. Full, but rough notes below: Sept 27 2005 Subcommittee A: plenary discussion of Section 5 Location: Assembly Hall Art Riley Cisco System- CCBI - discuss form function - business supports information exchanges, but should be limited - should not be duplicative of other issues - WSIS shows that many are engaging internet already and that they are being effective - Duplication of existing structures could cause competition, divert resources away from the relevant existing institutions Get this statement: CS- coalition on Financing - the internet exists as much in the physical network - the Internet is a global space, global public good, global public resources Adam Peake- CS IG cacus - seeks clarification on drafting groups, if CS language is being included Chair: - gives lecture about how ‘nothing in the UN happens automatically, even governments have to lobby’. - The overall setting is influenced by your presence - I have stalled the procedural matters by keeping it very informal - “just bear with us, try to make to the most of the present conditions” - “we have injected constructive ambiguity in this process” Secretariat - we took into account all of that was there Iran - we want to have stakeholders involved in management of the technology but, public policy issues left to the governments Russia India United Kingdom (EU) 62 Suggests Geneva principles +: - should not replace existing mechanisms, but should build on them - the new public/private model should contribute to the susatainable stability and robustness of the Internet by addressing appropriately public policy issues related to key elements of IG - the role of governments in the new model should be primarly focused on issues of public policy, excluding involvement in the day to day management of the Internet Russia - proposal of EU seems very interesting - we need to think about infrastructure as well. - Now we have a public infrastructure managed by 1 state, the UK proposal continues this - We cannont accept the EU proposal, need more reference to the WGIG Iran (See this document) - go back to para 48 of WGIG report - the first thing we believe that the consil should do is international public policy issues, then oversight of Internet resources management -approve rules and procedures for dispute resolution management - leave the functions to a reformed and nationalized existing institution, but should be responsible to intergovernmental council. - reads out text for new para 62 - involves putting ICANN IANA into a UN council on Internet governance. Brazil - Iranian proposal is quite reasonable. Oman - acting as though Geneva principles and WGIG report do not exist - find Iran’s report very interesting Japan - further discussion necessary. Associate with EU. Existing structures are important Columbia - vision of Columbia coincides with Iran’s vision, international council South Africa - Having listened to the proposals by the EU and Iran, we would like to align ourself with Iran - Instutations need to be legitimate to be acceptable to SA. - Come from a country where, just because there are structures in place that they are legitimate Cuba - supports the proposal made by Iran. - Goes to the heart of the issue, the outcomes of the first phase and based on the WGIG report New Zeeland - the existing mechanisms are not perfect but they work. They bring ever cheaper connectivity to ever increasing parts of the world. Public policy issues are already addressed in exising fora. Do not believe throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Saudi Arabia - the proposal put forward by Iran puts in place concret phases of work, we would like to see it in writing, side by side with the proposal of the EU Bangladesh - is there any proposal to put in a watchdog? - The regions are so different in the event of the implemtation of international IG? - Bigger states may try to influence smaller states and regions. Chair: - the real question is the relationship between the existing institutions of IGs and governments Bangladesh - governments change in each national context, therefore we need a bottom line set of principles to adhere to regardless of changing national priorities US - Associates with Japan on essential elements on security and stability as well as vital role played by many organizations - Internet society has raised two points they like to reflect. Change is best brought about through existing mechanisms, not without. Responsbility that all stakeholders have to increase the internet in the developing world. - Repsonsibilty for development, responsibilities of govs and stakeholders, Value and Innovations at the edges- how do we capture this in change? - They work from the bottom up. - The history of the Internet is the history of change from the bottom up. - We should not limit top down this bottom up process of change - Uses the word medium. Ghana (on behalf of Africa Group) - IG should be transparent and democratic - Would like to see the proposals in writing before commenting Singapore -Change is necessarcy -Singapore does not believe that the status quo today is satisfactory -far more responsive to the public policy imperatives expressed -let’s start thinking of what phase 1 would be of this evolutionary change would be -discussing a forum or a model at this point is a bit like talking about building a house when you haven’t scouted out the nehiborhood yet. -we need to advance in a phase by phase manner, but deliberatively China - an evolutionary approach? This process has been underway for two years. - Need to label this approach as progressive and evolutionary. - What the delegation of Iran said seemed relevant - We hope to have all the written texts first Algeria - evolution oui! Status quo, non! - A real change, not a virtual one. - The Iranian proposal is close to what we want. Venezula - the role of governments should be through a world internet council, and the the technical management should be separate. - Both should be under the agies of the UN. Switzerland - Swiss feels that the status quo is not satisfactory but favour evolution over revolution. - Internationalization (internalization?) of oversite functions and the ability of govs to exercise sovereignty over their CCTLDs - Needs to be incremental. The forum as we see it, seems to be a first stage. Mexico - EU proposals are perfect in line with Geneva declerations. We associate with them. Croatia - we align ourselves with New Zeeland and Singapore. - Clearly a need for profound change - However, we think we should exhaust existing institutions first through incremental change. - EU proposal is balanced. Australia - seconds ISOC, Japan, Croritia, US etc. - priority stability etc. - governance arraignments should foster innovations - existing have worked (see list in India submission of last week) - illogical to trade these for illdefined and unknown new elements - find the suggestion unprovable that a overarching new body could take this all on. - WSIS should be careful of suggestions that would divert resources away from ICT4D Chair List the exisiting institutions: Austriallia (Lists a bunch)- refers to Indian contribution of last week. Senegal - ongoging follow-up so that progressively we will go to this internet functions - this is why the African group has proposed that changes be made so that IG becomes more eficant, transparent, democratic - that is why we think follow-up is important Iran - we say yes to the principle of stability etc. - but, on top of that, we say that we should not scarify the principles of international management, transparency and democracy of the Internet towards those ends. - Interface between existing and future arraignments is a function of the oversight follow-up form, not the other way Barbados - find both EU and Iran proposals interesting - evolutionary changes- but evolution is not a consistent and slow process, can happen in leaps and bounds, espically as a result of technological change - by the time we finish this, Internet as we know it may not exisit, may not even be called the Internet, we see the issue of IG as work in progress. Chair: Should there be a forum or should there be know forum EU - we think in balance there is an advantage to having a forum. - Should not have an oversight function - Should work with exiting organizations and institutions - Should not dominate work done elsewhere - Should have a clear mandate. Venezula - proposes a body called the knowledge society - we must not ignore the government sector, they are not on an equal footing as CS etc, they ought to have more weight than these institutions, governments should be responsible for providing a framework. Columbia - we are not very clear of the need for setting up a forum. We feel that the discussion can be carried out in the council that is being proposed. Brazil - has a proposal for the forum: - -linked to UN - interface with Inter gov bodies and other institutions on maters under their purview - identify appropriate issues and bring them to the appropriate bodies - identify issues not dealt with elsewhere - connect other groups - contribute to capacity building in developing countires - promote and acces on an ongoing basis the WSIS principles in IG. South Africa - are favourable to forum proposal. Iran - are satfisfied chair’s paper separates froum from governance function- sepearte but compelementary issues. - Do support the forum - Paragraphs 45, 46-47 of WGIG, would like to support Brazil’s list of thing important to forum - Forum should not be limited in terms of time, should be ongoing and regular meetings Canada - Canada has stated that it ‘could’ support a form. - We see the forum as a development issue. - Do not think that it should be treaty making body - Think the existing institutions are evolving. ??? - seconds brazil Chair: Suggests two forum options: EU and Brazil Adam Peake - fully support the establish as forum - there is no cross cutting global institution - asking that the UN Secratry General to establish it as a free standing institution Art Riley- CCBI - re-iterates earlier comments Saudi Arabia - the proposal from Brazil was interesting because it said the forum should be along side the council - we also agree with the EU in that it should not do oversight, should not do public policy Japan -dialogue should continue, seconds Canada, EU Urugay - the forum would help integrate developing countries - serious methodological issues to sort out. Chair: Discussion on Part 5, 3A will continue in Rm XX at 330 along with second reading of the chair’s text. - new drafting group on mult-lingualism and enabling environment (chapters 60-61) Canada 100 Ghana and Sengal 56-59 16 Egypt 60-61 6-9 , rm 16 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-= 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 Jeremy Shtern Sent: September 27, 2005 6:23 AM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [not_spam] [governance] Subcomitee A notes: plenary Sept 27 (first half) Good Morning, We are in a recess. This morning's subcommittee A plenary has thus far focused on the chair's document section 5 Follow-up and future arraignments As, I suggest at least, it has been quite significant- the cards are being placed on the table. I will give the notes on what has transpired thus far in case some people on site but in other venus would like to come for the rest of the discussion. I will try to do a full summary at the conclusion of the session, but, for the time being, the major development has been the emergence of two very distinct approaches to Internet Gov, post WSIS: 1.) first suggested by Iran, seconded by numerous delegations: a governmental council for Internet Governnance public policy issues with a separate multi-stakeholder body for management of technology, both under the Aegis of the UN. 2.) First suggested by the EU, seconded by other developed countries including US, NZ, Aust etc. Which is the status quo option- keep everything in the existing institutions that have worked. As I said, I will try to do a more complete summary at the conclusion of the session but here are my (Very rough) notes for the time being: Sept 27 2005 Subcommittee A: plenary discussion of Section 5 Location: Assembly Hall Art Riley Cisco System- CCBI - discuss form function - business supports information exchanges, but should be limited - should not be duplicative of other issues - WSIS shows that many are engaging internet already and that they are being effective - Duplication of existing structures could cause competition, divert resources away from the relevant existing institutions Get this statement: CS- coalition on Financing - the internet exists as much in the physical network - the Internet is a global space, global public good, global public resources Adam Peake- CS IG cacus - seeks clarification on drafting groups, if CS language is being included Chair: - gives lecture about how ‘nothing in the UN happens automatically, even governments have to lobby’. - The overall setting is influenced by your presence - I have stalled the procedural matters by keeping it very informal - “just bear with us, try to make to the most of the present conditions” - “we have injected constructive ambiguity in this process” Secretariat - we took into account all of that was there Iran - we want to have stakeholders involved in management of the technology but, public policy issues left to the governments Russia India United Kingdom (EU) 62 Suggests Geneva principles +: - should not replace existing mechanisms, but should build on them - the new public/private model should contribute to the susatainable stability and robustness of the Internet by addressing appropriately public policy issues related to key elements of IG - the role of governments in the new model should be primarly focused on issues of public policy, excluding involvement in the day to day management of the Internet Russia - proposal of EU seems very interesting - we need to think about infrastructure as well. - Now we have a public infrastructure managed by 1 state, the UK proposal continues this - We cannont accept the EU proposal, need more reference to the WGIG Iran (See this document) - go back to para 48 of WGIG report - the first thing we believe that the consil should do is international public policy issues, then oversight of Internet resources management -approve rules and procedures for dispute resolution management - leave the functions to a reformed and nationalized existing institution, but should be responsible to intergovernmental council. - reads out text for new para 62 - involves putting ICANN IANA into a UN council on Internet governance. Brazil - Iranian proposal is quite reasonable. Oman - acting as though Geneva principles and WGIG report do not exist - find Iran’s report very interesting Japan - further discussion necessary. Associate with EU. Existing structures are important Columbia - vision of Columbia coincides with Iran’s vision, international council South Africa - Having listened to the proposals by the EU and Iran, we would like to align ourself with Iran - Instutations need to be legitimate to be acceptable to SA. - Come from a country where, just because there are structures in place that they are legitimate Cuba - supports the proposal made by Iran. - Goes to the heart of the issue, the outcomes of the first phase and based on the WGIG report New Zeeland - the existing mechanisms are not perfect but they work. They bring ever cheaper connectivity to ever increasing parts of the world. Public policy issues are already addressed in exising fora. Do not believe throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Saudi Arabia - the proposal put forward by Iran puts in place concret phases of work, we would like to see it in writing, side by side with the proposal of the EU Bangladesh - is there any proposal to put in a watchdog? - The regions are so different in the event of the implemtation of international IG? - Bigger states may try to influence smaller states and regions. Chair: - the real question is the relationship between the existing institutions of IGs and governments Bangladesh - governments change in each national context, therefore we need a bottom line set of principles to adhere to regardless of changing national priorities US - Associates with Japan on essential elements on security and stability as well as vital role played by many organizations - Internet society has raised two points they like to reflect. Change is best brought about through existing mechanisms, not without. Responsbility that all stakeholders have to increase the internet in the developing world. - Repsonsibilty for development, responsibilities of govs and stakeholders, Value and Innovations at the edges- how do we capture this in change? - They work from the bottom up. - The history of the Internet is the history of change from the bottom up. - We should not limit top down this bottom up process of change - Uses the word medium. Ghana (on behalf of Africa Group) - IG should be transparent and democratic - Would like to see the proposals in writing before commenting Singapore -Change is necessarcy -Singapore does not believe that the status quo today is satisfactory -far more responsive to the public policy imperatives expressed -let’s start thinking of what phase 1 would be of this evolutionary change would be -discussing a forum or a model at this point is a bit like talking about building a house when you haven’t scouted out the nehiborhood yet. -we need to advance in a phase by phase manner, but deliberatively China - an evolutionary approach? This process has been underway for two years. - Need to label this approach as progressive and evolutionary. - What the delegation of Iran said seemed relevant - We hope to have all the written texts first Algeria - evolution oui! Status quo, non! - A real change, not a virtual one. - The Iranian proposal is close to what we want. Venezula - the role of governments should be through a world internet council, and the the technical management should be separate. - Both should be under the agies of the UN. Switzerland - Swiss feels that the status quo is not satisfactory but favour evolution over revolution. - Internationalization (internalization?) of oversite functions and the ability of govs to exercise sovereignty over their CCTLDs - Needs to be incremental. The forum as we see it, seems to be a first stage. Mexico - EU proposals are perfect in line with Geneva declerations. We associate with them. Croatia - we align ourselves with New Zeeland and Singapore. - Clearly a need for profound change - However, we think we should exhaust existing institutions first through incremental change. - EU proposal is balanced. Australia - seconds ISOC, Japan, Croritia, US etc. - priority stability etc. - governance arraignments should foster innovations - existing have worked (see list in India submission of last week) - illogical to trade these for illdefined and unknown new elements - find the suggestion unprovable that a overarching new body could take this all on. - WSIS should be careful of suggestions that would divert resources away from ICT4D Chair List the exisiting institutions: Austriallia (Lists a bunch)- refers to Indian contribution of last week. Senegal - ongoging follow-up so that progressively we will go to this internet functions - this is why the African group has proposed that changes be made so that IG becomes more eficant, transparent, democratic - that is why we think follow-up is important Iran - we say yes to the principle of stability etc. - but, on top of that, we say that we should not scarify the principles of international management, transparency and democracy of the Internet towards those ends. - Interface between existing and future arraignments is a function of the oversight follow-up form, not the other way Barbados - find both EU and Iran proposals interesting - evolutionary changes- but evolution is not a consistent and slow process, can happen in leaps and bounds, espically as a result of technological change - by the time we finish this, Internet as we know it may not exisit, may not even be called the Internet, we see the issue of IG as work in progress. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-= 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 Izumi AIZU Sent: September 27, 2005 5:08 AM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [not_spam] Re: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments at plenary - Sept 27 AM I also think while waiting for the decision of our participation in drafting groups, we are already losing the opportunites for almost two days. Just sitting inside the drafting group room quietly is better than kicking out, but for that we cannot make any substantive comments but just being there watching governments going ahead for the negotiation. I think we should put equal amount of energy for making subtantive comments, especially as they approach to the core issues of oversight and forum we should really make our own position clear to them in time, not after. Let us first discuss about that this afternoon at the IG caucus meeting in Geneva, and welcome all online comments for that. Thanks, izumi At 17:52 05/09/27 +0900, Adam Peake 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! >_______________________________________ > >I read some text this morning. As the CS plenary decided that we >should not present the draft discussed in content and themes and >various CS lists, we dropped that text for now. What I think I said >(pretty on the fly) was: > >Good morning Mr. Chair > >Thank you for your personal efforts to ensure transparency and >inclusion, your efforts since the publication of the WGIG report are >much appreciated. > >However, Civil Society is disappointed that we will not be able to >participate fully in the drafting groups. And that the rules and >procedures for this prepcom now seem unclear to all. > >Could you explain the situation regarding drafting groups? > >We note your new compilation document of comments received, and are >pleased to see that some civil society comments have been included. >But also note some have not been included. For example last Friday >we made comments about 43c. These comments were also mentioned by a >government in sub committee yesterday. But they are not mentioned >in your new document, nor were they mentioned during the drafting >group meeting that discussed 43 yesterday. Did we have rights to >speak in that drafting group? Could we have reminded the group that >we had already submitted comments and those comments were already on >the prepcom3 website. > >I think you can understand our confusion. Can we join and speak in >drafting groups? Are our comments made to sub-committee A being >taken into consideration? > >We would appreciate clarity on this. We were expecting some >resolution yesterday. > >Thank you. > >END. > >Izumi has sent some notes with the chair's response you should >already have seen. > >I think bad precedence is being set. Above was read in my name and >that of GLOCOM and on behalf of the IG caucus so is my >responsibility, I thought something had to be said. > >Thanks, > >Adam >_______________________________________________ >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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Tue Sep 27 08:47:48 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:47:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] SUB-Committee A: Civil Society Contributions Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050927134548.06e8b8a0@pop.gn.apc.org> Dear all, The following contributions from civil society have been submitted to the secretariat in individual and a compiled verions (for their reference). We may have missed some here, and if so, please let the secretariat know directly. note: the Privacy and Security/Human rights language from Sep 26th is already reflected in today's draft (official) compilation and is not included here. karen >Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:44:12 +0100 >To: wsis-contributions at itu.int >From: karen banks >Subject: Civil Society Contributions >Cc: karenb at gn.apc.org > >Greetings, > >Please find attached several statements from Civil Society Caucuses for >Chapter Three of the Chairs Draft - DOcument - Document WSIS-II/PC-3/DT/10-E > >Attached are: > >Civil Society Contribution (note, all documents include the submitting >organisation at the top of the respective paper) > >(1) Jeanette Hoffman on behalf of Heinrich Boell Foundation (oversight >function) >Language proposals on paragraph 62b of the Chair's paper > >(2) Adam Peake on behalf of GLOCOM (forum function) >Language proposals on paragraph 62 of the Chair's paper > >(3) AMARC (World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters) Africa, >FEMNET African Women's Development and Communication Network, and TERRE >DES FEMMES on behalf of the WSIS-Gender Caucus. > >(4) WSIS Civil Society Privacy and Security Working Group/ WSIS Civil >Society Human Rights Caucus >REVISED: Language proposal for Paragraph 52 of the Chair's paper 27 >September 2005, 1300 CET > >(5) Submitted by GLOCOM On behalf of the WSIS Civil Society Internet >Governance Caucus >Language proposals on Paragraph 43 of the Chair's paper 27 September 2005 > >(6) Submitted by the WSIS Civil Society Africa Caucus >Language proposals for Chair's paper - Paragraphs 43-58 27 September 2005 > >(7) 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 > >Language proposals on Section 4: MEASURES TO PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT >Paragraphs 56-61 of the Chair's paper >27 September 2005 > >(8) a compilation of all of the above, with additional comments from the >WSIS Youth Caucus > >please let me know that you have received these and let me know if you >have any questions.. > >regards >karen banks >APC -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dt-10_Africa_Caucus.doc Type: application/msword Size: 33792 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dt14_compilation.doc Type: application/msword Size: 237056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DT14_para_62_glocom.rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 20808 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DT14_para_62B_HB.rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 17618 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dt-10-Gender.doc Type: application/msword Size: 109568 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DT14_privsec_hr_52.rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 16579 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DT10_IG_para_43.rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 28187 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DT10_privacy.rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 38558 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DT10_financing_coalition.rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 25106 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From airetg at gmail.com Tue Sep 27 09:10:04 2005 From: airetg at gmail.com (Yulia Timofeeva) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:10:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Proposed Guidelines for CS Plenary In-Reply-To: <3900.156.106.225.194.1127817952.squirrel@156.106.225.194> References: <3065.156.106.225.9.1127753450.squirrel@156.106.225.9> <3900.156.106.225.194.1127817952.squirrel@156.106.225.194> Message-ID: <1f72887f05092706106947fd2f@mail.gmail.com> On 9/27/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > I understand the > practical reasoning behind the idea of only allowing accredited > organizations to be full participants in civil society, and denying > individuals and non-accredited organizations the right to vote in the > plenary. At the same time, I find it incredibly hard to accept. > > To me, this looks like a defeat. We could have tried to embrace > something more innovative and forward-looking, rather than creating a sort > of mockery of the governmental procedures, creating a second league of > "onlookers" ... I would rather have conceived the Plenary as a free > assembly of women and men, each equal to > each other, and discussed separately how to certify the identity of each > participant, and avoid capture. I strongly support this concern. After all, civil society consists of people who care, who are active and responsible, not of organizations. To give full membership to accredited CS organization _only_ would totally undermine the whole idea of global participation. Then the CSP should better be called NGOs Plenary or CSOs Plenary – not Civil Society Plenary. The deficiencies of any accreditation procedure is not a secret for anybody. Why should those who care seek affiliation with the accredited entities that perhaps do not even reflect their position? Why to deny the individuals the right to act as independent members of the society? (actually it is not a question but an opinion that this outcome is wrong) Yulia -------------- 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 Tue Sep 27 10:09:10 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:09:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Civil society shut out of the drafting groups Message-ID: <3046.156.106.225.194.1127830150.squirrel@156.106.225.194> Following up to my earlier message on the matter (report from drafting group III)... today at 1:45pm, at the start of drafting group IV, China and Brazil, supported by Iran, took the floor and asked the Chair (now Canada) whether further instructions had been received on civil society and private sector participation in the drafting groups, and in any case pointing out that according to phase I procedures and instructions given at the governmental bureau meeting, non-gov persons should have been sent out of the room after making an initial statement, and that it was highly inappropriate for the Chair not to have managed to get proper instructions from Amb. Khan to this extent. The Chair repeatedly proposed to keep the compromise reached in the morning, to let non-gov persons assist silently and respond if asked. US, UK/EU and Australia spoke in favour of keeping this procedure, and in general noted that non-gov participation is highly beneficial, and no actual conclusion had been reached, not even at the bureau. In the end, the Chair asked Brazil and China how serious they were; Brazil said that it could live with the Chair's compromise; China however insisted. Thus, the Chair asked the people from civil society and private sector to give a brief statement and then leave. Ralf courteously protested the decision before giving the statement and leaving. I can say that the Italian delegation is absolutely unhappy with the Chair's decision, and that the issue will likely brought up at the EU Coordination meeting tonight at 6pm. In the meantime, civil society should decide whether and how to react. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Sep 27 11:06:35 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:06:35 -0300 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Civil society shut out of the drafting groups In-Reply-To: <3046.156.106.225.194.1127830150.squirrel@156.106.225.194> References: <3046.156.106.225.194.1127830150.squirrel@156.106.225.194> Message-ID: Grande Vittorio, I do hope you can mobilize the EU delegation on this. To begin with, there is the matter of precedent -- in several of the draft groups there has already been more flexibility. Secondly, a decision like this works especially against CS of the countries which decided not to accredit civil society members as formal members of their delegations. Yet another form of discrimination... []s fraternos --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: "Vittorio Bertola" To: plenary at wsis-cs.org, governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:09:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Civil society shut out of the drafting groups > [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! > _______________________________________ > > Following up to my earlier message on the matter (report from > drafting > group III)... today at 1:45pm, at the start of drafting group IV, > China > and Brazil, supported by Iran, took the floor and asked the Chair > (now > Canada) whether further instructions had been received on civil > society > and private sector participation in the drafting groups, and in any > case > pointing out that according to phase I procedures and instructions > given > at the governmental bureau meeting, non-gov persons should have been > sent > out of the room after making an initial statement, and that it was > highly > inappropriate for the Chair not to have managed to get proper > instructions > from Amb. Khan to this extent. > > The Chair repeatedly proposed to keep the compromise reached in the > morning, to let non-gov persons assist silently and respond if asked. > US, > UK/EU and Australia spoke in favour of keeping this procedure, and in > general noted that non-gov participation is highly beneficial, and no > actual conclusion had been reached, not even at the bureau. > > In the end, the Chair asked Brazil and China how serious they were; > Brazil > said that it could live with the Chair's compromise; China however > insisted. Thus, the Chair asked the people from civil society and > private > sector to give a brief statement and then leave. Ralf courteously > protested the decision before giving the statement and leaving. > > I can say that the Italian delegation is absolutely unhappy with the > Chair's decision, and that the issue will likely brought up at the EU > Coordination meeting tonight at 6pm. In the meantime, civil society > should > decide whether and how to react. > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] > bertola.eu.org]<------ > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ca at rits.org.br Tue Sep 27 11:28:57 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:28:57 -0300 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Oversight: Are we forgetting principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: MIlton, -----Original Message----- From: "Milton Mueller" To: Cc: Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:47:53 -0400 Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Oversight: Are we forgetting principles? [...] > Now we are in a situation of thrashing about superifical ideas on the > fly, which to an external observer kinda looks like a medical > operating > room with the surgeon saying, "let's move the heart over here and put > the liver over there," and his assistant saying, "no, let's sew it > onto > the lungs over here," and the janitor walking by and saying, "seems > to > me you could yank that whole mess out and he'd be better off," etc., > etc. > > When we are reduced to that level of improvisation, isn't it clear > that [...] Wow! This is an apt and very "sanguine" way to describe how ICANN handles TLD delegation/redelegation these days! This is one of the reasons why we want to change things. rgds --c.a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From johannes.schunter at gmx.de Tue Sep 27 14:43:33 2005 From: johannes.schunter at gmx.de (Johannes Schunter) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:43:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Drafting Group El Salvador Message-ID: <001701c5c393$5d6c13a0$11d96a9c@laptopbirgit> Just to report: Nobody objected to our presence (2 CS people, 2 from LLC) in the drafting group chaired by El Salvador (even as Iran was present too). None of us took the floor, as most of the discussion dealt with english language details of Chapter 3, 1. Introduction, Para 39. US actually inserted a sentence about "legitimacy based on the full participation of all stakeholders", that's all. Johannes Schunter Heinrich Boell Foundation -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Sep 28 04:45:39 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:45:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Speaking up Message-ID: <3067.156.106.225.194.1127897139.squirrel@156.106.225.194> I think the moment has come to speak up and read Avri's protest statement against the exclusion of civil society and private sector from drafting groups. I have been spending the last 60 minutes speaking with some governments, with the business people, and with some of us. The business people are meeting right now to decide whether to speak up, but it seems likely they will, especially if we do the same. Some governments (both EU, and non-EU from the developed world) have told us that they would support us, but that they need to get a strong, formal and public protest from non-governmental actors first. The EU is meeting at the topmost level today at 3pm (the only high level group meeting in the week) and so would need that statement before then. If we don't speak this morning, we risk missing the train. Yesterday civil society people were repeatedly excluded from more and more drafting groups. If we go down this path, it could even happen that the next round of forum discussions, or even the forum itself, would adopt the same rules of procedure, and be "multistakeholder" in the sense that CS and PS speak in the first five minutes and then leave. We need to not accept losing one inch of ground on this issue. We need to get consistent support from as many countries as possible, in public, so that it can't be easily withdrawn. To do so, I think we have to confront them with the risk (which, I think, would actually become reality) of the Internet community refusing to participate in any new mechanism due to this kind of treatment, and contesting the Summit through the press, which would possibly turn the entire Tunis Summit into a failure for what regards IG. These are my two cents. I hope that other people can support this point of view, so that we can make a statement this morning. In any case, if we can't manage to get proper closure on it due to shortage of time, I would do it anyway, signing it with as many signatories as we can get. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Sep 28 04:52:44 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:52:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Speaking up In-Reply-To: <3067.156.106.225.194.1127897139.squirrel@156.106.225.194> References: <3067.156.106.225.194.1127897139.squirrel@156.106.225.194> Message-ID: <433A59DC.7040207@wz-berlin.de> We are just arranging for Avri to speak on behalf of the Internet Governance caucus, if possible this morning. If other caucuses want to be mentioned too, please let Avri or me know. We are in room 20 at the subcommittee A meeting. jeanette Vittorio Bertola 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! > _______________________________________ > > I think the moment has come to speak up and read Avri's protest statement > against the exclusion of civil society and private sector from drafting > groups. > > I have been spending the last 60 minutes speaking with some governments, > with the business people, and with some of us. The business people are > meeting right now to decide whether to speak up, but it seems likely they > will, especially if we do the same. Some governments (both EU, and non-EU > from the developed world) have told us that they would support us, but > that they need to get a strong, formal and public protest from > non-governmental actors first. The EU is meeting at the topmost level > today at 3pm (the only high level group meeting in the week) and so would > need that statement before then. > > If we don't speak this morning, we risk missing the train. Yesterday civil > society people were repeatedly excluded from more and more drafting > groups. If we go down this path, it could even happen that the next round > of forum discussions, or even the forum itself, would adopt the same rules > of procedure, and be "multistakeholder" in the sense that CS and PS speak > in the first five minutes and then leave. > > We need to not accept losing one inch of ground on this issue. We need to > get consistent support from as many countries as possible, in public, so > that it can't be easily withdrawn. To do so, I think we have to confront > them with the risk (which, I think, would actually become reality) of the > Internet community refusing to participate in any new mechanism due to > this kind of treatment, and contesting the Summit through the press, which > would possibly turn the entire Tunis Summit into a failure for what > regards IG. > > These are my two cents. I hope that other people can support this point of > view, so that we can make a statement this morning. In any case, if we > can't manage to get proper closure on it due to shortage of time, I would > do it anyway, signing it with as many signatories as we can get. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca Wed Sep 28 05:29:02 2005 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (=?iso-8859-1?b?Suly6W15?= Shtern) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 05:29:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Subcommitee A: Summary, Sept 28 (Wed) In-Reply-To: <20050928092719.DF2D768038@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> References: <20050928092719.DF2D768038@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Message-ID: <1127899742.433a625ea0c24@www.courrier.umontreal.ca> Hello, The morning meeting of subcommitee A was very short (just over an hour) and relatively uneventful. They checked in with the cordinators of each drafting group to see which language was agreed upon by all ('clean text' in UN speak) and which language was still not yet agreed upon (square bracketed text). After that the chair ajorned the morning meeting so that drafting groups could get back to work. There will be an evening meeting of full subcommitee A from 6-9pm to re-review the work of the drafting groups and to finish the prelimanary discussion of sections 3A and 5 of the chair's text (follow-up, forum function and oversight function). The one notable event this morning was the chair of Subcommitee A requesting New Zeeland to mediate the drafting group chaired by Ghana because the main conflict over language in that section of the text involves a proposal made by Ghana and the African group and the original text. More to come after this evenings session. -JS _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Wed Sep 28 06:13:07 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:13:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] khan's reaction to our protest statement In-Reply-To: <200509281805742.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <433A6304.5060008@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <200509281805742.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050928190843.08745760@211.125.95.185> Just for the record, Avri reacted to the Karklins "announcement" of "talk and walk" decision on behalf of Internet Governance Caucus, not as the eitire CS plenary. It was also "outside" the Subcom A in a way since the Chair actually once adjounred the meeting. We had requested the floor before, but somehow it did not reach to the secretariat so that the Chair clsoed the meeting. We felt we lost the opportunity. BUT, thanks to Mr. Karklins, who accidentaly took the floor and announced, we immediately flaged and the Chair kindly noticed and allowed Avri to take the floor. I spoke with the Chair, Ambasaddor Kahn right after, and he was not too happy that we requested the floor after he adjourned the meeting, to which I said that is because he allowed Mr. Karklins to announce about our exclusion. Anyway, I think we did a very timely intervention and the statement itself was good, well-listened by many delegations. AND, I hope that CS plenary will endorse the statement as a whole now. izumi _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Wed Sep 28 06:36:31 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:36:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] CLARIFICATION?: Drafting groups' meetings today Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928113505.058b8bb0@pop.gn.apc.org> hi tapani, thanks for this.. here is a corrected version can you clarify (or do you know) - no drafting groups on para 62? - forum/oversight? Drafting groups meetings for this afternoon: Saudi Arabia (45-48) XVI 15:00-18:00 - public policy issues, infrastructure Canada (49-51) XXII 13:30-15:00 - public policy issues, content Egypt (61) XVIII 13:30-15:00 - enabling environment Ghana & NZ (56-59) IX 15:00-18:00 - chapter 4: measures to promote development Norway (52-55) A662 16:00-18:00 - privacy/security etc karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Sep 28 10:08:17 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:08:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: MODIFIED draft text on political oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <433AA3D1.2030601@wz-berlin.de> Milton, I share your concern, and I also share you suspicion that "public policy issues" are deliberately defined in a vague way to ensure a maximum of flexibility for governments to intervene whenever they like. If its possible enumerate relevant cases of international public policy issues, we should definitely propose this. In fact, this would be a good issue for another intervention on behalf of the caucus. So, if those more competent on this issue could perhaps put together a comprehensive list of public policy relevant treaties or mechanisms or whatever, that would be most welcome. jeanette Milton Mueller 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! > _______________________________________ > > One aspect of my response to Avri/Jeanette political oversight statement > is significant but has not attracted any comment: > > >>>4. ICANN'S DECISIONS MUST BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH PUBLIC POLICY >>>CONSTRAINTS NEGOTIATED THROUGH INTERNATIONAL TREATIES; E.G., WTO > > TRADE > >>>RULES, HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES, CYBERCRIME CONVENTIONS, ETC. > > GOVERNMENTS > >>>AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO INVOKE A > > DISPUTE > >>>PROCEDURE WHEN IT BELIEVED ICANN ACTIONS VIOLATED THE TERMS OF >>>ESTABLISHED INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC POLICY. > > > There is all this talk about how governments need to be involved in the > "public policy" decisions. Basically, this approach calls their bluff. > It says, "ok, when governments have actually decided among themselves > what the policy is, and can produce specific rules and procedures > embodying that policy, then they can intervene - otherwise they cannot. > > > This is an idea that deserves widespread consideration. Unfortunately, > what many governments seem to have in mind when they talk about their > authority over "public policy" is a desire to intervene at will in ICANN > or other processes whenever they ex post facto deem something as being > of policy interest - .xxx being a case in point. But governments do not > have, and should not have, a right to make up "public policy" on the > fly, following no rules or procedures. This idea binds them to > intervening in cases when there are known public policies established > through legitimate processes. I note that it also fits in well with the > statement of Rikke Joergenson of the human rights caucus calling for > Internet-related organizations to be compliant with established human > rights norms. > > I may not have found the best way to implement this idea, but please > help me move forward on it. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Sep 29 04:35:58 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:35:58 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] What could happen this morning in subcom A Message-ID: <3042.156.106.225.194.1127982958.squirrel@156.106.225.194> Rumours are that Khan might let delegations comment the different proposals for section 5 (i.e. forum + oversight), then adjourn the session and reconvene it as a drafting group on section 5, chaired by himself. If this happens, we will be confronted with the option of sitting silently, or trying to speak and possibly be sent out. In any case, Jeanette is making our statement right now, so we've spoken; but, in light of the possibilities that these WSIS rules of procedure are adopted also for the forum, I am wondering whether we should not set continued precedents of exclusion, so to continue raising the issue until we get better treatment, or confront them with the risk of civil society (and perhaps private sector) not supporting the forum due to its dissatisfaction with actual possibilities for participation. I do not want to take excessive action, but this needs some careful strategic thinking in the near future. Getting back to Khan, another rumour is that he might come up with his own attempt to merge existing proposals into a common text to start discussions. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Sep 30 03:45:05 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:45:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Updates from subcom A Message-ID: <3052.156.106.224.63.1128066305.squirrel@156.106.224.63> This is a summary of where we are with subcom A (speaking in totally personal capacity). There now are on the table the following proposals: - the EU proposal that was made on Wednesday evening; - the Like-Minded-Group (China, India, Iran, Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, South Africa...) that originally supported the Iranian proposal, but that, after meeting the EU, circulated a new proposal that takes the EU language and adds some extra points for deeper governmental involvement, and asked the EU to take them on board; - the "Western paper", released yesterday evening by a group of western and Latin American countries (Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico...), and which apparently would be acceptable to the US. Everybody is waiting for the Chair to make a compromise proposal, but it is obvious that the Chair will not make it unless it would be accepted, and at this stage, it is clear that there is no proposal acceptable to all. So, at the present stage, it is unlikely that he will make his move. It is clear that if the EU decides to move and accept the Western paper as the basis for negotiation, maybe asking for stronger commitments to change, then a deal is possible by tonight. If the EU does not move, then the PrepCom will fail, and we will meet again in Tunis for final negotiation, three days before the Summit. The private sector apparently has orchestrated a press campaign against the EU proposal on the Financial Times, the International Herald Tribune, the New York Times etc. Everybody is pushing the EU. By the way, Italy likes a lot the Western paper and, if it was not a member of the EU, it would sign it as is, immediately. However, there are other EU countries whose strategy, apparently, is to make the PrepCom fail so to become the leaders of a group containing the EU, China, Brazil, Iran and other developing countries, to isolate the United States as much as possible, at the cost of making any deal impossible. It is unclear whether these countries only aim at making the PrepCom fail, or aim at the failure of the entire Summit for what regards Internet Governance. A higher level meeting of Ambassadors of the EU will take place later in the day. Stay tuned for updates. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Sep 30 05:22:45 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:22:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Text of the "Western paper" on Internet Governance section 5 Message-ID: <3083.156.106.224.63.1128072165.squirrel@156.106.224.63> This is the text of the "Western paper" that was circulated yesterday, and that I referred to in my updates earlier this morning. ====== PART 5 : We recognize the efforts deployed by the initiators of the Internet, and the need to guarantee a stable and secure operation of this efficient tool for humanity. We are also convinced that there is a need for an evolutionary process towards a new transparent, democratic, and multilateral framework, with the participation of government, private sector, civil society and international organizations. We support the evolution and internationalization of the Internet governance system, based on the Geneva Principles through existing and future mechanisms, institutions and fora. It is our conviction that all stakeholders -- governments, the private sector, civil society and other interested parties -- should actively participate in Internet governance in a coordinated and balanced manner, commensurate with their respective roles and responsibilities. We recall that the main responsibility of all stakeholders is awareness raising, capacity building and to propose solutions to accelerate availability and affordability of Internet in developing world. In order to strengthen the global multistakeholder interaction and cooperation on public policy issues and developmental aspects relating to Internet governance we propose a forum. This forum should not replace existing mechanisms or institutions but should build on the existing structures on Internet governance, should contribute to the sustainability, stability and robustness of the Internet by addressing appropriately public policy issues that are not otherwise being adequately addressed (referred to in para....) excluding any involvement in the day to day operation of the Internet. It should be constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process to facilitate the exchange of information and best practices and to identify issues and make known its findings, to enhance awareness and build consensus and engagement. Recognizing the rapid development of technology and institutions, we propose that the forum mechanism periodically be reviewed to determine the need for its continuation. We also encourage the development of multistakeholder processes at the national and regional levels to discuss and collaborate on Internet expansion and dissemination and support development efforts to achieve Millenium Declaration goals and to support global processes. 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. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Sep 26 03:25:19 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 09:25:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? Message-ID: Raul: I agree with the idea of "non binding" forum only in the scenario proposed by Jeanette, what means that any new function of the forum should be supported by all the stakeholders. Other comment: non binding is not exactly the same than "(with as many additional functions as it is possible to negotiate-- and these might happen in steps after the forum is created)". We have to be careful. Wolfgang: Pantha Rei. We should make first steps first and keep options open for the future. Think big, start small, move fast. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dkissoondoyal at hotmail.com Thu Sep 22 08:24:22 2005 From: dkissoondoyal at hotmail.com (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:24:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] Use of SMTP server at the Meeting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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 Tue Sep 27 13:57:26 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:57:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] Civil society shut out of the drafting groups Message-ID: Robert, OK, if you/CS want or feel the need to play hardball, and some allies are encouraging you to do so, then call CNN yourself, or the NYTimes. And the FT, Le Monde and Die Zeit. There have to be some reporters in the halls hungry for a story right? So far your (occasional?) mis-treatment seems to be the main story, because of what it suggests might be the fate of us all on a future more-UN-influenced net. My point re Brazil is that at the moment of truth they realized a Lula/worker's party/champion of the landless government would look foolish if they helped dispossess civil society. So they backed off. Of course they may claim some other reasons, but I don't think they want to be the story you may help some journalist write. For China this is a chance to flex some muscle on the international stage, and be a featured player in the story, so no surprise they are making people notice their views. good luck! Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Robert Guerra 09/27/05 1:35 PM >>> Lee: two quick comments: 1. Civil society can stay in the room if the countries , all of them, in the drafting room agree that it's ok. if not, then the default is to go to the rules of procedure that state that CS has to leave after making a statement . 2. it seems that Brazil agreed with having CS in the room only after a specific directed question by the chair if it in fact was siding with china or not. The broad question right now is what to do - i see three possible options: 1. do nothing and accept the decision. 2. Have CS as a whole issue a statement - that is, if there is agreement 3. If there is no overall consensus by CS - then individual NGOs are free, as they normally are, to issue a statement . Many govts are quite supportive of CS and are very upset at the development by china to push CS out, when in fact there is some flexibility. They are looking for CS to react in a strong fashion. Will we? let's see... regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 27-Sep-05, at 5:48 PM, Lee McKnight wrote: > Vittorio, > > My tactical advice, now that civil society is a political football, > is play the game. > > If some governments/diplomats insist on silencing civil society, > and by extension also the business and technical community, nothing > happens to ICANN or IANA - not in this decade. So it's their choice > to run out of bounds, or not. Civil society can't stop them, but it > can protest the violation of the new rules of the multistakeholder > game. > > If instead the forces of realism and enlightenment - good for > Norway! - prevail, then you are there to try to help move the > process in a positive direction. > > So presumably the EU will now feel the need at the meeting tonight > to agree to throw some muscle and tilt the US way on this issue (of > civil society/biz participation); Brazil seems to have realized the > strategic error of lining up too closely with China and Iran on > this issue. > > So in a way this whole tiff can be beneficial in reaching a > compromise outcome developing and industrialized countries can live > with. > > good luck, > > Lee > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>>> "Vittorio Bertola" 09/27/05 10:09 AM >>> >>>> > Following up to my earlier message on the matter (report from drafting > group III)... today at 1:45pm, at the start of drafting group IV, > China > and Brazil, supported by Iran, took the floor and asked the Chair (now > Canada) whether further instructions had been received on civil > society > and private sector participation in the drafting groups, and in any > case > pointing out that according to phase I procedures and instructions > given > at the governmental bureau meeting, non-gov persons should have > been sent > out of the room after making an initial statement, and that it was > highly > inappropriate for the Chair not to have managed to get proper > instructions > from Amb. Khan to this extent. > > The Chair repeatedly proposed to keep the compromise reached in the > morning, to let non-gov persons assist silently and respond if > asked. US, > UK/EU and Australia spoke in favour of keeping this procedure, and in > general noted that non-gov participation is highly beneficial, and no > actual conclusion had been reached, not even at the bureau. > > In the end, the Chair asked Brazil and China how serious they were; > Brazil > said that it could live with the Chair's compromise; China however > insisted. Thus, the Chair asked the people from civil society and > private > sector to give a brief statement and then leave. Ralf courteously > protested the decision before giving the statement and leaving. > > I can say that the Italian delegation is absolutely unhappy with the > Chair's decision, and that the issue will likely brought up at the EU > Coordination meeting tonight at 6pm. In the meantime, civil society > should > decide whether and how to react. > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org] > <------ > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Tue Sep 27 14:32:47 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:32:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Civil society shut out of the drafting groups Message-ID: But Robert, We just agreed Brazil is not the story, the high-handed treatment of CS by the newbies - other governments - is. So go make some noise about that. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Robert Guerra 09/27/05 2:04 PM >>> I will leave discussions on and about Brazil and it's openness and inclusion to CS @ UN fora to NGOs who have dealt with them in other fora. The same goes for other countries - it's better to get a better picture from those from the country in question. My personal opinion is that i can't really say. I just don't have enough information on their voting record related to CS at UN meetings. Can someone help us out? regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 27-Sep-05, at 7:57 PM, Lee McKnight wrote: > Robert, > > OK, if you/CS want or feel the need to play hardball, and some > allies are encouraging you to do so, then call CNN yourself, or the > NYTimes. And the FT, Le Monde and Die Zeit. There have to be some > reporters in the halls hungry for a story right? So far your > (occasional?) mis-treatment seems to be the main story, because of > what it suggests might be the fate of us all on a future more-UN- > influenced net. > > My point re Brazil is that at the moment of truth they realized a > Lula/worker's party/champion of the landless government would look > foolish if they helped dispossess civil society. So they backed > off. Of course they may claim some other reasons, but I don't think > they want to be the story you may help some journalist write. For > China this is a chance to flex some muscle on the international > stage, and be a featured player in the story, so no surprise they > are making people notice their views. > > good luck! > > Lee > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>>> Robert Guerra 09/27/05 1:35 PM >>> >>>> > Lee: > > two quick comments: > > > 1. Civil society can stay in the room if the countries , all of them, > in the drafting room agree that it's ok. if not, then the default is > to go to the rules of procedure that state that CS has to leave after > making a statement . > > 2. it seems that Brazil agreed with having CS in the room only after > a specific directed question by the chair if it in fact was siding > with china or not. > > The broad question right now is what to do - i see three possible > options: > > 1. do nothing and accept the decision. > 2. Have CS as a whole issue a statement - that is, if there is > agreement > 3. If there is no overall consensus by CS - then individual NGOs are > free, as they normally are, to issue a statement . > > Many govts are quite supportive of CS and are very upset at the > development by china to push CS out, when in fact there is some > flexibility. They are looking for CS to react in a strong fashion. > Will we? let's see... > > > > > regards, > > Robert > > -- > Robert Guerra > Managing Director, Privaterra > > > > > > On 27-Sep-05, at 5:48 PM, Lee McKnight wrote: > > >> Vittorio, >> >> My tactical advice, now that civil society is a political football, >> is play the game. >> >> If some governments/diplomats insist on silencing civil society, >> and by extension also the business and technical community, nothing >> happens to ICANN or IANA - not in this decade. So it's their choice >> to run out of bounds, or not. Civil society can't stop them, but it >> can protest the violation of the new rules of the multistakeholder >> game. >> >> If instead the forces of realism and enlightenment - good for >> Norway! - prevail, then you are there to try to help move the >> process in a positive direction. >> >> So presumably the EU will now feel the need at the meeting tonight >> to agree to throw some muscle and tilt the US way on this issue (of >> civil society/biz participation); Brazil seems to have realized the >> strategic error of lining up too closely with China and Iran on >> this issue. >> >> So in a way this whole tiff can be beneficial in reaching a >> compromise outcome developing and industrialized countries can live >> with. >> >> good luck, >> >> Lee >> >> >> >> Prof. Lee W. McKnight >> School of Information Studies >> Syracuse University >> +1-315-443-6891office >> +1-315-278-4392 mobile >> >> >> >>>>> "Vittorio Bertola" 09/27/05 10:09 AM >>> >>>>> >>>>> >> Following up to my earlier message on the matter (report from >> drafting >> group III)... today at 1:45pm, at the start of drafting group IV, >> China >> and Brazil, supported by Iran, took the floor and asked the Chair >> (now >> Canada) whether further instructions had been received on civil >> society >> and private sector participation in the drafting groups, and in any >> case >> pointing out that according to phase I procedures and instructions >> given >> at the governmental bureau meeting, non-gov persons should have >> been sent >> out of the room after making an initial statement, and that it was >> highly >> inappropriate for the Chair not to have managed to get proper >> instructions >> from Amb. Khan to this extent. >> >> The Chair repeatedly proposed to keep the compromise reached in the >> morning, to let non-gov persons assist silently and respond if >> asked. US, >> UK/EU and Australia spoke in favour of keeping this procedure, and in >> general noted that non-gov participation is highly beneficial, and no >> actual conclusion had been reached, not even at the bureau. >> >> In the end, the Chair asked Brazil and China how serious they were; >> Brazil >> said that it could live with the Chair's compromise; China however >> insisted. Thus, the Chair asked the people from civil society and >> private >> sector to give a brief statement and then leave. Ralf courteously >> protested the decision before giving the statement and leaving. >> >> I can say that the Italian delegation is absolutely unhappy with the >> Chair's decision, and that the issue will likely brought up at the EU >> Coordination meeting tonight at 6pm. In the meantime, civil society >> should >> decide whether and how to react. >> -- >> vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org] >> <------ >> http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> >> > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.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 Sep 13 07:43:19 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:43:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance event at Tunis? In-Reply-To: <47327E75-7D86-4D6E-9C77-414D6EDFC45D@lists.privaterra.org> References: <23760194.1125908804261.JavaMail.www@wwinf1526> <6.2.0.14.2.20050913172028.0b9a1a50@anr.org> <47327E75-7D86-4D6E-9C77-414D6EDFC45D@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: Izumi's asking about IG events at the Summit in Tunis, not Prepcom next week. At prepcom, the caucus will hold a prep meeting 10:00-13:00 on Monday 19 September (Room XXII) And we have booked a room (in case we need -- suspect we will) everyday from 14:30-16:30 (Room E 3056/58.) Thanks, Adam At 10:38 AM +0200 9/13/05, Robert Guerra wrote: >Izumi: > >I believe Bill Drake requested a side event panel on IG. A room for  >the session is confirmed, but it only has a capacity for 100! > >details: > >Reforming the Internet Governance, Nov 16 >11:00-13:00 > > >regards, > >Robert > >-- >Robert Guerra >Managing Director, Privaterra > > > > > >On 13-Sep-05, at 10:22 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> From what I see and hear, there seems to be NO standing event/panel >> on Internet Governance at the coming Tunis summit. >> >> Are there any such event where members of our caucus have been >> already involved, or likely to be? >> >> It will be bit strange that no IG event is organized at the summit >> where it is one of the highlight of the summit. >> >> Or am I too naiive? >> >> izumi >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Sep 21 04:31:20 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:31:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Reporting from Internet Governance plenary. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43311A58.1060109@wz-berlin.de> Robert, Milton has volunteered to help covering today's meeting. Additional notes from you are also welcome. Let't not overdue it though :-) jeanette Robert Guerra 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! > _______________________________________ > > I'm in the room now - could others also in the room let me know. would > be good to be share and combine each others notes at the end of the > session. > > > -- > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 karenb at gn.apc.org Wed Sep 21 07:39:24 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:39:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] update from subcomittee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050921123912.04f5d9c0@pop.gn.apc.org> robert do you mean a drafting/working group karen At 11:38 21/09/2005, Robert Guerra wrote: >from room... > >it seems that the subcommittes will be formed this afternoon. no >details have been mentioned yet. stay tunded. > > >-- >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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 22 02:20:56 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:20:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Contributions : Sub-Committee A (Internet Governance) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/21/05, Robert Guerra wrote: > The itu now has the contributions online @ > > 3&c_type=co|sca> For those who have a problem viewing the above: http://tinyurl.com/da99d will work as well. -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Thu Sep 22 07:08:10 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:08:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] Sept 22 / Morning subcomittee notes In-Reply-To: <20BA545A-BB0B-47B7-B45C-4DE20F8658DA@lists.privaterra.org> References: <20BA545A-BB0B-47B7-B45C-4DE20F8658DA@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050922200634.07ad3110@211.125.95.185> Thanks for the timely and precise report. Almost live. I have watched the last half of the webcast. Interesting debate about includnig CS and business sector into drafting group or not. However, the webcast is cut-off at the 5 min break and it does not seem to be coming back again. So I am curious as to the final conclusion. I hope you could follow this up quickly. thanks again, will see you guys next week in Geneva, izumi At 12:55 05/09/22 +0200, Robert Guerra wrote: >council of europe > >- makes reference to coe convention on cybercrime >- asks for global ascension to cybercrime convention > > >caricom > >ralf bendrath > >brazil > >UK / EU > >- supports general outline of chair >- reserve the right to make comments >- there is still much work to be dobne to iid common ground and >common understanding and develop framekwork which different country >concerns can be addressed. >- question - > what is timeline to tabling a text >- on tue welcomed wgig report as basis for this subcommittee. >reiterates support for using wgig report. however, this is not a >negotiated text. it serves as a starting point. >- comments made so far provide valuable input > >- the EU regocnizes there is no UNIQUE definition of IG. should use >the wgig definition as a working definition for IG. can revist it if >needed. > >chair > >- timetable. probably afternoon and evening sessions. >- definition. concern has been noted > >iraq > >- comments on part 5 (f/u and future arrangements) >- framework for interface: recommendations og wgig founded on two >piallers - oversight and forum. >- Question on - "Framework for interface between existing and future >arrangements >". should it be two subpoints and not one. > >chair: > >- evolutionary / incremental references come from reference made >earier by ghana/africa group. that's the justification >- framework for interface : is the overall chapeau for the bullets >that follow. > >interface between the existing agreements and furture posibility > >- recommendation on forum: is a seperate point >- delegates have to decide have to decide if structure is light, >heavy or tighly controlled. across the spectrum there are mentions >that it should be agile. it should NOT be a burdensome beaurocracy > >USA > >- contratulate chair on outlien that focus us on important issues >- confirms that this is a working document, that each of the points >are open for discussion. we will follow suite and offer our views on >specifics >- two poiints: >1. agree with EU that defn offered by WGIG report i an interesting >one that can be used as a working definition. we have a view about it >and will offer interesting discussion >2. models: agree with russia that models offered are not exhausted. >other possibilities and external suggestion might come. > >- welcome the outline and look forward for discussion. > >chair: > >- thanks us for comments > >singapore > >- general support for chairman's document. >- while might have individual comments, will make them at later stage >- the scheme presented by chair is one we can agree with. > >honduras > >- agree with mayority of areas to express ddevelopment >- wgig mentions them too in a way that creates a dialogue with dev >countries >- in different parts of the report -> recommend that a section on >access to all be added to the chair paper. (to be added as an >overaching goal) > >chair: > >- 3b : access to information and knowledge. >- it is already in geneva documents. we will reinvoke a reference to it. > >saudi arabia > >- iranian part 5 proposal, support it >- Q: will you restrucutre part 5 as per comments made earier by iran > >chair: > >- agreeded with iranian proposal. explained existing points. thinks >that iranian delegate agreeded >- you are putting too much emphasis to the points. we aren't >negotiating yet, just points on what to talk about later,. > >cuba: > >- likes the chair discussion paper >- 2 comemnts: > >1. 4 in seperating it from #3, makes it seem that it does not >related to public policy. but in the wgig report they were. > >2. agree with iranian comment that section 5 needs to have more details > >- process comment: agree with brazil and colombia that we should move >to comments on section 5, on models. > >chair > >- we are advancing on section #5. we are on that subject >- there might be a misconconception on promoting development. they >are seperated for understanding, but let's find language to >conceptually link them. >- we will come up with some language > >brazil > >- reference to ccbi talking about governance. quoting on what was >said - "they do not support a more centralized system for IG". >- brazilian delegation could not agree more with ccbi, as currently >there is currently a centralized system controlled by a single >computer in marina del rey.(ICANN) >- the only way to move forward is to create aninternet council that >can substitute work being done by icann an iana. this council is >common to models 1,3 & 4. we just have to negotiate the details. >- we need more than one government involved. i think this an >unanimous comment from the wgig report. >- don't think others oppose moving away from the existing centralized >process. > >chair > >- at appropiate time cbbi might want to explain what they mentioned >- i understand you support iic (intil internet council) > >haiti > >- comment on part 4. >- add ict programs and projects to section 4 > >Egypt: > >- further expand part 4 >- 53.4 in wgig report should be added - equitable access for all >should be added. > > >chair: > >- honduras also proposed that. will take note of it. > >stakeholders: > >- private sector (ISOC) > >- thanks wgig members >- cost of access, advice and how to use the internet, security and >usefull content, in language >- we are here (para 4 of wsis declaration). we need to remind >oursleces, on two issues: >* connectivity and capacity building are key issues > >(seems to be repeating what is in ISOC comments to wgig report) > >- isoc has been keenly involved in capacity building and connectivity >need to be > >- models: the existing models work and have been resliant >- many of the policy areas are already being discussed. we need to >build and evolve existing structures and organizations and not create >new strucutures. >- the internet community has adapted and become more open >- the system works and evolves now > >ccbi: > >- forum function: a variety of existing organizations already >- many of the organizations allow for discussion > >- the internet has worked well with decentralized control >- this decentralzied control has allow for growth at edges. >- supports greater participation and greater evolution > >- there may be in some cases call for issue specific fora > >- any issue specific event should include information exchange and >horizonal collaboration >- the space would need to be a neutral space to bring them together >as equal partners. >- existing organizations could increase participation to all >stakehodlers at national and regional level. > >- information should be to favcilitate and exchange information. >- ccbi looks forward to contribute further > >heather shaw (CBBI) > >- need to facilitate collaboration >- new fora can be xpensive. need to make most of existing >organizations before creating new organizations >- capacity building important >- all stakehodlers have a role to play on capacity building. > >ralf bendrath >adam peake > >venezuela > >- wgig report is a guide. >- the proposed models can be used as a guide only. we shouldbe able >to make combinations and/or changes >- there might be areas of convergence > >- we have limited time to discuss, and it is out last chance to reach >an accord we have at this prepcom. there should not be a prepcom 3 >bis. we have almost finished a week of declarations and we don't have >text. >- we are worried that we haven't yet been able to enter into a >discussion in a text and plan of action. >- the guide presented by chair is good. we sugegst the following > >section 1: >- related to definition >- we should be guided by the geneva principles > >section 2: > >- suggests addtion to have interactyion between stakehodlers >- coordination, cooperation, > >section 3& 4: > >- we should put all of these into a single part called governance models >- we should reach agreement > >section 5: > >- a section which should be subdivded: > >a. models of governance >b. implementstion on models >c. definition of public policies. we should go into details. > >at this stage there are elements that require further work > >- we are worried as time is moving on. we should start discussing now > >- recommendation: let us setup several groups. the important point is >that we shoudl start by tomorrow. as time is short we need to hurry >up. if we don't we will have to setup several groups that would make >it difficult for small delegations such as ours. > >chair > >- one should banish worry >- there will be no prepcom bis > >el salvador > >- will submit a list of written comments on parts 1 & 2 >- >section 3a & 5: there seems to be duplication. how to we proceed. > >- part 5: Question on oversight function >- models: can we envisage other models that aren't in wgig report > >chair > >- there is overlap between 3a and one bullet in #5. we will try to >rationalize it . > > >saudi arabia ( on behalf of arab countries): > >- would like concentrate on part 5. >- the essential decisions need to be taken on part 5 before we get to >specific wording. > > >chair > >- what we have done to-date has been easy. >- we are now moving into a more difficult phase. it will be a >challenging area. >- will be need to focus on intelligence to strike compromises, to >know that the other sides are saying. > >- let's do something more skill-full that can gen results. > >- drafting groups proposed to draft language. will circulate text >that has blanks to be filled in. > >- status of papers: > >* food for thought: no status. just an aid to facilitate discussion >* outline: tool to facilitate dsicussion >* paper: no status. use it, substitute it, would be to focus mind and >attention on subjects. > >* only text with status would be the ones emerging from the >discussions. by monday we might have a rolling text. > >* this afternoon there should be a flurry of activcity. suggestion. > >- meet amongst yourself to strategise >- tomorrow there will be a suggestion paper for thought. >- let's have cross group dialogue >- > >drafting groups: > >- how do we associate other stakeholders. I need your help on what to >do. there are rules of procedures, but there are also calls for >observers to be involved in the negotiating exercise. > >in summary: > >1. create working groups >2. a non-paper will be circulated >3. seek guidance on how to involve observers in drafting groups. > > >USA > >- while we consider your proposal >- we thank you for these suggestions. we know it is not an easy task > >- two thoughts to have: > >1. practicality >- many delegations are small. >- would ask that if drafting groups created that we don't have too >many of them,as hard for small delegations > >2. principle > >- we need to give very careful and full thought to observers >- would seek that observers participate in the debate in the drafting >groups >- those communities need to be at the table. > >brazil > >- you are going in a good direction. >- one practical difficulty. we are here to negotiate a text to be >signed by heads of state. > >- there is a moment where governments need to sit among each other >(that is exclude civil society) > >- we need to meet in small groups, practically it needs to be done in >a quiet way > >chair > >- rules of procedure, what is there? >- section 8. >- there is no text that refers to observers in working groups > >saudi arabia (arab states) > >(1) >- in the past had no objections to drafting groups. should limit the # >- should only create them after the basic decisions have been made in >plenary > >(2) observers: > >- the geneva summit set the present. the rules are clear. we should >follow the rules from phase I. >- in this context it would be difficult to involve them > > >senegal (african countries) > >- satisfied with the method of work that has been proposed >- drafting groups: will allow for a rather lively discussion. >- we need to have a limited # of drafting groups , as otherwise it >would be difficult for small delegations. >- work of regional groups should also be considered. > >canada > >- thanks the chair for his propsal >- we dont' have any agreement yet. > >1. necesity to insure security and stability >2. multistakeholder approach - let's put it into practice. >- supports us view that observers that they have a lot to contribute >- > >working groups >- we need to define well the groups and keep them to minimu > >the following should be first discussed in plenary: > >- defintions >- role & responsivility of stakeholders >- pass over the key issues, > >then, go to drafting text. > >summary: we need a bit more time in plenary that will condition what >drafting groups will do. we need to include a broad group of >stakeholders > >chair: > >- we must make progress > >methodology (thinking outloud) > >- if we distrubute work and have soem rough idea to working works, >they will bring them back to plenary >- plenary should not block work of the working groups. >- hard to draft text in plenary. it would disastrous to try it. > >iran: > >- welcomes the initiative of the chair >- would like to flag that there should be no proliferation of working >groups. would make it hard for small delegations. > >- other stakeholders: >* iran appreciates the input of all the stake-holders. >* emphasis that this is an intergovernmental process. > >El salvador > >- support safety and security, multilaterism and transparency >- we don't seem to be in the usual UN pattern >- we had small drafting groups in intercessional in paris (phase 1). >we had civil society participating in the past and make statements >that helped us make concepts clearer and guide negotiations. > >- (supports cs) > >- proposal from el salvador for observers to attend and make >contributions to drafting groups > >chair > >- this is a different process. >- there are rules of procedure. but, there is a grey area. >- there is (prepcom) precedent where cs & observers have been involved > >- let's take it as an agreed principle that all stake-holders >participate. > >japan > >- good idea to create drafting groups. a concern with the # that >might be created. >- if they are in the afternoon, it will conflict with other subcomittee > > >UK (on bahalf of EU) > >(1) >- stakeholder participation in working groups. the MS nature of the >internet. we need to involve all key stakeholders. > >- in the wg's that are created, we need to draw on the expertize > >(2) # of drafting groups. there is a difficulty for smaller delegations. > >- there is also a limited # of experts available. > > >Australia > >- supports canada about what issues to be discussed in plenary >- drafting groups - would prefer a smaller # >- ngos: would support participation of ngos. they are fundamental > >- impressed by the high quality of the contributions of ngos >- given the nature of the internet, the expertise is with ngos and >their experience would help us. >- supports that rules should support involvement of observers in >working groups. > > >chair > >- we need to make progress > >nicaragua: (on behlaf of grulag) > >- working groups : we need to be careful. it's an issue with small >delegations. > > >china: > >- two points. > >1. support the chair as to the proposal that we shoudl start drafting >2. it's an intergovernmental process > >honduras > >- thanks chair for the methods to work >- perhaps we can have meeting of regional groups - as we already have >consensus >- perhaps could regional coordinators could attend drafting working >groups >- need to take into account other stakeholders - they should be able >to pariticiapte > >turkey: > >- thanks chair for proposals >- looks forward to working with observers in accordance with rules of >procedure >- how many wg will be created? > > >singapore > >2 points: > >1. concern about small delegations >2. the input from other observers is vital. supports el salvador that >observers sit in meetings and contribute written comments. let's look >for way to do it > >new zealand > >- agree with canada to insure security and stability of the intenet. >whatever we do should be through that lense >- agree with singapore, isoc and others - we have a responsibility to >users in countries. we need to establish which issues need fixing . >- we might not yet be at the drafting stage. >- let's keep # of drafting groups small. >- multistakeholder - this is a good opportunity to put into practractice > >norway: > >- welcomes initiative of chair & proposal of drafting groups. >- important to bring ngo views and expertise into drafting groups. >they could be helpful and useful. >- the model proposed by el salvador is a good one. one where they are >observers, where they can talk, but not in negotiating. > >pakistan (asian grp) > >- welcome the proposal for working groups > >- endorse that there should not be a proliferation of working groups. > >- multistakeholder: position of asia group: > >* that is prepcom should adhere to rules and principles of the geneva >phase > > > >chair > >- let's come tomorrow to comment on today's comments > >switzerland > >- agree with creation of drafting groups. the # should be small. > > >india > >- supports drafting groups creation >- drafting groups must have the prsence of the other stakeholders. >supports singapore view on this > >Canada > >- not all regional groups can work in a way to coordinate . ie. not >possible for weog. > >barabados > >- supoports el salvador and singapore view that obervers be in wg > >togo > >- keep # of wg small. if possible do it in regional and/or sub- >regional fashion so that smaller countries can be involved. > >sudan > >- will be frank in regards to DG. not convinced that the need to have >drafting groups as ultimately it will come back to plenary. >- of course can split subcommittee into two sections (1) 5 & 3: >models, (2) all other matters. > >south africa > >- support for proposal >- we should have small # of WG >- ask for reassurance on what will adopt. > > >chair > >indonesia > >- supports rule of procedure in regards to drafting group. > >nigeria > >- supports creation of WG. they should be limited so that regional >associations can be involved >- other stakehodlers: the rules need to be followed. observers should >not have voting rights > >nepal > >- supports a limited # of WG >- good that cs make stakements and written contributions to WG > >lebanon > >- support for proposal >- ngos: supports saudi arabia , brazil and others that although value >their contribution that CAN NOT agree that they participate in >drafting groups. > >australia > >- Q on rules of procedure. acknowledge that there is ambiguity. there >is a question is there a legal impediment on > >- asks for legal advice if there is legal impediment for them to >participate >- puts forward the proposal that ngos be able to participate. ngos >would NOT be voting. > >chair > >- there is no legal impediment > >????? >- WG proposal good. >- # of WG should be limited. >- they be open ended groups >- participation of other partners: however, would like to respect the >rules of procedure and precedent. > > >Egypt > >- support the formation of drafting group. should be strictly >intergovernmental. >- support the participation of multistakeholders - however underlines >that drafting group stay strictly intergovernmental > > >azerbajan > >- supports limited # of drafting groups. >- it would be useful to invite multistakeholders - according to >existing rules of procedure > >chair > >- made 3 proposals >(1) - there is no objection for them to be created. they should be >limited >(2) will circulate a paper - no objection >(3) stakeholders with drafting groups: there are two groups > >- el salvdor & singapore: they are objservers and can make >contributions , but are not in negotaions. (like in pc 2) > >- asks el salvador to consult with others for 5 min to see if there >can be an agreement on 3rd propsal. > >[ break for 5 min] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Thu Sep 22 08:23:45 2005 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:23:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Sept 22 / Morning subcomittee notes Message-ID: Robert and all, Thanks very very much for the on-going notes (they give a strong sense of the process) but it would help a lot for those of us following at a distance if we could have an occasional "wrap-up" of the current state of play (sorry for the on-going tv sports metaphors), but what we are getting through the lists is a play by play and some of the internal strategic discussions and banter, but there isn't much stepping back and giving one a sense of either the current score or overall what is happening with the game, the league standings, the drive for the Championship Cup etc.etc.... This may not matter much as the game is being played out on the ground, but this approach certainly doesn't build a strong (or informed) base of supporters. MG -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: September 22, 2005 2:12 PM To: Izumi AIZU Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Sept 22 / Morning subcomittee notes My complete notes are on my blog @ On 22-Sep-05, at 1:15 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > OK, the webcast came back now. I missed the first portion > of Chair's summary, but so Singapore and El Salvador will report back > tomorrow morning, right? > yes. they will report back in the morning with what consensus (if any) they can come up with. > 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 Thu Sep 22 08:30:25 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:30:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Use of SMTP server at the Meeting In-Reply-To: <20050922121407.GA22528@nic.fr> References: <20050922121407.GA22528@nic.fr> Message-ID: On 22 sep 2005, at 14.14, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > You typically have to go through a local (ITU) SMTP server (not on > your machine, since it is not authorized) or use Mail Submission (port > 587). > the other possibility, which i use, is to create an ssh tunnel to your server and then it works fine. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Tue Sep 27 11:48:00 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:48:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Civil society shut out of the drafting groups Message-ID: Vittorio, My tactical advice, now that civil society is a political football, is play the game. If some governments/diplomats insist on silencing civil society, and by extension also the business and technical community, nothing happens to ICANN or IANA - not in this decade. So it's their choice to run out of bounds, or not. Civil society can't stop them, but it can protest the violation of the new rules of the multistakeholder game. If instead the forces of realism and enlightenment - good for Norway! - prevail, then you are there to try to help move the process in a positive direction. So presumably the EU will now feel the need at the meeting tonight to agree to throw some muscle and tilt the US way on this issue (of civil society/biz participation); Brazil seems to have realized the strategic error of lining up too closely with China and Iran on this issue. So in a way this whole tiff can be beneficial in reaching a compromise outcome developing and industrialized countries can live with. good luck, Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> "Vittorio Bertola" 09/27/05 10:09 AM >>> Following up to my earlier message on the matter (report from drafting group III)... today at 1:45pm, at the start of drafting group IV, China and Brazil, supported by Iran, took the floor and asked the Chair (now Canada) whether further instructions had been received on civil society and private sector participation in the drafting groups, and in any case pointing out that according to phase I procedures and instructions given at the governmental bureau meeting, non-gov persons should have been sent out of the room after making an initial statement, and that it was highly inappropriate for the Chair not to have managed to get proper instructions from Amb. Khan to this extent. The Chair repeatedly proposed to keep the compromise reached in the morning, to let non-gov persons assist silently and respond if asked. US, UK/EU and Australia spoke in favour of keeping this procedure, and in general noted that non-gov participation is highly beneficial, and no actual conclusion had been reached, not even at the bureau. In the end, the Chair asked Brazil and China how serious they were; Brazil said that it could live with the Chair's compromise; China however insisted. Thus, the Chair asked the people from civil society and private sector to give a brief statement and then leave. Ralf courteously protested the decision before giving the statement and leaving. I can say that the Italian delegation is absolutely unhappy with the Chair's decision, and that the issue will likely brought up at the EU Coordination meeting tonight at 6pm. In the meantime, civil society should decide whether and how to react. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Thu Sep 29 10:44:25 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:44:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] APC text on Forum function Message-ID: I have to agree with Vittorio on this one. >>> "Vittorio Bertola" 09/29/05 5:50 AM >>> Why don't we/you simply say that the forum and its processes should be open to anyone who wants to participate in any capacity? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Fri Sep 23 03:40:06 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 04:40:06 -0300 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponement oftoday'scaucus meeting In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050923100949.030e8380@193.200.15.187> References: <63519.62.203.135.6.1127334339.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <4333A7F0.9030304@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.1.2.2.20050923100949.030e8380@193.200.15.187> Message-ID: <4333B156.7050702@rits.org.br> Yes, Veni, starting with taking it away from the governator and the federal administration and turning it into a true global pluralist organization... it might even remain in Marina del Rey for the ones who enjoy that rich paradise :), but under a serious host country agreement. Now *that* will be an improvement! --c.a. Veni Markovski wrote: >At 09:00 23-09-05 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > >>Actually, there are people (me included) who think that the mission of >>the forum should go beyond "dialogue, analysis, and trend monitoring", >>and include starting up open working groups and drafting policy >>recommendations with a non-binding status, that could become "de facto >>binding" over time if the forum gained sufficient credibility and >>support to make so happen. >> >> > >Why not think how to improve ICANN, and make it more "credible", instead of >starting from scratch, and waste the first 7 years? I understand the desire >for the forum among some people, but there are other options, too, >including in the WGIG report.... > >v. > > > > >Sincerely, >Veni Markovski > >The opinions expressed are those of the author, not of >the Internet Society - Bulgaria (http://www.isoc.bg), >or any other organizations, associated with or related >to the author. > >This note is not legal advice. >If it was, it would come with an invoice. > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil CEP 22270-060 tel +55-21-2527-5494 fax +55-21-2527-5460 ca at rits.org.br http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Sep 23 09:12:12 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:12:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponement oftoday'scaucus meeting In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050923100949.030e8380@193.200.15.187> References: <63519.62.203.135.6.1127334339.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <4333A7F0.9030304@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.1.2.2.20050923100949.030e8380@193.200.15.187> Message-ID: <4333FF2C.9080800@bertola.eu.org> Veni Markovski ha scritto: > Why not think how to improve ICANN, and make it more "credible", instead > of starting from scratch, and waste the first 7 years? I understand the > desire for the forum among some people, but there are other options, > too, including in the WGIG report.... Apart from any consideration on the likelihood of substantial structural improvements in ICANN (not impossible, but certainly not easy), I always understood that it is NOT the desire of ICANN itself to deal with anything but the DNS. We are talking about a much broader range of issues, most of which lie at the content and application levels, rather than at the network one. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Fri Sep 23 11:39:56 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 00:39:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponementoftoday'scaucus meeting In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20050923104516.03d9aff8@193.200.15.187> References: <63519.62.203.135.6.1127334339.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <4333A7F0.9030304@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.1.2.2.20050923100949.030e8380@193.200.15.187> <4333B156.7050702@rits.org.br> <6.2.3.4.2.20050923104516.03d9aff8@193.200.15.187> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050923192104.08b279a0@211.125.95.185> At 10:54 05/09/23 +0300, veni markovski wrote: >There's something about the policy making here, or am I reading you wrong? > >If we have to talk frankly, then we must say things the way they are. >But if you go to the end users and ask them what model they prefer, >the vast majority wouldn't care even to respond. That's the truth - >the users are not interested if it's ICANN, or the UN running the >root management and the DNS and IP address allocation. They care that >Google works, that they have connectivity, and that there are no >viruses to ruin their (net)work. Being involved with ICANN AtLarge from its inception in 1998, I would like to counter to what Veni wrote above. Even if majority of the average end users today are not interested in such details as who is managing the DNS, IP Address and root servers, that does not mean that the work of ICANN as a whole is not of the interest of the end users. First, ICANN has its own history of trying to involve the end-users, when it was established, the US Government explicitly ordered ICANN to institute Membership Body that was the condition for ICANN to be approved by USG. Thus AtLarge version one was established and global election was implemented in 2000. In 2001, however, ICANN decided that that AtLarge membership with users was a bad model and abondoned the global election and also almost decided to scrap the AtLarge as a whole during the so-called "Reform". This process made several civil society groups dis-interested in participating ICANN related activities and started to deny ICANN's significance. That was quite unfortunate, but from my viewpoint, that was the fact. Or that is the history we should not forget or ignore. Veni, you are one of them testfied all the way. To put it in other words: First, you are invited into the party, you shook hands, chatted, drank wines, and asked to be the core members of the party. Then, the next round you are told to go out of the house. Period. Well, not quite. The host kindly invited you to come into the garden, enjoy the flowers, but not inside the room where the best dishes are there. That is the status of ALAC in summary. Will you still be interested in the topics they talk about, or decide about? Most of you may not. >As for ICANN, I also believe there's what to improve, and I believe >it is happening.... may be slower than some would have expected, but >better late than never. As a member of ALAC of ICANN, I have been trying to re-activate the interests of the users together with other colleagues in somewhat organized manner. It's not an easy game, almost lsot, but someone must play, I believe, and that was the collective idea of ICANN now as it is challenged by many governments at WSIS, right? So, does ICANN need direct users involvement in its policy development process or not? That is the core question, and if not, then I guess many governments will start to intervene more on behalf of the public they reprsent. I prefer direct participation than government dectation. Thanks, izumi _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Sep 28 07:30:47 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:30:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] need for a host country agreement? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050927232308.02b20058@193.200.15.187> References: <43396329.804@lextext.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20050927232308.02b20058@193.200.15.187> Message-ID: <20050928113047.GA28174@nic.fr> On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 11:23:27PM +0300, Veni Markovski wrote a message of 33 lines which said: > People tend to forget things, which are obvious. Yes, thanks for telling us that ICANN was not incorporated in California to be sure that Internet governance would remain in US hands. No, not at all, ICANN was incorporated in California by sensible persons who were deeply and sincerely committed to the interested of Internet users. Now, let's stop propaganda. If a country (say, Finland or Costa-Rica) had a local law which gives *more* rights to the directors and members than the California law, would you support an immediate relocation of ICANN to this country? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Sep 23 03:11:46 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:11:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponement oftoday'scaucus meeting In-Reply-To: <4333A7F0.9030304@bertola.eu.org> References: <63519.62.203.135.6.1127334339.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <4333A7F0.9030304@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050923100949.030e8380@193.200.15.187> At 09:00 23-09-05 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Actually, there are people (me included) who think that the mission of >the forum should go beyond "dialogue, analysis, and trend monitoring", >and include starting up open working groups and drafting policy >recommendations with a non-binding status, that could become "de facto >binding" over time if the forum gained sufficient credibility and >support to make so happen. Why not think how to improve ICANN, and make it more "credible", instead of starting from scratch, and waste the first 7 years? I understand the desire for the forum among some people, but there are other options, too, including in the WGIG report.... v. Sincerely, Veni Markovski The opinions expressed are those of the author, not of the Internet Society - Bulgaria (http://www.isoc.bg), or any other organizations, associated with or related to the author. This note is not legal advice. If it was, it would come with an invoice. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Wed Sep 28 05:46:11 2005 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:46:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Speaking up In-Reply-To: <3067.156.106.225.194.1127897139.squirrel@156.106.225.194> References: <3067.156.106.225.194.1127897139.squirrel@156.106.225.194> Message-ID: <433A6663.9040904@echnaton.serveftp.com> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > I think the moment has come to speak up and read Avri's protest statement > against the exclusion of civil society and private sector from drafting > groups. I was afraid this would come sooner or later. That is why The Public-Root is not present. Polititians are not able to solve our problems. They do not even understand what this is all about. They are only good at information hiding. ICANN is a mess because of too many polititians spoiling everything. WSIS will become even a bigger mess if polititians are left alone. Only civil society can bring full disclosure like this: =========================================================== the public-root representative is providng full disclosure. http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/ =========================================================== Please excuse if you feel this is out of threat. I am sending you this to provide you with arguments. This is proof that we can run The Public-Root without the help of polititians. This is proof that we can disclose and cleanup our mess without the help of polititians. Kind regards, Peter and Karin Dambier We both fully support your protest -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) 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 apeake at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 06:05:00 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:05:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] Speaking up In-Reply-To: <3067.156.106.225.194.1127897139.squirrel@156.106.225.194> References: <3067.156.106.225.194.1127897139.squirrel@156.106.225.194> Message-ID: I agree with Vittorio 100%. And this is a time to work with the private sector and technical community, we have a stronger voice together in this and our interests are the same. Adam (from England... missing Geneva already :-) On 9/28/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > I think the moment has come to speak up and read Avri's protest statement > against the exclusion of civil society and private sector from drafting > groups. > > I have been spending the last 60 minutes speaking with some governments, > with the business people, and with some of us. The business people are > meeting right now to decide whether to speak up, but it seems likely they > will, especially if we do the same. Some governments (both EU, and non-EU > from the developed world) have told us that they would support us, but > that they need to get a strong, formal and public protest from > non-governmental actors first. The EU is meeting at the topmost level > today at 3pm (the only high level group meeting in the week) and so would > need that statement before then. > > If we don't speak this morning, we risk missing the train. Yesterday civil > society people were repeatedly excluded from more and more drafting > groups. If we go down this path, it could even happen that the next round > of forum discussions, or even the forum itself, would adopt the same rules > of procedure, and be "multistakeholder" in the sense that CS and PS speak > in the first five minutes and then leave. > > We need to not accept losing one inch of ground on this issue. We need to > get consistent support from as many countries as possible, in public, so > that it can't be easily withdrawn. To do so, I think we have to confront > them with the risk (which, I think, would actually become reality) of the > Internet community refusing to participate in any new mechanism due to > this kind of treatment, and contesting the Summit through the press, which > would possibly turn the entire Tunis Summit into a failure for what > regards IG. > > These are my two cents. I hope that other people can support this point of > view, so that we can make a statement this morning. In any case, if we > can't manage to get proper closure on it due to shortage of time, I would > do it anyway, signing it with as many signatories as we can get. > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- Email from Adam Peake Email from my Gmail account probably means I am travelling. Please reply to Thanks! _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Sep 28 13:53:58 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:53:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Updated version of oversight stmt. In-Reply-To: <3052.156.106.225.194.1127928946.squirrel@156.106.225.194> References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928180035.0484f420@pop.gn.apc.org> <433AD239.1080603@panos-ao.org> <3052.156.106.225.194.1127928946.squirrel@156.106.225.194> Message-ID: <131293a2050928105377532b2d@mail.gmail.com> I would suggest, in that case: 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on its Board[add,] and throughout its organizational structure[add:s,] 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 ENCOURAGING, SUPPORTING AND FACILITATING THE PARTICIPATION OF CURRENTLY UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS. Jacqueline On 9/28/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > If we still have time to edit this (but, given developments, we need to > give a statement by tomorrow morning at last), I am willing to support > this addition, but I would then also mention civil society and Internet > users, not just developing countries. In the end, we're the only advocates > for civil society, while developing country governments are already very > vocal about participation from the South. > > In general, I think I can live with almost whatever version of the > statement and with the last one in particular, the important thing is that > we make our points. > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... > > On Mer, 28 Settembre 2005 19:26, klohento at panos-ao.org disse: > > Dear all: > > > > It seems to me, there is no reference to developing countries in the > > statement, and since in my opinion developing countries don't have > > *enough* opportunities to be participate in ICANN body and governance > > mechanisms, I propose (in line with the African Caucus statement) that a > > small addition is made to point 2 (in capital letters) which could read > > : please edit the English if needed. > > > > 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on > > its Board[add,] and throughout its organizational structure[add:s,] 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 DEVELOVING COUNTRIES > > PARTICIPATION. > > > > Ken Lohento > > > > karen banks a écrit : > > > >>thanks avri > >> > >>changes in [] > >> > >>karen > >>----- > >> > >>Political Oversight > >> > >>62b: 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 [add:with]in 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[add,] and throughout its organizational structure[add:s,] of > >> the > >>community > >>of Internet users, national governments, civil society, the technical > >>community, > >>business associations, non profit organizations and non-business > >>organizations. > >> > >>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[add:,] must be > >>required to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through > >>international treaties in regard to, inter alia, human rights treaties, > >>privacy rights, and trade rules. > >> > >>karenb: not that important, but wonder if we should break 6. into two > >> paras > >>- one on compliance, one on right to invoke binding appeals process - > >> also, > >>a long para and easier to read if broken up > >> > >>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. > >> > >>7. Once all of the above conditions are met, the US Government > >>shall transfer the IANA function to ICANN. > >> > >>8. It is expected that the International multistakeholder community > >>will take part in the process through participation in the ICANN process. > >>It is also expected that the multistakeholder community will observe and > >>comment on the progress made in this process through the proposed Forum. > >> > >> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>governance mailing list > >>governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > >> > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com T&T Music and videos online _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 13:57:15 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:57:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Nomination: APC/Anriette Esterhuysen In-Reply-To: <3044.156.106.225.194.1127928695.squirrel@156.106.225.194> References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050928153110.04c18930@pop.gn.apc.org> <3044.156.106.225.194.1127928695.squirrel@156.106.225.194> Message-ID: Hi Vittorio, On 9/28/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Support the nomination, support the request for extension, think that, if > we can get Anriette nominated elsewhere, perhaps we should use our slot > (assuming that it works by caucus slots, I must confess I didn't > understand the process in the end) to nominate some "Internet people": it > would be odd to have a Summit in which the hot issue will be Internet > governance, and not to have any civil society speaker from the Internet > community (either one of us, or a well-known Internet guru that we might > find fit to the purpose). Sounds good to me. I see the current IG folk as CS as well. This does not mean that I don't support Anriete tho, would like to see both her and someone from the technical community speak. -- 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 Thu Sep 29 03:51:01 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:51:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] US speaking + followup on CS participation In-Reply-To: <3082.156.106.225.194.1127930365.squirrel@156.106.225.194> References: <3082.156.106.225.194.1127930365.squirrel@156.106.225.194> Message-ID: On 9/28/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > If I got it well... sorry, didn't get it well, I hope someone has more > precise wording and wouldn't want to say something incorrect, but... the > US just said that they cannot accept any language that might imply that > they would not maintain their role of guarantee in the day-to-day > management of the Internet. This was wholly expected, no? -- 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 Thu Sep 29 04:59:39 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:59:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] What could happen this morning in subcom A In-Reply-To: <3042.156.106.225.194.1127982958.squirrel@156.106.225.194> References: <3042.156.106.225.194.1127982958.squirrel@156.106.225.194> Message-ID: <433BACFB.4070604@wz-berlin.de> Hi, we might have another opportunity to speak in the next subcommittee meeting tonight. My suggestion would be to have a look at the contributions from Argentina and the EU on para 62. These contributions seem to be regarded the most relevant ones. What do others think, should we comment on these proposals? http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt14rev2.doc I had brief chat with an experienced participant this morning. He expressed his surprise about the EU proposal. Considering the fact that the EU tries to express the middle ground, their proposal is too detailed, too government-centred ("too french") and obviously not coordinated with US. "As the Austrians would say, the US did not even ignore the EU proposal." The latest compilation of comments on the chair's paper still has the first version of our statement on para 62. This is very unfortunate. We completed our new version yesterday evening because we wanted to get it included in the new compilation as distributed this morning. jeanette Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Rumours are that Khan might let delegations comment the different > proposals for section 5 (i.e. forum + oversight), then adjourn the session > and reconvene it as a drafting group on section 5, chaired by himself. If > this happens, we will be confronted with the option of sitting silently, > or trying to speak and possibly be sent out. > > In any case, Jeanette is making our statement right now, so we've spoken; > but, in light of the possibilities that these WSIS rules of procedure are > adopted also for the forum, I am wondering whether we should not set > continued precedents of exclusion, so to continue raising the issue until > we get better treatment, or confront them with the risk of civil society > (and perhaps private sector) not supporting the forum due to its > dissatisfaction with actual possibilities for participation. I do not want > to take excessive action, but this needs some careful strategic thinking > in the near future. > > Getting back to Khan, another rumour is that he might come up with his own > attempt to merge existing proposals into a common text to start > discussions. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 06:05:34 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:05:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] APC text on Forum function In-Reply-To: <3058.156.106.225.194.1127987429.squirrel@156.106.225.194> References: <3042.156.106.225.194.1127982958.squirrel@156.106.225.194> <433BACFB.4070604@wz-berlin.de> <6.2.0.14.0.20050929103335.0602a710@pop.gn.apc.org> <3058.156.106.225.194.1127987429.squirrel@156.106.225.194> Message-ID: On 9/29/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > On Gio, 29 Settembre 2005 11:35, karen banks disse: > > > > Convene a public nomination process that is open to: > > > > - Governments > > - Business entities > > - The technical community > > - Academic and educational institutions > > - Civil society organizations > > - Community based organizations and grassroots communities > > Why don't we/you simply say that the forum and its processes should be > open to anyone who wants to participate in any capacity? I agree with Vittorio on this. All interested parties must be welcome. -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Thu Sep 29 10:15:36 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:15:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] informal consultation with EU In-Reply-To: <3035.156.106.217.9.1128001828.squirrel@156.106.217.9> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20050929200214.064f5b50@211.125.95.185> <3035.156.106.217.9.1128001828.squirrel@156.106.217.9> Message-ID: <131293a205092907153a22d192@mail.gmail.com> Thanks Vittorio On 9/29/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > On Gio, 29 Settembre 2005 13:00, Izumi AIZU disse: > > Vittorio suggested to have IGC consultation with EU this afternoon > > and we approached them. They are postive, but the only challenge > > is to find the time slot - 1:30 pm to 3 pm is drafting group, and > > EU will have meeting with like-minded countries at 3 pm (closed). > > We may have this consultation after that, say 4 or 4:30. > > > > We will report more when this is fixed. > > This is now settled ===> from 17:00 to 17:30 in room XI <=== with Martin > Boyle from the UK (Presidency) delegation. From 17:30 to 18:00 in the same > place they will meet with the private sector. At 18:00 in the same place > there will be a (closed) EU Coordination meeting, which means that we > might want to make sure (by explicitly asking) that some of our requests > are reported to the member states then. > > Now, the first reason why I thought to ask for this meeting was to > establish us as a player; also, since the EU could become the leader of > the mediation, it could be very important to get their support on a few > specific points that we might want to see in the final text. > > While we might want to ask for clarifications on the EU proposal (which is > what the LikeMindedGroup is doing now, before negotiating), I doubt that > that would be terribly useful, since I would guess that the only thing > that the EU can say is the text that was agreed yesterday among the member > states, and nothing more. I think it would rather be better to use the > time to make some of our points clear and ask the EU to adopt/support them > if possible. > > The first and foremost one, in my opinion, is that we would like to see > some clear text in the Forum paragraph that ensures us that the forum > works like the open WGIG consultations, and not like the WSIS PrepCom. Or, > at least (as a fallback), that CS and PS would be considered as two > "delegations" that can participate to drafting groups and plenaries on a > peer basis with the delegation of one country. If this is too detailed, we > might fall back onto some more generic, but still clear, wording. > > In general, the more I read it, the more I like the Canadian proposal (tnx > Robert for forwarding it). I'm not sure about asking the EU to drop their > proposed Forum paragraph and support the Canadian one instead, but we > might consider doing this. > > Also, if we want, we might make a more general request that the EU > formally supports our protest and asks for us to be allowed to participate > in drafting groups, or at least discusses it; and to try to keep us in the > loop, or at least regularly ask for reactions. I know many EU delegations > would support this request, but as I understand until now, as the week > evolved, it never came so high on the list of their priorities for any of > them (included mine) to actually raise it in the Coordination meeting. > > About oversight, I really doubt that CS/PS can have a real impact on this. > This will be hardly fought among governments and I doubt they will have > the willingness and patience to take into account yet more views. In any > case, we definitely want to restate our views. > > Anything else? > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com T&T Music and videos online _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Wed Sep 28 18:11:23 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:11:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Updated version of oversight stmt. Message-ID: >>> wdrake at cpsr.org 09/28/05 4:50 PM >>> >I believe someone said that there's already a provision in ICANN's >bylaws saying it has to abide by international law. Nope. Not correct. http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm There is a provision that says that ICANN ccTLD policies cannot conflict with the domestic law applicable to a ccTLD manager, and there are several "except as otherwise provided...by law" references, which means US law, but there is no reference to "international law" or treaties. >the fundamental problem on the table, greater accountability >to governments with respect to ICANN's core activities. >On the one hand, it may be that the majority >of us don't think there is a need for such accountability The difference in perspective here is "accountability to whom?" ICANN is already completely accountable to one government and the addition of more governments per se does not get me excited, it just means geopolitical conflict and less clarity about the conditions and criteria of accountability. I want more accountability to the PUBLIC, especially the Interet using and supplying public. Think of it as an extension of the subsidiarity principle: we can interact with ICANN and its structures directly. If the structure is more democratized, even more so. >On the other hand, saying that ICANN should abide by international >arrangements that are frequently a) operationally a few to many steps >removed and b) lousy, seems an odd substitute for a clear position on the >core item, especially when some of them---e.g. the ITU arrangements---are >potentially quite troublesome. BTW, we had what I thought was a very I agree with you about a) and b) but.... Let me be clear. I am trying to solve the "public policy" problem. Governments say they want control of public policy. What is "public policy"? The WGIG report doesn't say. Governments don't or won't or can't say. To me, THAT is the "core problem." The claim that they have a right to oversight is founded on their notion that they should be in control of "public policy" matters. Alright then, tell me what public policy is. My view leads to a situation in which to dictate public policy they either have to a) point to a treaty or agreement or law that clearly applies to the situation, or b) create a new one that does. To me, that seems like a step forward. It is not too relevant to this argument to say that some international public policies are ones you don't agree with. If you get undefined, unrestricted "oversight" you are also going to get decisions you don't agree with. Indeed, you are much more likely to get arbitrary and unlimited interventions. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Thu Sep 29 08:20:52 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:20:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function Message-ID: Karen, Bill, I appreciate your intent Karen and APC's intent but agree with Bill that 'binding international agreements' on openness is a contradication in terms that will never fly. Language more along the lines that the forum's efforts should keep in mind the need to preserve the Internet's essential features, such as, 'openness etc..' might have the opposite effect of making agreement easier, since then the forum is signalling the techies that it will not muck things up. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> wdrake at cpsr.org 09/29/05 5:55 AM >>> Karen, > >In the context of the evolving public and technical policy landscape of > >the Internet there will be a need to concretize binding international > >agreements that relate to: > > > >- the architectural principles of the Internet, including > >interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle I am very strongly opposed to putting this in the forum, and believe it will provide the USA and business with a big opening to reject the forum outright. I hope you will reconsider, it's dangerous. Rest is consistent more or less with IGcaucus etc. BD _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.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 Sep 29 10:46:51 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:46:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function Message-ID: I don't get it Bill. Not saying I disagree, I just have no idea what you are saying. How can the invokation of interopability and e2e "provide the USA and business with a big opening to reject the forum outright"? >>> wdrake at cpsr.org 09/29/05 5:55 AM >>> > >In the context of the evolving public and technical policy landscape of > >the Internet there will be a need to concretize binding international > >agreements that relate to: > > > >- the architectural principles of the Internet, including > >interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle I am very strongly opposed to putting this in the forum, and believe it will provide the USA and business with a big opening to reject the forum outright. I hope you will reconsider, it's dangerous. Rest is consistent more or less with IGcaucus etc. BD _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.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 Sep 29 11:44:55 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:44:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function Message-ID: No, you are wrong I think. The "binding international agreements" could serve to protect end to end and openness from interference, mostly by governments, just as human rights agreements protect people from interference with rights. That is not anything like an "oversight Council" which stands above ICANN/or other Internet administrators and providers and decides where to intervene. Perhaps the language needs to be clarified, and its implications thought out more, but APC statement seems to me to be merely repeating the advice some of us offered that the Forum needs to focus on getting negotiated principles in place. The Forum does not have the negotiation power, but could serve as a preparatory process where things are discussed, and then taken into other forums. In fact, that could happen whether a statement says so or not. >>> wdrake at cpsr.org 09/29/05 11:21 AM >>> The problem is not the invocation, the problem is this: "In the context of the evolving public and technical policy landscape of the Internet there will be a need to concretize binding international agreements...The forum should monitor this evolving landscape with a view to the initiation of a process to concretize such international agreements." This is no fly territory to the US, business, and probably other OECD governments. Creeping council... BD _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.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 Sep 30 09:31:37 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:31:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Forum/oversight: Middle Ground proposal Message-ID: Bill, this is an excellent analysis. I am off watching in the distance, 6 hours behind, but if it's not too late may I formally move that in your press conference that Bill Drake be authorized by the IGC to make these points? No particular objections to Avri also as spokes but it seems she has been more involved in the oversight issue and Drake has been following the Forum issue more closely. >>> wdrake at cpsr.org 09/30/05 4:35 AM >>> Hi, Some notable things about the Canada/NZ/Aus/Switzerland/US/Singapore/Argentina/Uruguay 'middle ground' proposal. 1. If the USA is indeed on board with it, the USA has endorsed the creation of a forum. I thought they'd hold out longer, but the EU oversight proposal has brought things to a head, so cards are being played now. 2. The framing of the forum is not desirable. *There is no mention of it being multistakeholder, much less peer-level and open to unaffiliated individuals as participants. *There is no mention of it having a mandate to do much of what the IG caucus has proposed in terms of functions. *There is no mention of where and in what form it would be constituted; we have suggested that outside of but related to the UN would be preferable. We certainly don't want it based in an existing institution, i.e. ITU. *The language about it being non-duplicative and focusing on issues not otherwise being addressed adequately elsewhere could very well be deployed by the US, private sector, and others to say that, inter alia, the forum should not talk about any intellectual property issues because we have WIPO for that, nor trade aspects because we have WTO for that, nor interconnection costs or spam because we have ITU for these, nor privacy and "information security" because we have the COE Cybercrime Convention for these, and on and on. But the way these bodies have "handled" these issues is not that desirable. As we all know, many of the existing bodies do not allow participation, or meaningful participation, by CS; are controlled by particular industry coalitions and government agencies with specific and limiting missions; and accordingly produce outcomes that are not in tune with public interest considerations. Presumably, talking about how those organizations function would also be off limits. This would eliminate what Avri referred to at the CPSR panel as the "gadfly" function of the forum---raising issues and concerns not being raised within these bodies, pushing them, calling for solutions that are in keeping with WSIS principles, etc. I hope these concerns will be raised in our interventions if the opportunity arises. Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of karen banks > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 9:56 AM > To: 'Governance Governance Caucus' > Subject: [governance] Forum/oversight: Middle Ground proposal > > > hi > > we had an interesting discussion last night about the new 'middle ground' > proposal from Canada/NZ/Aus/Switzerland/US/Singapore/Argentina/Uruguay - > which, if you read carefully, is very familiar - many of the key points > from the WGIG recommendations are there.. still has a few fuzzy bits but > seems to have the support of the African Group at least.. > > we all had hard copy last night, but it's not online yet.. does > anyone have > a copy? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.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 Fri Sep 16 00:36:54 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:36:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] PrepCom3 Side events on IG In-Reply-To: <1657.80.63.183.67.1126793099.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <1657.80.63.183.67.1126793099.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050916133411.0b739eb0@211.125.95.185> Thanks Bill for your timely sharing the preparatory work of the side event on Internet Governance. I plan to come to Geneva in the second week of PrepCom, so that I will miss the first one, but will be there for the second one. If there still is a time slot, yes, I am interested in joining the panel. At 16:04 05/09/15 +0200, you wrote: >Hi, > >Since Izumi raised the subject of Tunis side events, I should mention two >others for the PrepCom. Traveling and forgot, sorry. > >Since the large plenary sessions will hardly be the most conducive >environment in which to have serious, focused, and open interactive >discussions on IG reform issues raised by the WGIG report, and since it >didn't appear that anything else along these lines was happening, CPSR and >the Third World Institute (ITeM)in Montevideo grabbed two slots for >cosponsored side events during PrepCom 3. These are as follows: > >"The Internet Governance Forum Function," Wed. Sept. 21 13:00-15:00 in >Room XVI. > >""The Internet Governance Oversight Function," Wed. Sept. 28 13:00-15:00 >in Room XVI. > >The listing currently on the conference website at >http://www.itu.int/wsis/preparatory2/pc3/parallel/index.html reflects a >prior formulation in which we'd thought of doing two sessions on the >Forum. Hopefully this will be updated soon. > >We need more speakers willing to offer boot up remarks on these two >topics. A few folks have already volunteered, but there are a few slots >still available. The room will be equipped for Power Point presentations >if anyone feels ambitious. > >If you are interested in making some initial panel remarks, please send a >note to myself and to Pablo Accuosto of ITeM. Our addresses are above. >And of course, otherwise everyone is very much encouraged to attend and >participate in the discussions. > >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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Sep 17 03:26:35 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:26:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance : 10 questions for PrepCom3 Message-ID: Hi Bertrand, I share more or less Bill´s view. He also singled out the three main points. We as IG CS Caucus should be realistic. This is an intergovernmental endgame and we will have only little impact, even if our input is well drafted and has all the good arguments on its side. As you said correctly, this is part of a bigger power struggle and I do not expect, that there will be a solution. Even the potential threat of a fragmentation of the Internet which could harm everybody, is not so strong that somebody in DC or MDR would get nervous. Did you hear a new statement from China the last couple of days? But this does not mean that we should not go ahead with your questions for our own discussion. What I propose is that we are going towards an own Civil Society internet Governance Declaration for Tunis. (Like we had the "big declaration" in Geneva). In such a document, we can a. formulate our principles, based on the Geneva language and the WGIG report, but a little bit more specific, in particular with regard to multilateral/multistakeholder and freedom of expression, privacy etc. b. make clear proposals for i. the Forum, ii. the oversight, iii. the GAC reform, iv. the continuing ICANN reform and v. the need to open other IGO (ITU etc.) for multistakeholderism. Such a document should be no longer than three or four pages, maximum. It could be drafted during PrepCom3, discussed until Tunis and launched with a special event during the Summit. This would guarantee also some media coverage. See you tomorrow Best wolfgang -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of William Drake Sent: Fri 9/16/2005 9:34 PM To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] Internet Governance : 10 questions for PrepCom3 Hi Bertrand, Thanks for the interesting thoughts. I guess my view would be that a) there's really no need to spend time rethinking elements of the WGIG report which, as you note, will not be the basis for negotiations, and b) given the usual difficulties of building consensus among people on site and on list in the midst of a fast moving negotiation, sorting through ten questions might be a bit of a challenge. To me, the really pressing items that we should concentrate on are three-fold: 1) the forum, 2) NTIA and the zone file, and 3) the liklihood that there will be a real press on the part of various parties--and importantly, not just from the developing world---to see GAC turned into an intergovernmental organization, or something like it, that would have the ability to instruct the ICANN board in certain instances to be defined. The caucus has previously endorsed 1), which I'd guess has a 70% chance, more if the USG refuses to consider the others. 2) CS people have put forward some interesting ideas about this in the past, e.g. a custodianship relationship via MOU or whatever, but I don't think we've ever really tried to come to a clear position on a new model. 3) would probably be as divisive here as it is elsewhere, but I'd think we have to come to a clear position, and just saying no, if that's the most broadly shared view, won't be very compelling to the governments---an argument would be needed as to how one can get greater accountability etc. within the existing framework, which I doubt many governments will accept. Since the USG probably will not go for 2, 3 might be harder to take off the table than one would have thought. Of course, they could just go Bolton; Gallaghar will be attending for at least the first few days in the second week. It could be lively. Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Bertrand de LA > CHAPELLE > Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 8:49 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Internet Governance : 10 questions for PrepCom3 > > > Dear all, > > PrepCom3 is probably the last real opportunity to influence > drafting of the Tunis Document : even if there is a last > minute compromise session three days before the summit > itself, it will be in Tunis, with probably no access for > civil society to the drafting committees, worse than last > time in Geneva. Two weeks of PrepCom may seem long but they > will fly quickly and there is a need to focus on the > essentials of what can be achieved. > > PrepCom3 is about two major elements : > - follow-up / implementation > - Internet Governance > > I believe Internet Governance is going to be the major > fighting ground among governments up to the summit. In that > context, we must list the key questions we want to see > addressed. I propose 10 below as a starting point to help > move forward. > > INTERNET GOVERNANCE WILL BE CENTRAL IN PrepCom3 > > The open meeting on Sept 6 clearly demonstrated that > governments : > - care less about implementation than about Internet > Governance (judging by the very different attendance of > ambassadors in the morning and the afternoon) > - care less about general governance issues than about the > obvious root server question (ie ICANN evolution). > > We can therefore expect an easy watering down of text on > implementation and a progressively more heated debate on > Internet Governance. > > The reason for this situation is probably as follows : > > - on implementation, no government really supports a strong > implementation framework : developped countries by fear > (sincere or pretended) of creating a "new bureacracy" and > some developing ones by fear of seeing others mingling with > their sovereign right to prevent the emergence of an open > society; as a result, the wording in the GFC report has > already been toned down from previous documents, as Ralf and > Parminder have noted (and even more in the very last > version, as identified in my review of modifications sent to > the Plenary list); the risk is only to see this trend > accelerate; still there could be ways to leverage the > present formulations in a positive way. > > - on Internet Governance, things are different. China, > Brazil, India or South Africa devote most of their attention > and efforts to the ICANN question, because it is an > opportunity to oppose the US and affirm their status of > major Regional Digital Power. This focus has two additional > benefits : first, it is also a way to try and reinstall the > paradigm of the primacy of governments in the only field > where they are the ones knocking at the door to enter; and > second, this debate distracts attention from other > unpleasant issues such as freedom of expression or > censorship. (By the way, the fact that in this whole > process, the United States have managed to let themselves > become the country under fire on such an specific point as > oversight of the root server when there are so many > violations of freedom of expression and so many denials of > access to the internet and information in general in > oppressive regimes is beyond my comprehension.) > > So Internet Governance - our main issue of interest on this > list - is going to be central during PrepCom3. In particular > I suspect we will soon see the .xxx question used > systematically to counter the "if it ain't broken, don't fix > it" theme used repetitively by the US representatives. > Governments such as Brazil see this as an example of > something that needs to be fixed (I don't want to open here > the discussion on the substance of that point). > > WHAT WILL / SHOULD THE TUNIS DOCUMENT CONTAIN ? > > The only important question at that stage is : what will get > into the final Tunis Text ? And what do CS actors want ? One > thing is sure : no detailed formulation is on the table yet > and the "food for thought document" of Ambassador Khan, a > mere proposal for a structure, was not even accepted as > formal input document for PrepCom3. In addition, his > reference to specific paragraphs of the WGIG report was > strongly opposed by the US delegation and the drafting will > start from a clean slate. > > Some urgent questions for the IG Caucus are therefore (non > exhaustive list) : > 1) is Amb. Khan's document STRUCTURE appropriate as a > starting point ? if not, what would we like ? > 2) is the working definition of Internet Governance in the > WGIG report something we can live with ? (I personnally can > and commend the work of the group on that point, but others > may differ) > 3) can we manage / should we try to replace the > formulation "multilateral, transparent and democratic with > the full involvement of all stakeholders" by "multi- > stakeholder, transparent and democratic", arguing that the > second part of the present formulation is always dropped ? > 4) can we / should we insert - as some government > delegations including Salvador are also requesting - a > notion that the security, stability, continuity and > development of the Internet as a Global facility is > the "shared responsibility" of all stakeholders ? > 5) should the issues listed in Part 4a) be placed in the > general framework of the revision of ICANN's MoU ? I suppose > this issue will not find its solution within WSIS but that, > like in the first phase, WSIS may call for the establishment > of a broad debate / work group on the reform of ICANN : > should we support/propose such an exit route if it offers > enough guarantees of multi-stakeholderism ? > 6) on the role of governments - and not simply the so- > called "oversight function" - what do we really accept / > support / wish ? > 7) should a mechanism be proposed for the identification of > new issues in addition to the ones listed in Part 4 b) ? Are > the existing ones appropriate ? > 8) what formulations can be proposed to avoid that Part 5 on > measures to promote development have substance and do not > become a simple reiteration of the formulations of the > Geneva DoP and PoA ? > 9)do we want a new multi-stakeholder Forum or the guarantee > that all fora (existing or new ones) function on the basis > of true and effective participation of all stakeholders, > with a minimal set of agreed rules (Governance Protocol) and > coordination mechanisms ? > 10) last - but not least - is there / should there be any > articulation between the fora mechanisms dealing with > Internet Policy issues that this Chapter 3 addresses and > the "policy debate" section of the newly proposed Chapter > one on follow-up (see separate mail) ? > > > I hope this will help structure discussions during PrepCom3 > and allow the IG Caucus to have a significant impact on the > final drafting. > > Looking forward to seeing those of you that will be in > Geneva next week - I will miss the others. > > Best > > Bertrand _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.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 Fri Sep 23 03:00:00 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:00:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponement oftoday'scaucus meeting In-Reply-To: <63519.62.203.135.6.1127334339.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <63519.62.203.135.6.1127334339.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <4333A7F0.9030304@bertola.eu.org> William Drake ha scritto: > Hi Carlos, I think your reconstruction, at least at first sight, looks correct, with just one note: > caucus people were present, meetings and online, and I don't recall anyone > contesting the idea that there should be a multistakeholder mechanism for > dialogue, analysis, and trend monitoring of the IG "broad agenda". Actually, there are people (me included) who think that the mission of the forum should go beyond "dialogue, analysis, and trend monitoring", and include starting up open working groups and drafting policy recommendations with a non-binding status, that could become "de facto binding" over time if the forum gained sufficient credibility and support to make so happen. I am not sure any more of where consensus is in this caucus (if we have any) on the precise mission of the forum. However, the consensus of the WGIG was that the aforementioned idea is an integral part of the mission of the proposed forum. So, while I don't think there is consensus on making the forum a sort of "Emperor of the Internet", there is no consensus either on making it a place where once a year we shake hands, watch nice powerpoints and go have dinner together at Les Brasseurs, and then we get back home until the following year. Just to make things clearer :-) -- 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 Sat Sep 24 09:12:46 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 15:12:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? Message-ID: I support Bill approach. We should try - independent from the governmental discussions next week - to formulate our own position. As I said in an previous mai, this "CS IG Declaration" could have four chapters: Chapter 1: Principles (multistakeholder, openess, trnasparecy, democratic , privacy, freedom of expression, all agreed langauge and reference to the working definition) Chapter 2: Forum Function (here we have done siome work, not yet full agreement, but the workshop last Wednesday produced key elements, Chapter 3: oversight: Most critical point. My personal position is "full privatization" based on four "ifs" (mainly related to contractual arrangements of ICANN, internal procedures within ICANN, now precedures within GAC and new relationship between ICANN and GAC). Chapter 4. ohter issues. The whole paper should be no longer than 4 pages. A drsaft could be further discussed beyond PrepCom3 and tablæed as an official CS declaration in Tunis. If no consenmsus among us is possible, lets go Bills way and loog for sgnatories. Attached is an recent article I wrote for Bill´s book. Critivcal comments are welcome. best wolfgang ----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of William Drake Sent: Sat 9/24/2005 2:20 PM To: Governance; jeanette at wz-berlin.de; ajp at glocom.ac.jp; mueller at syr.edu Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? Adam, Jeanette, everyone, While I recognize that everyone here in Geneva is getting frazzled and is pretty preoccupied with the procedural fighting caused by Brazil and the "like minded" developing countries wanting to lock CS and the private sector out of the drafting groups, I do think we need to turn our attention ASAP to the big ticket item on which, unlike the forum, the caucus has not previously agreed a clear position: oversight. Can't be avoided. Even if we were to decide, as has been suggested, that we will not use any little SubCom speaking slots they deign to give us as an act of protest, if possible it would still make sense to have a brief written statement in response to the like minded proposals on oversight that presumably will be unveiled next week. In our response to the WGIG report, we said, "The caucus finds model one to be unworkable and not in keeping with the inclusive processes recommended throughout the WGIG report. We also find certain aspects of Model 4 to be not in keeping with the WGIG recommendations. Model two is clearly the most workable as a starting point, and is favored by most civil society participants. However, aspects of model 3, particularly the importance of a host nation agreement and provisions for tackling developmental issues, merit greater attention. Civil Society believes that it is clear that oversight is a significant issue that needs further discussion. To this end, we would support the establishment of a multi-stakeholder working group (under auspices of the Chair of Sub-Committee A) to explore approaches mutually acceptable to all stakeholders in the lead up to the WSIS summit. We also indicate our willingness to work with all stakeholders, and as a caucus, towards evolution and acceptance of an effective and transparent global public policy and oversight processes." The first paragraph is not a terrifically sharp position as is, and what will be proposed may well be a new model in some respects, rather than one of the WGIG models. In this case, we could not just recycle the above and expect that to suffice, and anyway there'd be a need to go into greater detail than "we do/don't like it." The second paragraph is now irrelevant in the near-term, since we are not to be allowed to participate in the development of any oversight options. Small problem: based on all the discussions here on the list over the past three years, the discussions on the ground in WSIS and WGIG, and just knowing people's personal views, I am profoundly skeptical that we can reach any consensus on precisely how a) zone file edits and b) ICANN oversight might be better organized. While we haved generally agreed that everything should be multistakeholder with CS participation, beyond that, the discussion hits a wall. Many of us simply have divergent views on the role of government, singularly or collectively. Moreover, there's no way to know when proposals will be tabled, but if we intend to react to them, we'd need to respond quickly, while including people not in Geneva. So I think we are in a real bind here. To have any ability to react, we'd need a) some text for people to respond to, like yesterday, and b) some way of working toward agreement on it or its revision, very quickly. And with regard to the latter, I suspect we wouldn't get there with everyone on board. Another option, were we to have text, or texts, would be to do what Milton did with respect to his .xxx statement. Rather than trying to have a unified caucus position, we could do a sign-on (or sign ons, if we want to advance alternatives). This would have the real virtue of avoiding the whole who speaks for whom dynamic, it'd be clear and uncontestable in whose name any statement(s) would be issued. Of course, we'd need for someone to put up the web page for sign ons etc.... Thoughts? 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Drake1 Type: application/x-macbinary Size: 117248 bytes Desc: Drake1 URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Sep 24 17:23:00 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 07:23:00 +1000 Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? In-Reply-To: <50887.81.62.134.234.1127564440.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <20050924213057.B272A68023@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> I’m following this as closely as I can from a distance. And I suspect governments are in exactly the same position as CS was a few weeks a go, with little time to explore the details of a structure, but the need to draft something acceptable to all parties. The difference is that, at this stage, something as loose as the CS indicative position doesn’t go far enough. There is at least a strong chance that no firm structural recommendation will come from Prepcomm, but there seems at the same time (taking the Chairs non-paper) an acknowledgement that some change is needed. I realize that there are a bunch of ambassadorial types in Geneva from ISOC arguing the opposite, but lets hope the argument that change is needed sticks. CS should enforce that. Usually before change occurs a “burning platform for change” needs to be understood and realized. The burning platform for change here is: “US unilateral control of root zone policy is unacceptable for an international network. Period.” (apologies to Ambassador Gross) If that acknowledgement sticks, a mechanism is needed to come up with a structure acceptable to stakeholders. Maybe some recommendations to that effect would be useful. I think you may need to concentrate on a mechanism to evolve a structural recommendation post Prepcom. The only other situation likely to be simple enough to satisfy would be a “more power to GAC” one. Let GAC have a right of veto on root zone policy issues. I know its not ideal to everyone, but is it more acceptable than nothing happening or some ridiculous government top-heavy structure being established for this purpose? There’s some thoughts anyway. Good luck achieving anything next week! It will require a big dose of pragmatism, from what I am reading. Ian -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit-multimedia.com Sat Sep 24 18:17:41 2005 From: laina at getit-multimedia.com (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 00:17:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? In-Reply-To: <50887.81.62.134.234.1127564440.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <20050924221759.FWSR1251.morpheus1.pacific.net.sg@LAINATABLET> Bill, I tend to agree with you that it is hard to get concensus both from the gov side and CS side on actual models, text, etc. for oversight. As one delegate said to me, unless we have a clear answer on strucure and process that is clearly better than status quo, the status quo may still look better than no clear alternative. So I think recycling the text from WGIG may not be so bad (as you quoted below), provided we also offer it some more teeth as you suggested- i.e. some clear guidance on mandate of this group, timeline of working, and how to work with other stakeholders (as peers). In other words, focus to get them to agree on the concepts "multistakeholder" etc, and then agree to work out the details post Tunis to ensure these concepts are translated into action within a certain timeframe and a certain method to get these endorsed post Tunis. Meanwhile, I do think that the same approach could be taken for all other related issues or the "forum" mentioned in WGIG. In fact this group or "forum" should also be linked to SubCom B discussions on "followup and implementation" architecture. These issues are also facing some deadlock, plus since we are looking at ICT in a long term basis, we need a "forum" for further discussions on the broader issues of ICT. Again, how this "forum" should look like also requires more discussion, so the call for another committee, again with clear mandate and timeline. So we focus on getting them to agree on having such "forum" or "new form of cooperation" as per the Chair's paper, but make sure there is a clear mechanism to make sure they understand how to create it and discuss how to translate multistakeholder into action (e.g. taking it out of organs such as UN where multistakeholder is hard to implement as seen during the WSIS Prepcom processes). If we stick to something along these lines we may get concensus from more CS and maybe even gov (keeping in mind that those who want status quo I know will see this as buying more time to delay any changes- but this may be better than closing the issue altogether if deadlock happens). I don't think we have all the answers on actual structures and procedures, especially to work on within this one week over emails and physical meetings. So you are right that we are unlikely to get concensus with CS on any solutions we come up now. At max, as you suggested we may then get statements with endorsements from whoever endorses it. Laina -----Original Message----- Civil Society believes that it is clear that oversight is a significant issue that needs further discussion. To this end, we would support the establishment of a multi-stakeholder working group (under auspices of the Chair of Sub-Committee A) to explore approaches mutually acceptable to all stakeholders in the lead up to the WSIS summit. We also indicate our willingness to work with all stakeholders, and as a caucus, towards evolution and acceptance of an effective and transparent global public policy and oversight processes." The first paragraph is not a terrifically sharp position as is, and what will be proposed may well be a new model in some respects, rather than one of the WGIG models. In this case, we could not just recycle the above and expect that to suffice, and anyway there'd be a need to go into greater detail than "we do/don't like it." The second paragraph is now irrelevant in the near-term, since we are not to be allowed to participate in the development of any oversight options. .......... ....... So I think we are in a real bind here. To have any ability to react, we'd need a) some text for people to respond to, like yesterday, and b) some way of working toward agreement on it or its revision, very quickly. And with regard to the latter, I suspect we wouldn't get there with everyone on board. Another option, were we to have text, or texts, would be to do what Milton did with respect to his .xxx statement. Rather than trying to have a unified caucus position, we could do a sign-on (or sign ons, if we want to advance alternatives). This would have the real virtue of avoiding the whole who speaks for whom dynamic, it'd be clear and uncontestable in whose name any statement(s) would be issued. Of course, we'd need for someone to put up the web page for sign ons etc.... Thoughts? Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development www.ictsd.org Geneva, Switzerland http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche ******************************************************* _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Sep 25 05:31:37 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:31:37 +1000 Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? (four decision points) In-Reply-To: <52110.83.79.111.91.1127639373.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <20050925093517.874A374008@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Great analysis Bill. I am off line for a few hours but two quick comments #1. I agree with the non-binding forum, which necessitates further discussion of #2 AND #3 #4. There is another alternative of course. In reality, the edit function is totally unnecessary and could be abandoned. I believe that is the CENTR position. Abandonment of the function in favour of self regulating ccTLDs (government involvement of course) and some mechanism for GTLDS (which are hardly a national security matter if USG keeps its .mil). Maybe the breakthrough here is just to get rid of it and maybe that ought to be part of the thinking on this. 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 William Drake Sent: Sunday, 25 September 2005 7:10 PM To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? (four decision points) Hi, Helpful note Lee. I think there are four issues on which it'd be helpful to see if we could agree to say something collectively. If we can't, then either we fudge things and take no specific stances, or else pursue the opt-in approach. > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Lee McKnight > Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 4:38 AM [snip] > 4) Jeanette's note of a few days ago on the forum function I suggest > can be the start of that piece of the doc; this keeps things flexible > and might show to confiused or reluctant governments how new 'oversight' > functions could spin out of the Fourm if collectively agreed to, eg for > spam or some other hot-button area, but also reassure those who would > pay the bills that this is not foreordained to be a massive standing > thing, in the first instance just a lightweight occasional talk shop; You're folding together two dimensions here: a) whether there should be some constitutional provision for the forum to make binding agreements in exceptional circumstances when all agree, and b) whether the scope of substantive issues this should entail includes oversight of core resources. Let me separate. I think a) is somewhat unproblematic, which may be why nobody argued with its inclusion in the caucus response to the WGIG report. Or at least, it is unproblematic with regard to outcomes---since as with any such instrument everyone would have to agree to sign and ratify for it to take effect globally, the US or anyone else could block really misguided or dangerous agreements. It would be less unproblematic with regard to process, in that you could get governments demanding that energies be spent on negotiations toward such agreements, and there is obviously great reluctance to open the door to that. Particularly post-WSIS, the idea that there could be multi-year negotiations involving millions of dollars of expenditure and person hours of participation on topics where there is absolutely no prospect of universal consensus does give one pause. In any event, I think it is clear that while we included this option in the caucus statement to try to accommodate all tastes, the reality is that the industrialized countries probably will not accept any formulation in which the forum can adopt "hard" instruments, and I suspect the business community would be implacably opposed. So possible merits notwithstanding, it's probably dead, and insisting on it would provide a nice opening to those who are opposed to any forum for any reason. Ask for everything, we could get nothing. b) is even more obviously unviable. Every conversation I've had or other sign I've seen indicate that the industrialized countries and global business absolutely will not accept a forum that has oversight vis ICANN or the zone file, full stop. If Brazil and the other like minded developing countries insist that this is the only kind of forum they'd be interested in, the others will say fine, so there's not going to be a forum. Unless the developing countries dialed back from that in the pre-Tunis crisis negotiations, we would all go home and return to the status quo ante. Indeed, I've had EU people tell me that they wouldn't even want the forum to be able to *discuss* or analyze these issues; they want a carve out from the mandate. I don't think that makes sense, since substantively the issues are often intertwined to the point that the forum could not meaningfully analyze or debate the broader agenda with everything related to core resources off the table. The OECD debates, analyzes, and makes recommendations on these issues and it hasn't had any negative impact, so I don't see why a forum couldn't do the same if it's not making binding agreements. In light of these realities, and in the absence of a really strong case for doing both in one place, I personally would favor the caucus saying clearly that binding oversight should not be in the forum. Our WGIG report response did not list oversight as a function appropriate for the forum, and nobody argued against that at the time, but Carlos' response demonstrates that I shouldn't have assumed everyone was clear on and ok with the implication. So I suggest we discuss and see if we can have consensus on this, issue #1. IF there is separation, the question is then where and how could one reform oversight. WGIG Model 2 says that in tandem with a forum there could be a reform or upgrade of GAC. In her post, Avri suggests what she calls an intermediate step, giving GAC the ability to cause a full review of any ccTLD. This *might* be acceptable to the US and business, although it'd be a hard sell. However, it would not in any way satisfy the developing countries, some continental EU countries, or, I suspect, the EC. These players simply will not accept that government authority be limited to an advisory body within a problematic US-based corporation under US law. "Like minded" developing countries want an uber-body, forum + oversight, binding authority, while in Europe there is interest in keeping the forum and oversight separate but making GAC an intergovernmental organization of some sort with the ability to instruct the ICANN board. If caucus members agree that the answer to #1 is separation, then the constitutional form of GAC---remaining within the ICANN nexus, or being pulled out and given authority over ICANN---would be issue #2. Whether reconstituting GAC as an IGO could be sensible depends at least in part on over which issues specifically GAC could instruct ICANN. If this is construed broadly, the US, some other industrialized countries, and business will never agree. If it could be narrowly circumscribed, e.g. making sure that agreed procedures are followed, compelling at least the review of gTLD decisions, then maybe this would look less threatening to at least some proponents of the status quo. I asked NTIA people whether they could imagine the US ever agreeing to make GAC an IGO if the scope of its authority were narrowly and precisely circumscribed, and they just mumbled. I think this is so far off their radar that they couldn't get their heads around the question. Imagine the US would resist to the bitter end, and would not agree to anything along these lines by Tunis. Whether afterwards they'd consider it if it seemed the only way to lower the heat and avoid net fragmentation, hard to say, but it'd be an awful hard sell to the White House, Capitol Hill, and business. Anyway, this is issue #3, closely intertwined with #2. My own view is that if #3 could be precisely bounded, it is at least worth discussing the potential costs and benefits of #2, but that if the former is impossible the latter is as well. > 5) Then, we/you extract from Wolfgang's piece the suggestion of a > continuation of the trust-based system that we have presently for root > server management, with the removal of US gov involvement. Govt rights > to choose what to do with their ccTLD should be explicitly acknowledged > again. That is, the CS position is technical folks who trust each other > make the thing work and let's leave them alone to the extent possible > and not mess up the innovation engine. And the techies promise they will > listen to governments choices for their own ccTLDs, which maybe could be > put in writing via ICANN, with CS and GAC both involved in monitoring > but not touching the DNS. Full stop. Zone file edits are issue #4. I asked NTIA people about this and they said internationalization sounds nice but they can't see where you could put the authority and ensure a *greater* level of security and stability (which is setting the bar rather high, but they insist that an *equivalent* level would be impossible to sell in Washington, since why do anything if it's not going to be better---somewhat lame excuse to avoid the bother of spending political capital, in my view). In other words, unless there's a concrete and operationally viable option, the principle carries no weight. I tried out several possibilities on them regarding where to put it and they just shook their heads. Of course, this was a discussion of existing bodies;if there was a GAC IGO, that'd be another option. I also asked about the alternative posed by Wolfgang and in Milton's SubCom statement, making a formal declaration to the world that the USG will be a good custodian of the global public trust and not do anything on political grounds, and they insisted that they already did this in Gallagher's "four principles" statement (which, BTW, they said came from the White House). I said it didn't seem that anyone took it as such and they might consider being more explicit, got a mumbled response. This might be something to push. To my knowledge, caucus members are the only participants to put this compromise solution on the table to date. Securing agreement on it would be an undeniable and identifiable CS contribution to cutting a deal that would bolster our position. I'd favor this if nothing else can be agreed, but I suspect that others here would say it's not enough, the US must relinquish control to an as yet unnamed entity. Enough, already. Best, Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Tue Sep 27 10:26:19 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:26:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] draft text on political oversight In-Reply-To: <62367.195.186.224.205.1127828320.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <62367.195.186.224.205.1127828320.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <4339568B.80709@wz-berlin.de> William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > I know things are moving very fast, we need to have texts, and people are > working very hard to keep up and be prepared when we have speaking > opportunities. So it may be that you have already submitted this to the > secretariat, in which case I'm too late. We had to submit by two, CPSR's listserv needed a full hour to circulate my statement. > > I tried several days ago to say we need to start having a focused > discussion on four oversight issues and to decide how to proceed if there > was no agreement, but there was no response, everyone's too busy. Now > we're here. This is not true, Bill. There were many replies to your message. Just have a look at the thread. I can't imagine that the statement will cause problems. I didn't even introduce myself as coordinator of the IG caucus to avoid confusion on the status and origin of the statement. Regarding your hiding plans. As far as I remember you organize a side event on political oversight tomorrow. I suppose some of us will see you there? :-) jeanette > > If you have not submitted this to the secretariat, I alas would suggest > that you do not. It strikes me as a very non-consensual, essentially > status quo position. There are clearly people in the caucus who would in > fact want to see a new oversight mechanism that includes greater > government involvement in a multistakeholder setting, although specific > models that respond to what's on the table now have not been advanced (IGP > had a paper a month or so ago, that's the only thing that comes to mind > immediately). > > The choice has now been framed---US on one side, developing countries on > the other with their Council, and the EU seeking the middle ground, with > GAC perhaps to be pulled out of ICANN and made an IGO or otherwise > "evolved" into something where governments have more authority in relation > to the ICANN board, and also taking on the IANA role. Arguably, none of > these choices are attractive unless there's a great deal more > specification of the scope of authority etc. > > As I said last night, I would have thought it safer to have a statement > acknowledging that there are various problems at present but stating that > the caucus, like the international community more generally, is divided on > the best soution to these, with some favoring reform within the existing > ICANN context, and others favoring a reconfiguration closer to the EU or > developing country models. I suspect everyone could have lived with that. > > Hopefully this won't turn into a problem. > > I'm sorry I can't be there to help, but Markus told me yesterday that > UNICT has agreed to publish the WGIG book in time for Tunis if I can get > the entire manuscript to them early next week. Wasn't expecting this. So > from here I'm going to have to hide out and work and listen on the web. > Will see some of you at the WGIG dinner tomorrow and catch up. > > Best of luck, > > Bill > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >>[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann >>Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 1:31 PM >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>Subject: [governance] draft text on political oversight >> >> >>Hi, Avri and I have drafted some language on political oversight. Text >>should be read this afternoon. We have to submit it by 2pm. Please have >>a look and let us know if we can read it on behalf of the IG caucus or >>if we have to invent another stakeholder group. >>jeanette >> >> >>Political Oversight >> >>62b: 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 oversight organization for domain names and IP >>addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard to >>ICANN: >> >>1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent role of >>stewardship in relation to ICANN and enters into an adequate >>host-country agreement for ICANN. >> >>2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on >>its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the community >>of Internet users, private sector and governments. >> >>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. ICANN must establish a review process for its decisions in the form >>of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission, established on a >>case-by-case basis. >> >>5. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government >>transfers the IANA function to ICANN. >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 05:23:26 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:23:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] protest statement drafted by Avri In-Reply-To: <62947.195.186.175.34.1127897491.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <62947.195.186.175.34.1127897491.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: On 9/28/05, William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > Fine with at least one awake gringo... works for me as well. -- 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 Wed Sep 28 17:17:09 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:17:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Updated version of oversight stmt. Message-ID: Hi Bill, Milton, et al, Also have not had time today, but share in Bill's and McTim's general misgivings, this all feels rushed which it may well be for good reason, and I guess I am missing the point on why this should be settled now when it has not been more thoroughly debated. It does feel like a case of be careful what you wish for... But it's out, so let's see what happens. If anything. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> wdrake at cpsr.org 09/28/05 4:50 PM >>> Milton, To repeat publicly what I just said in response to your private mail, I understand your point, but think it's not responsive to the fundamental problem on the table, greater accountability to governments with respect to ICANN's core activities. On the one hand, it may be that the majority of us don't think there is a need for such accountability (this is not entirely obvious to me), but if so then we should have a principled statement as to why that is so, and why it would be a good thing to have a completely untethered ICANN roaming the earth and doing whatever from 2006. In an international negotiation, it seems odd to dodge the core question at stake. On the other hand, saying that ICANN should abide by international arrangements that are frequently a) operationally a few to many steps removed and b) lousy, seems an odd substitute for a clear position on the core item, especially when some of them---e.g. the ITU arrangements---are potentially quite troublesome. BTW, we had what I thought was a very interesting conversation during today's parallel session on oversight, and I believe someone said that there's already a provision in ICANN's bylaws saying it has to abide by international law. I don't have these imprinted in my brain, and I'm tired, but if so the point would seem to be technically irrelevant, and the issue is more tactical framing. What can I say. It's 11pm, we have to have language, and it sounds like this has already gone in as a caucus position. But I think there's some big unanswered questions that make the language hard to embrace with enthusiasm at this stage. So you can count me like McTim, not endorsing but not wanting to stop a majority, if there is one, that feels fine with it from proceeding. Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Milton Mueller > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 9:14 PM > To: karenb at gn.apc.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Updated version of oversight stmt. > > > Right, Bill, my point is precisely that - we cannot "cherry pick" > policy. What we are doing here is telling governments that they have to > actually HAVE a policy before they can control any aspects of what ICANN > does. That way, we limit the potential for abuse and arbitrariness. > > Otherwise, you get the arbitrary interventions accompanied by the > declaration, "this is a public policy issue." and of course, ANYTHING > important or controversial can be declared a "public policy issue." And > further, in most cases, I believe that consensus international > agreements provide some important protections regarding basic human > rights. Most trade rules in their general formulations re: telecom > policy are progressive, e.g., they would stop ICANN from discriminating > on the basis of national origin when it controls entry into markets, > they would favor competition over monopoly, etc. > > As for WIPO rules, sure, some of them are bad. But that battle has to > be fought in WIPO and in national legislatures. It is unrealistic - > indeed, an absurd fantasy - to think that if ICANN is exempted from > international law that it will do what we want it to do and that > suddenly, IPR interests will be weakened relative to us. I've been in > ICANN longer than most if not all of you. I know better than that. WIPO > would like to get ICANN to create new rights in names for international > organizations and impose them through its control of the DNS, for > example. Under my idea, it would have to get a new international treaty > negotiated and ratified to do that. Which is harder? > > >>> karen banks 09/28/05 2:03 PM >>> > hi > > > 6. ICANN's decisions, and any host country agreement[add:,] must be > > required to comply with public policy requirements negotiated > through > > international treaties in regard to, inter alia, human rights > treaties, > > privacy rights, and trade rules. > > bill said: [COMMENT: I UNDERSTAND MILTON'S THINKING, BUT WE CANNOT > CHERRY > PICK POLICY > FRAMEWORKS WE LIKE, E.G. HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTIONS; INTER ALIA ENTAILS > MUCH > MORE. MANY OF ICT POLICY REGIMES ARE DEEPLY PROBLEMATIC. WHY NOT SAY > WIPO'S RULES, WHICH ARE FREQUENTLY A PUBLIC INTEREST DISASTER, AND ARE > PERHAPS ABOUT TO GET WORSE WITH THE WEBCASTING TREATY? WHY NOT THE > ITU'S > INTERNATIONAL TELECOM CONVENTION? EQUALLY THE ITU'S INTERNATIONAL > TELECOM > REGULATIONS, WHICH MANY MEMBER STATES WANT TO RENEGOTIATE SOON, INTER > ALIA > TO ENCOMPASS THE INTERNET, VOIP, ETC? HOW ABOUT THE CIVIL RIGHTS > VIOLATING > COE TREATY? ONE COULD GO ON. THIS IS A CAN OF WORMS, NO?] > > yes - this was my concern re mentiong the cybercrime treaty (and trade > > rules for that matter) - but i guess the point here is about ICANN > internationlising and needing to be accountable - i would imagine the > HR > caucus would like very much to see something which ensures > accountability > to international HR frameworks. > > I am going to see rikke now and will ask her about this.. (she hasn't > responded to this thread yet) > > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 03:55:11 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:55:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Nomination: APC/Anriette Esterhuysen In-Reply-To: <63149.83.78.97.7.1127930586.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <63149.83.78.97.7.1127930586.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: On 9/28/05, William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with vittorio, with respect to extension, Anriette (for the > Plenary, right?) and having at least one person, preferably someone who's > actively contributed to the caucus effort over the years, addressing IG if > there's an amenable slot (I don't remember the topical list that was > circulated). I could happily back any of the obvious suspects but think > Wolfgang, being one of caucus founders, would be particularly apt. I was thinking more along the lines of someone from the technical community. Raul E, or one of the ccTLD folk/an NRO person/a root operator. Not that I am against WG speaking, not at all. -- 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 Thu Sep 29 06:59:08 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:59:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] What could happen this morning in subcom A In-Reply-To: <63931.81.62.139.82.1127986021.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <63931.81.62.139.82.1127986021.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <433BC8FC.2050804@wz-berlin.de> thank you bill, this is helpful! jeanette William Drake wrote: > Hi Jeanette, > > >>[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann > > >>Hi, we might have another opportunity to speak in the next subcommittee >>meeting tonight. >>My suggestion would be to have a look at the contributions from >>Argentina and the EU on para 62. These contributions seem to be regarded >>the most relevant ones. What do others think, should we comment on these >>proposals? > > > The Argentines just say let's have a forum, which is all but a done deal, > just have to see how much of a pain the US will be in final negotiations. > The EU is more interesting, and this is part of why I wasn't comfortable > with our statement already saying flat out no change other than internal > ICANN reform. The EU fancies itself as carving out the middle ground > between the US and the Iranians, but their proposal is very vague, and > when I've pressed them on this, they've insisted that this is > strategically the smart thing to do---don't really specify the model, just > invoke principles (I think it's really that they don't have internal > consensus yet, so this is all they can do, but they don't want to admit > it). Well, now we've had Brazil, India, China, Iran, and others get up > and basically say hey your model is vague, please explain. Doh! > > The EU says under its "new model" > > -we should not replace existing mechanisms or institutions, but should > build on the existing structures of with a special emphasis on the > complementarity between all the actors, each in its field of competence;- > > -the role of governments in the new cooperation model should be mainly > focused on principle issues of public policy, excluding any involvement in > the day-to-day operations; > > -the 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 naming, numbering > and addressing-related matters: > > You might join the others in asking for clarification, in particular: > > 1. in what organizational form do they suggest "building on existing," if > they're calling it new---if they don't want the Iranian Council, what do > they want (answer is GAC made an IGO but they're shy); > 2. in suggesting that governments should focus on these principles, what > would be the roles of other stakeholders in that process; > 3. if the answer to 2) is just advisory, ask why CS and the private sector > should greet this as a proposed improvement over the status quo. > > Thanks, > > Bill > > PS: Did Veni just get up and say something about sheep? Maybe the webcast > was garbled... > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.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 Fri Sep 30 04:59:04 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 17:59:04 +0900 Subject: [governance] Forum/oversight: Middle Ground proposal In-Reply-To: <50751.195.186.231.20.1128069318.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <50751.195.186.231.20.1128069318.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050930175647.0ac98b70@211.125.95.185> I mostly agree with your oveservation, Bill. As for the intervention, we need to make a request in advance for 3 pm plenary, and of course we are not sure how much SubCom will discuss about these areas, but regardless, it may be needed to request the floor just in case. AND, we can discuss this brifely at 1:30 meeting. Jeanette is leaving around noon, that leaves only me as "co-cordinator", but with all the help, I think we can manage that. izumi At 10:35 05/09/30 +0200, William Drake wrote: >Hi, > >Some notable things about the >Canada/NZ/Aus/Switzerland/US/Singapore/Argentina/Uruguay 'middle ground' >proposal. > >1. If the USA is indeed on board with it, the USA has endorsed the >creation of a forum. I thought they'd hold out longer, but the EU >oversight proposal has brought things to a head, so cards are being played >now. > >2. The framing of the forum is not desirable. > >*There is no mention of it being multistakeholder, much less peer-level >and open to unaffiliated individuals as participants. > >*There is no mention of it having a mandate to do much of what the IG >caucus has proposed in terms of functions. > >*There is no mention of where and in what form it would be constituted; we >have suggested that outside of but related to the UN would be preferable. >We certainly don't want it based in an existing institution, i.e. ITU. > >*The language about it being non-duplicative and focusing on issues not >otherwise being addressed adequately elsewhere could very well be deployed >by the US, private sector, and others to say that, inter alia, the forum >should not talk about any intellectual property issues because we have >WIPO for that, nor trade aspects because we have WTO for that, nor >interconnection costs or spam because we have ITU for these, nor privacy >and "information security" because we have the COE Cybercrime Convention >for these, and on and on. But the way these bodies have "handled" these >issues is not that desirable. As we all know, many of the existing bodies >do not allow participation, or meaningful participation, by CS; are >controlled by particular industry coalitions and government agencies with >specific and limiting missions; and accordingly produce outcomes that are >not in tune with public interest considerations. Presumably, talking >about how those organizations function would also be off limits. This >would eliminate what Avri referred to at the CPSR panel as the "gadfly" >function of the forum---raising issues and concerns not being raised >within these bodies, pushing them, calling for solutions that are in >keeping with WSIS principles, etc. > >I hope these concerns will be raised in our interventions if the >opportunity arises. > >Best, > >Bill > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of karen banks > > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 9:56 AM > > To: 'Governance Governance Caucus' > > Subject: [governance] Forum/oversight: Middle Ground proposal > > > > > > hi > > > > we had an interesting discussion last night about the new 'middle ground' > > proposal from Canada/NZ/Aus/Switzerland/US/Singapore/Argentina/Uruguay - > > which, if you read carefully, is very familiar - many of the key points > > from the WGIG recommendations are there.. still has a few fuzzy bits but > > seems to have the support of the African Group at least.. > > > > we all had hard copy last night, but it's not online yet.. does > > anyone have > > a copy? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Sep 30 05:21:53 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:21:53 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Canada's proposal on IG forum - its COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE In-Reply-To: <50674.195.186.231.20.1128066748.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <50674.195.186.231.20.1128066748.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <3083.156.106.224.63.1128072113.squirrel@156.106.224.63> On Ven, 30 Settembre 2005 9:52, William Drake disse: > If we get the chance to take the floor today, I hope the caucus will > reiterate support for its own position and diplomatically note the > comparative limitations of the Canadian one, which many parties do seem to > be flocking toward, perhaps because it is the most detailed language from > a government. They should read CS language too... I agree. Maybe we should say something like: "We support the language contained in the Canadian proposal from the morning of September 29, about the Forum for what regards its structure and functioning, and especially the mentions of the open WGIG consultations as a model, and of the extended usage of online instruments for discussion and knowledge dissemination; we reiterate that the rules of procedure adopted by this Preparatory Committee for its subcommittees and drafting groups do not constitute an acceptable starting point to ensure the full involvement of civil society and the private sector in the Forum. At the same time, we want to stress the importance of giving the Forum an adequate role. We think that the mission of the Forum as outlined in the Canadian proposal is incomplete, and we would like to see explicit mentions of all parts of the Forum mission as described in the WGIG report. We think that all those parts are required for the Forum to become an effective instrument for global policy discussions." However, maybe we should start to refer to the "Western paper" (which other people start to indicate as "Canada paper" as well, just to increase the confusion...), or eliminate any reference to papers and just ask for our key points, i.e. reiterate our statement on the Forum. But I think we should be focused and ask for some very precise and very vital points, such as the explicit mention of the open WGIG consultations as a reference for the rules of procedure. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Sep 30 05:32:35 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:32:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Canada's proposal on IG forum - its COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE In-Reply-To: <50674.195.186.231.20.1128066748.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <50674.195.186.231.20.1128066748.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <433D0633.2000304@wz-berlin.de> As I said already on the plenary list in response to Parminder, I don't think we should overrate the missing parts of the Canadian forum proposal. My impression was that their proposal is less thought through that it seems. We should definitely address the important parts that are missing, but we should do it in a friendly manner taking into account that they support a multistakeholder approach and are probably quite open to our suggestions re the forum's scope and function. jeanette William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > Parminder is right. Upon inspection, it is entirely an ICT4D proposal, > building on programs and approaches Canada/IDRC have supported > previously---generally useful but not at all what WGIG or CS previously > had in mind. All capacity building for developing countries, seemingly to > fit in to the topography of existing IG mechanisms, not dialogue, > analysis, trend monitoring, soft law making as necessary with an eye > toward improving them. Capacity building is of course critically > important, but the other functions are needed. The caucus statement is > much better that the Canadian, which makes no mention of the functions and > foci we specified, listed below. > > If we get the chance to take the floor today, I hope the caucus will > reiterate support for its own position and diplomatically note the > comparative limitations of the Canadian one, which many parties do seem to > be flocking toward, perhaps because it is the most detailed language from > a government. They should read CS language too... > > Bill > > -------- > IG Caucus List of Forum Functions > > > a. inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for > peer-level interaction where appropriate, for example in Birds of a > Feather, working groups, study groups, plenaries, etc. > > b. comparative, cross-sectoral analysis of governance mechanisms, with an > eye toward "lessons learned" and best practices that could inform > individual and collective institutional improvements > > c. assessment and monitoring of horizontal issues applicable to all > Internet governance arrangements, e.g. the promotion of transparency, > accountability, inclusion, and other guidelines for "good governance,” > such as the WSIS principles; > > d. identification of weaknesses and gaps in the governance architecture, > i.e. "orphaned" or multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly within > the ambit of any existing body; > > e. identification of potential tensions between separately developed > mechanisms, and possibly efforts to promote enhanced coordination among > them; > > f. promotion of decentralized convergence among positions and initiatives, > where possible; > > g. pre-decision agenda setting that could, inter alia, feed into the work > of other bodies; > > h. provide a clearing house for coordination, resource mobilization, > identification of new needs and gaps, in relation to supporting meaningful > developing country participation and capacity building > > i. promote the usage of ICTs to allow remote participation in Internet > governance processes; > > j. release recommendations, best practices, proposals and other documents > on the various Internet governance issues. > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On >>Behalf Of Parminder >>Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 11:06 PM >>To: plenary at wsis-cs.org >>Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Canada's proposal on IG forum - its >>COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE >> >> >> >> >> >>Hi All, >> >>I am sorry to use the the already crowded plenary list to state >>these views on >>matters in front of sub-committee A , but I am not subscribed on >>the IG CS >>list and I really wanted to share this with all. >> >>I found a lot of enthusiasm in CS content and themes meeting on >>the Canadian >>proposal on the forum. Most of the support came because canadian proposal >>seems strong on the MSP priciple. That’s great, but we need the >>'substance' >>too - perhaps that may be more important. >> >>And if we look at the canadian proposal on the forum from 'substance' >>or 'content;' angle, it is abysmal (excuse my use of strong language). >> >>It completely transforms the very purpose and agenda of the >>'forum' as was >>nicely laid out by WGIG reports points 43 to 47 - it was >>supposed to be a >>global IG policy deliberation space. But the canada proposal >>makes it into a >>capacity building body for developing countires etc- badly >>reeking of WIPO's >>technical assistence programs which suppose that 'they' know >>everything and >>the those with poor capacities (read, developing counteries)need to >>be 'taught' what the right frameworks and concepts are. >> >>The canadian proposal (cut-pasted at the end of the email) opens in this >>fashion -- >> >> >>>>>We commit to establishing a new forum mechanism, dedicated to >>>>>enhancing the >> >>capacity of all stakeholders, particularly those from developing >>countries, to >>participate fully and effectively in all forums relevant to Internet >>governance. >>> >> >>Were we looking for a forum for this purpose, I thought we wanted it for >>policy deliberation, advise, taking new issues (see WGIG report, >>pt.s 43 to >>47).... Capacity building is only one of the functions of the >>forum, and it >>comes way down on the list....... >> >>Why is there an attempt to cut out such needed global policy >>spaces by subtly >>substituting them with 'capacity building' bodies. And why should >>the CS be in >>a hurry to accept that - do we have such aversion to global public policy >>deliberations and policy development. >> >>This is a very status quo-ist view..... Things are fine as they >>are..... And >>lets obfuscate and confuse substantial policy issues, since developing >>countires in any case have poor capacities, and are liable to miss the >>subterfuge. >> >>CS need not be enthused about it just because MSP principle is >>promised - MSP >>for what....... >> >>I thought CS always wanted a forum as proposed by WGIG - the >>canadian proposal >>is NOT about the same 'forum'. And if anyone has some doubt, see >>the fact that >>canada has even proposed to move the 'forum' section to the part 4 of the >>working document. This section deals with development aspects of >>Internet. So >>the forum is now about building capapcity of developing countires >>- on issues >>already decided and firmly established..... It is about >>development (building >>capacities of developing countires to adopt to dominant paradigms)and not >>about the the 'way forward' (which would put the 'forum' in part >>5 on the 'way >>forward'). Pl see canadian proposal below... >> >>In stating the above, I don’t mean dis-respect for any one's >>views. This is >>how I see the whole thing..... I may not have followed the IG >>debate well, And >>I will be glad to be corrected on the issues I have put here...... >> >>Regards >> >>Parminder >>_____________________________________________ >> >>Canada's proposal >> >>Proposed Terms of Reference for Forum on Internet Governance To >>be inserted >>either in section 4 (Development), or section 5 (The Way Forward) >> >>================ >>NEW PARAGRAPH (# to be determined) >> >>We commit to establishing a new forum mechanism, dedicated to >>enhancing the >>capacity of all stakeholders, particularly those from developing >>countries, to >>participate fully and effectively in all forums relevant to Internet >>governance. Recognizing the rapid development of technology and >>institutions, >>we propose that the forum mechanism periodically be reviewed to >>determine the >>need for its continuation. Further, we propose that it be >>constituted as a >>neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process chiefly to >>facilitate the >>exchange of information and best practices and to identify issues >>that are not >>otherwise being adequately addressed. >>The forum mechanism should be viewed as a continuation of >>the "multistakeholder" approach of the WSIS, building on the >>valuable lessons >>learned in the WSIS and WGIG processes, in particular I the open WGIG >>consultations. >> >>We call upon all stakeholders to engage in and fully support this >>important >>new mechanism. The forum mechanism should be established in a >>timely fashion >>to: >>. Strengthen and enhance stakeholders' engagement in existing >>and future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly for those from >>developing countries; >>. Develop capacity to participate in discussions and decisions >>on pertinent topics under consideration in relevant institutions; >>. Encourage the full involvement and participation of all >>stakeholders and experts engaged in Internet governance to >>benefit from their >>expertise, including those of the academic and scientific communities, to >>facilitate coordination and collaboration, and to avoid duplication; >>. Make full use of the tools of the information society to >>conduct capacity building activities, minimizing the need for >>conferences and >>face-to-face meetings; and >>. Establish ongoing electronic forums on pertinent topics and, >>when appropriate, create a permanent on-line record for future >>use in capacity >>development activities, and to continue to add value over time. >> >> >>- >> >>Parminder >> >>www.ITforChange.net >>IT for Change >>Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Sep 30 09:41:27 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 16:41:27 +0300 Subject: [governance] Forum/oversight: Middle Ground proposal In-Reply-To: <50751.195.186.231.20.1128069318.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <50751.195.186.231.20.1128069318.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050930164020.02d468a8@193.200.15.187> Bill, At 10:35 30-09-05 +0200, William Drake wrote: >*There is no mention of it being multistakeholder, much less peer-level >and open to unaffiliated individuals as participants. I agree with the others, but with this point in particular. It is important, very important to allow really private sector and civil society to participate. veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Fri Sep 30 10:18:32 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 16:18:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Forum/oversight: In-Reply-To: <52551.195.186.231.20.1128082934.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <52551.195.186.231.20.1128082934.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <131293a20509300718r736ed105i9db96236f62e487f@mail.gmail.com> Hi Bill You left out Barbados - they also lept to support the proposal. I know we're small in the CAribbean, but in such an exhaustive list, the omission is noticeable. BTW - Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago have been very supportive of the CS position. Jacqueline On 9/30/05, William Drake wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:wdrake at ictsd.ch] > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 2:18 PM > To: plenary at wsis-cs.org > Subject: RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] [governance] Forum/oversight: Middle > Ground proposal > > > Parminder, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On > > Behalf Of Parminder > > > thanks Bill, this is good. this business of 'addressing issues > > not addressed > > by others' is a dangerous business. i agree that WIPO, WTO should have > > credible counter-points in the info society. thats where the potential of > > growth and progress lies..... > > We had a clear example of this sort of agenda restricting and forum shopping > this morning. In SubCom A's discussion of the interconnection cost section, > Bangladesh proposed language saying that the Tier 1 providers should > negotiate special and differential lowered rates for the least developed > countries "in accordance with multilateral trade rules." Venezuela, > Colombia, India, Iran, South Africa, Indonesia, Pakistan, Haiti, Uruguay, > Saudi Arabia, China, and Cuba lept to support the proposal. But the US > replied no, interconnection falls outside the WTO arrangements (this is > based purely on catering to US corporate interests in evading any legally > binding obligation to provide "cost-oriented rates at any technically > feasible point in the network" to developing countries, rather than any > logical reading of the WTO rules---I had a protracted battle with ICC and > the EC on this in WGIG), and the EU of course said they weren't sure and > would have to consult. > > In other words, the US is saying that the issue of interconnection should > only be dealt with in ITU, where PTOs have proposed an archaic accounting > and settlement approach which they find easy to reject, and not in the WTO, > where they could well lose a dispute resolution case on the matter. And > similarly, as I noted, they have told me privately they do NOT want > interconnection discussed in the forum. So the deal is, keep sensitive > issues like interconnection locked within the boxes of existing, > non-multistakeholder bodies where they can be controlled, and then pick the > box that is most suitable to precluding serious challenges. The same game > can be played with WIPO, COE, OECD, UNICTRAL, Hague Convention, ICANN, you > name it. By the time we get done taking issues off the table because > someone somewhere else is also talking about them in some manner, it's > difficult to see what would be left for the forum to do, other than capacity > building, per Canada. > > The WGIG report recommended that the forum be a place that is "open to all > stakeholders from all countries; any stakeholder could bring up any Internet > governance issue." The IG Caucus reply to the report didn't embrace any > deviation from this approach, and I hope that CS will remain clear on the > point. > > Best, > > Bill > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Fri Sep 30 13:22:18 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 19:22:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] (Tentative) dinner plans for friday In-Reply-To: <54157.195.186.231.20.1128096999.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <54157.195.186.231.20.1128096999.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <131293a20509301022r6b5c6ae5qc4742e1c2322d380@mail.gmail.com> Depends on the time - if we come straight from here, bus 8 to Florissant? Or bus 5 to Claparede? I'm up for it Jacqueline On 9/30/05, William Drake wrote: > Robert, > > Very good restaurant but might be rather difficult for non-locals to find. > Suggest bus 3 or 5 from the train station, get off Claparede. > > BD > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Robert Guerra > > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 5:32 PM > > To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > > Subject: [governance] (Tentative) dinner plans for friday > > > > > > Should it be possible, and the prepcom schedule permits - i'd like to > > see if dinner plans can be arranged for this evening. > > > > As had been suggested by the group, the address of the Brazilian > > restraurant suggested by the hotel is as follows: > > > > Churrascaria Gaucho > > 1 Chemin Malombré > > tel 022 346 1150 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 avri at psg.com Fri Sep 30 05:45:27 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:45:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] Forum/oversight: Middle Ground proposal In-Reply-To: <50751.195.186.231.20.1128069318.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <50751.195.186.231.20.1128069318.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <5832C700-226C-47AB-BE3A-B88E032DC4C6@psg.com> Hi, I am not necessarily comfortable with all you write below, though in some cases it may just be a matter or understanding. I certainly support making a statement about the need to add msh wording. i think that if we make a statement it should be a positive one that adds to the the proposal as opposed to tearing it apart. quick comments on some of the points: On 30 sep 2005, at 10.35, William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > Some notable things about the > Canada/NZ/Aus/Switzerland/US/Singapore/Argentina/Uruguay 'middle > ground' > proposal. > > 1. If the USA is indeed on board with it, the USA has endorsed the > creation of a forum. I thought they'd hold out longer, but the EU > oversight proposal has brought things to a head, so cards are being > played > now. > > 2. The framing of the forum is not desirable. > > *There is no mention of it being multistakeholder, much less peer- > level > and open to unaffiliated individuals as participants. > this should be added if it not there, but i think it is. at least in what i read last night. > *There is no mention of it having a mandate to do much of what the IG > caucus has proposed in terms of functions. > and the ambiguity of the forum is what allows it to happen. plus as you know i have always supported the mimimalist start to the forum with it gaining more function as it proves itself. > *There is no mention of where and in what form it would be > constituted; we > have suggested that outside of but related to the UN would be > preferable. > We certainly don't want it based in an existing institution, i.e. ITU. has some conversations on this. following a wgig model it could be just a light weight secretariat that enables, with that secretariat arranging for the forum to be hosted by existing organizations; e.g. undp one year, isoc another and yes even itu getting a chance. > > *The language about it being non-duplicative and focusing on issues > not > otherwise being addressed adequately elsewhere could very well be > deployed > by the US, private sector, and others to say that, inter alia, the > forum > should not talk about any intellectual property issues because we have > WIPO for that, nor trade aspects because we have WTO for that, nor > interconnection costs or spam because we have ITU for these, nor > privacy > and "information security" because we have the COE Cybercrime > Convention > for these, and on and on. But the way these bodies have "handled" > these > issues is not that desirable. As we all know, many of the existing > bodies > do not allow participation, or meaningful participation, by CS; are > controlled by particular industry coalitions and government > agencies with > specific and limiting missions; and accordingly produce outcomes > that are > not in tune with public interest considerations. Presumably, talking > about how those organizations function would also be off limits. This > would eliminate what Avri referred to at the CPSR panel as the > "gadfly" > function of the forum---raising issues and concerns not being raised > within these bodies, pushing them, calling for solutions that are in > keeping with WSIS principles, etc. this becomes a matter of defining the context in which something is considered. again i don't see anyone stopping a forum from talking about these issues if that is what it decides to talk about. > > I hope these concerns will be raised in our interventions if the > opportunity arises. i guess we have a difference of opinion here. i would not care to raise most of these, but would rather focus on the addition of MSH and peer participation and inclusion especially a focus on development issues. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Thu Sep 29 06:01:01 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:01:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] What could happen this morning in subcom A In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20050929184604.08f3e030@211.125.95.185> I also agree with Jeanette and Wolfgang for their observations. It puts too much power to governments, so vauge about the relation between existing institution and new cooperation "model". That is why Iran and others showed considerable interest (but they also have reservations, too). In the mean time, I chatted breifly with the Chair at the break and he said it is too early to have working group. I think using this time, we need to prepare our position statement, to be read at the beginning of next SubCom A - 6 pm. Though there is likely to be the drafting meeting during lunch time and 3 - 6 pm. izumi At 11:14 05/09/29 +0200, Wolfgang Kleinw臘hter wrote: >I agree with Jeanettes observation that the EU Proposal risks to >open the door for a too detailed and heavy governmental cloud over >the day-to-day operations. While 64 (introduction) limits the >activities to "the level of principles", the following subpoints a. >to e. are an invitation to leave this level downwards. > >If you remember the .eu nighmare you sould be warned about the >practical consequences of such an approach. If a. to e. is a >bargaining chip, it is fine. Question remains, is the critical mass >which is grouping behind 64, big enough to move US and China? > >Wolfgang > > > >________________________________ > >Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann >Gesendet: Do 29.09.2005 10:59 >An: Vittorio Bertola >Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Betreff: Re: [governance] What could happen this morning in subcom A > > >Hi, we might have another opportunity to speak in the next subcommittee >meeting tonight. >My suggestion would be to have a look at the contributions from >Argentina and the EU on para 62. These contributions seem to be regarded >the most relevant ones. What do others think, should we comment on these >proposals? > >http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt14rev2.doc > >I had brief chat with an experienced participant this morning. He >expressed his surprise about the EU proposal. Considering the fact that >the EU tries to express the middle ground, their proposal is too >detailed, too government-centred ("too french") and obviously not >coordinated with US. "As the Austrians would say, the US did not even >ignore the EU proposal." > >The latest compilation of comments on the chair's paper still has the >first version of our statement on para 62. This is very unfortunate. We >completed our new version yesterday evening because we wanted to get it >included in the new compilation as distributed this morning. > >jeanette > > > >Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > Rumours are that Khan might let delegations comment the different > > proposals for section 5 (i.e. forum + oversight), then adjourn the session > > and reconvene it as a drafting group on section 5, chaired by himself. If > > this happens, we will be confronted with the option of sitting silently, > > or trying to speak and possibly be sent out. > > > > In any case, Jeanette is making our statement right now, so we've spoken; > > but, in light of the possibilities that these WSIS rules of procedure are > > adopted also for the forum, I am wondering whether we should not set > > continued precedents of exclusion, so to continue raising the issue until > > we get better treatment, or confront them with the risk of civil society > > (and perhaps private sector) not supporting the forum due to its > > dissatisfaction with actual possibilities for participation. I do not want > > to take excessive action, but this needs some careful strategic thinking > > in the near future. > > > > Getting back to Khan, another rumour is that he might come up with his own > > attempt to merge existing proposals into a common text to start > > discussions. >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.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 db at dannybutt.net Sun Sep 25 01:25:11 2005 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 15:25:11 +1000 Subject: [governance] Caucus Position on Oversight? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57EA7666-EA8C-4937-8FEA-5E0506845EC7@dannybutt.net> A brief note on process - a) obviously there should be strong advocacy for CS involvement, b) I support Avri's suggestion that a protest withdrawal is not the most productive way and c) I share Bill's skepticism about consensus, except I don't understand why a CS position needs to be a consensus, rather than (say) a wikipedia style outline of the arguments and issues that everyone is happy with (this to me would be more useful than the "non-consensus position with signatories"). Wolfgang, your recap of that history is very useful. I have a couple of critical comments on the generally excellent piece that are also relevant to formulating a CS response on oversight. I think there is a level of bias in the examples you choose to emphasise how single-govt oversight is not as bad as people think, and the potential downsides of multilateral oversight. From my point of view, these have the outcome of devaluing the concerns about USG authorisation in ways that will make people less receptive to the proposal. I realise that these are your views, but I also think you could express them with additional examples that give a slightly different flavour to the situation. In one example, you note that removal of a domain by USG would be a politically bad move that would cause other root operators to not implement that change. I think that's a more extreme example than is the concern of many governments, who mainly want the ability to determine how management of their own country code is authorised. The USG's interventions in the sovereignty of other nations is rarely through direct intervention in their own name, but by the support of "like-minded" individuals and groups in those nations, and it could seek to influence those decisions. So a more likely scenario than the deletion of .fr is the stalling of, say, a redelegation of .nr if the Nauru government wanted to nationalise or seek redelegation of the domain for performance or other reasons (this is hypothetical, I know nothing about the status of .nr). This is not a big enough issue to cause an international "root revolt". But it is still something which clearly shouldn't be decided by the USG. I also think to raise the possibility of multilateral oversight resulting in "a majority of governments having the idea to create an artificial scarcity on Internet resources" is a red herring when we see ICANN doing exactly that right now with TLDs. It's difficult to take the "trust" issue out of the reality that countries that have had USG-sponsored interventions in the political affairs of their country (and there are a lot of them, from Operation Ajax right on through) are never going to have that trust, any more than one can suggest to former USSR countries that trusting Russia would be a reasonable idea. I am aware of the various human rights issues that come with state sovereignty asserted by nations we don't agree with, but I'm also aware that there is a widespread perception that Euro-US civil society are happier talking about censorship and freedom of expression in other countries rather than human rights issues in their own, and I think over the longer term that's a perception we'd do well to avoid reinforcing. I guess my reading of "the game" is slightly different from Lee's, in that I don't think that who civil society thinks is the bad guy is going to make that much difference in the longer term. Brazil et al don't need to "prove" anything - as their submissions show they are very clear on what the issues are for them and what they see as their mandate. If a number of governments decide to sponsor alternative DNS(s) these will work quite effectively for their national and/or critical-infrastuctural communications and the ICANN/USG internet may not be the only game in town - and that won't be catastrophic or unthinkable. People see globalisation as something that always expands and systematises, but a historical reading also shows times of fragmentation and localisation - this is obviously the case with a lot of international agreements at the moment and I think it looks likely with internet protocols. Anyway, the diverse groups of civil society are advocating most of all for their role in governance processes, I think that's the important base of consensus that we have here and we should continue to focus on it. I also see a high level of consensus on principles, and statements on that will be useful. This might not be popular, but I think that working on CS positions on oversight or forum function is distracting, these are decision-making functions that are not really civil society's role to decide, and I think that WGIG covers the proposals for those adequately. Best Danny On 24/09/2005, at 11:12 PM, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > I support Bill approach. > > We should try - independent from the governmental discussions next > week - to formulate our own position. As I said in an previous > mai, this "CS IG Declaration" could have four chapters: > Chapter 1: Principles (multistakeholder, openess, trnasparecy, > democratic , privacy, freedom of expression, all agreed langauge > and reference to the working definition) > Chapter 2: Forum Function (here we have done siome work, not yet > full agreement, but the workshop last Wednesday produced key elements, > Chapter 3: oversight: Most critical point. My personal position is > "full privatization" based on four "ifs" (mainly related to > contractual arrangements of ICANN, internal procedures within > ICANN, now precedures within GAC and new relationship between ICANN > and GAC). > Chapter 4. ohter issues. > > The whole paper should be no longer than 4 pages. A drsaft could be > further discussed beyond PrepCom3 and tablæed as an official CS > declaration in Tunis. > > If no consenmsus among us is possible, lets go Bills way and loog > for sgnatories. > > Attached is an recent article I wrote for Bill´s book. Critivcal > comments are welcome. > > best > > wolfgang > -- Danny Butt db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand Ph: +64 21 456 379 Cultural Futures: Place, Ground, and Practice in Asia Pacific New Media Arts Auckland - December 1-5 2005 - http:// culturalfutures.place.net.nz _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 14:02:02 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 20:02:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight stmt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: dear gentlepeople, I can't sign on to this doc for a variety of reasons, but please don't see this as blocking consensus. Consensus as I understand it does not mean unaniminity. If you see this as a block, please consider me as abstaining. -- 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 Wed Sep 28 18:34:30 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:34:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight stmt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Actually I have two reasons: The first and major one is I missed the comment until i was up against the deadline and had to submit. And to answer the question of why the rush, this was the last chance to get a statement in that would be even noticed and, many of you were so displeased with the language we had on record. Second is, I am not sure I agree with it. While I may see reason for some sort of formal arrangement, a contract that makes them subject to some entity, may actually weaken something I see as a possibly a strength. So it would have taken a whole lot of dialogue to convince, at least me, that this was a good thing. In a sense what i tried to put in the text was nothing that would make someone want to balk. So yes, it may be a minimal agreeable position (with a few abstentions), but it was the best I could pull off under these time constraints. This does not mean that I don't see reason to further develop our position. It is not like the dialogue will finish tomorrow or the day after. As it is, I think we have the beginnings of what might a good middle way - between the model 1/3 fans and the 'no change ever ever' folks. a. On 28 sep 2005, at 19.47, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > Why you did nit incorporate my proposal with regard to the need for > contractual arrangements between ICANN and ccTLD Registries and > Root Server Operators? > > w > > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jacqueline > Morris > Gesendet: Mi 28.09.2005 17:37 > An: Avri Doria > Cc: Governance Governance Caucus > Betreff: Re: [governance] oversight stmt > > > > Good with me as IG Caucus. Is this and IGC statement or opening up > for CS? > JAM > > On 9/28/05, Avri Doria wrote: > >> hi, >> >> i have added the some woring in 5 that i think we can reach agreement >> on. i also added a section 7 that may be more difficult for you to >> swallow especially those who want an FC. >> >> i am wondering if there is any chance in this or any other world >> where we can reach consensus on some text. the original text is >> already on the record, so if we can reach agreement of better text, >> that might be a good thing. >> >> if possible i would suggest that people recommend specific changes >> that others can then discuss. >> >> a. >> >> >> Political Oversight >> >> 62b: 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 oversight organization for domain names and IP >> addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with >> regard to >> ICANN be implemented in a reasonable time frame: >> >> 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent >> role of >> stewardship in relation to ICANN. >> >> 2. ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder >> participation on >> its Board and throughout its organizational structure by the >> community >> of Internet users, civil society, the technical community, private >> sector and governments. >> >> 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. ICANN must establish a process for extraordinary appeal of its >> decisions in the form of an independent multi-stakeholder review >> commission, established on a case-by-case basis. Just to be clear, we >> are not calling for an 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. >> >> 6. ICANN's decisions, and any host country agreement must be required >> to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through >> international >> treaties, e.g in regard to human rights treaties, privacy rights, >> trade >> rules, and cybercrime treaties. Governement and International >> organizations, >> including NGOs, would have the right and repsonsibility of bringing >> violations >> of these requirements to the attention of ICANN and if satisfactory >> resolution >> cannot be reached using ICANN internal processes, would have the >> right to >> invoke the appeal process. >> >> 7. Once all the conditions listed above are met, the US Government >> transfers the IANA function to ICANN. >> >> 8. It is understood that achieving these >> conditions will rely on negotiations between ICANN and the US >> Government. It >> is expected that the International multistakeholder community will >> take part >> in the process thought participation in ICANN process. It is also >> expected >> the the multistakeholder community will observe >> and comment on the progress made in this process through the Forum. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Thu Sep 29 05:39:50 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:39:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] What could happen this morning in subcom A In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3040.156.106.225.194.1127986790.squirrel@156.106.225.194> On Gio, 29 Settembre 2005 11:14, Wolfgang Kleinwächter disse: > I agree with Jeanettes observation that the EU Proposal risks to open the > door for a too detailed and heavy governmental cloud over the day-to-day > operations. While 64 (introduction) limits the activities to "the level of > principles", the following subpoints a. to e. are an invitation to leave > this level downwards. > > If you remember the .eu nighmare you sould be warned about the practical > consequences of such an approach. If a. to e. is a bargaining chip, it is > fine. Question remains, is the critical mass which is grouping behind 64, > big enough to move US and China? In the last hour, the developing block (I remember India, China, Iran, Cuba, Colombia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia) has spoken unanimously the same way: we support the Iranian proposal, but we find the EU one quite interesting. From the other side, only Norway and Singapore said that they support the US views but find the EU proposal interesting as a starting point. Again, I will not comment on the Italian judgment on the EU proposal. Personally, and not speaking as a member of the Italian delegation, I am unhappy with the excessive level of governmental involvement that is included in that proposal, even if drafted in a moderate way. Canada introduced a very interesting proposal for the forum, which I personally like more than the others. It makes explicit reference to the open WGIG consultations as a model for multistakeholder participation in the forum, and this would be very important. Also, it makes extensive reference to online consultations and archival. I still have to get the final text and read it carefully, but I think it would be useful if CS tried to push the Canadian proposal for the forum para. It now seems unlikely that a drafting group will be started immediately. It might happen in the afternoon, perhaps. Let's see. If people didn't see them, the "hottest" proposals (except the Canadian one, which is too new) can be found here: http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2063|2065|2067 -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------ http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Tue Sep 13 04:22:19 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:22:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance event at Tunis? In-Reply-To: References: <23760194.1125908804261.JavaMail.www@wwinf1526> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050913172028.0b9a1a50@anr.org> From what I see and hear, there seems to be NO standing event/panel on Internet Governance at the coming Tunis summit. Are there any such event where members of our caucus have been already involved, or likely to be? It will be bit strange that no IG event is organized at the summit where it is one of the highlight of the summit. Or am I too naiive? izumi _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Tue Sep 13 04:38:54 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:38:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance event at Tunis? In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050913172028.0b9a1a50@anr.org> References: <23760194.1125908804261.JavaMail.www@wwinf1526> <6.2.0.14.2.20050913172028.0b9a1a50@anr.org> Message-ID: <47327E75-7D86-4D6E-9C77-414D6EDFC45D@lists.privaterra.org> Izumi: I believe Bill Drake requested a side event panel on IG. A room for the session is confirmed, but it only has a capacity for 100! details: Reforming the Internet Governance, Nov 16 11:00-13:00 regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 13-Sep-05, at 10:22 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > From what I see and hear, there seems to be NO standing event/panel > on Internet Governance at the coming Tunis summit. > > Are there any such event where members of our caucus have been > already involved, or likely to be? > > It will be bit strange that no IG event is organized at the summit > where it is one of the highlight of the summit. > > Or am I too naiive? > > 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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Mon Sep 19 10:23:06 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:23:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] First prepcom interventions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <432EC9CA.1030304@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Thanks for these contributions. I am pleased to see part of the WGIG comments of the Privacy & Security WG in Jeanette's statement. The International Conference of Data Protection Commissioners that took place in Montreux last week has also referred to the summit and sent a strong message in its final declaration. We should pick up on this, in order to use its momentum (tactical details over a coffee, some of them are involved in national delegations here and should be supported). Therefore my suggestion: If there are 30 Seconds left, could you please add the last sentence below to this part? Existing text: <> New, to be added at the end: <> Thanks! On another matter: Adam Peake wrote: > One disturbing rumor (we will find out for sure later today) is that > observers will be given 15 minutes speaking time every 6 hours of > discussion. As sub-committee A meets for 3 hours each day, it seems we > may only be able to speak every other day. Will will argue against this. I am not sure about this. I understood that here they count the overall working hours, not per subcommittee. So if they start to have evening sessions, we might even get two interventions per day. Best, Ralf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Mon Sep 19 11:22:12 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:22:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] First prepcom interventions In-Reply-To: References: <432EC9CA.1030304@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <432ED089.4090803@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <432ED7A4.4000805@zedat.fu-berlin.de> I had a private exchange with Jeanette and understand the problems. The Privacy & Security Working Group will certainly want to give its own input in the next days in order to deal with this matter a bit more in depth. Thanks for all your work here! Ralf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Sep 21 06:07:12 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:07:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] slight postponement oftoday's caucus meeting Message-ID: <433130D0.8060908@wz-berlin.de> Hi everyone, unfortunately, weh need to postpone the IG caucus meeting for 40 minutes. I would suggest we start at 3.10 pm in room E 30/56. The reason is that Adam and I have been asked to attend the bureau meeting today. Please spread the word to those who might not have Internet access this morning so that we avoid people coming in vain and disappear again. Sorry again, hopefully see you at 3.10 pm then. jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Wed Sep 21 06:38:24 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:38:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] update from subcomittee Message-ID: from room... it seems that the subcommittes will be formed this afternoon. no details have been mentioned yet. stay tunded. -- 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 ca at rits.org.br Wed Sep 21 10:51:53 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:51:53 -0300 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponement oftoday's caucus meeting In-Reply-To: References: <433130D0.8060908@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: McTim & all, Nice to have met you too. :) OK, being clearer hopefully... CS did a nice response to the WGIG report (WSIS document WSIS-II/PC-3/CONTR/55-E)-- which was an excellent effort to estabilsh consensus positions, and we went far ahead of what was expressed in the specific IG statement of yesterday at the subcommitte A plenary. The CS response to WGIG is about 3,500 words -- we could have done a summary if we could not read it all in the alloted time. Please bear with me -- I did not have time to participate in the CS Prepcom 3 meetings until today, so I understand there might have been difficulties I do not know about which led to yesterday's format. Specifically regarding McTim questions, we all know that ICANN wants to survive fundamentally as it is -- I bet you know that too ;) Secondly, as can be seen in the CS response to the WGIG report, we see the proposal of an advisory forum related to a global oversight mechanism (there is as yet no consensus among CS on the **forms** of this oversight, but we know it should be global, pluralist, independent from any organization or specific government), one going with the other. Otherwise, in my view, it might be like WAI -- essential accessibility recommendations which most Web-based services do not follow. So, let us make sure in all public presentations we strive to use what has already been established as consensus. fraternal regards --c.a. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272 - sexto andar 22270-060 Rio de Janeiro Brasil tel +55-21-2527-5494 fax +55-21-2527-5460 http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: McTim To: "carlos a. afonso" Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:25:07 +0200 Subject: Re: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponement oftoday's caucus meeting > Hi Carlos, > > Nice to finally meet you yesterday. > > On 9/21/05, carlos a. afonso wrote: > > > > > paragraph 48 of the WGIG report, among other reasons. If we endorse > the > > statement as a consensus, we are in practice almost doing what > ICANN > > wants us to do, ie., defend the creation of an innocuous > > consultative/advisory forum which might never be really taken > seriously. > > a. How do you know what ICANN wants you to do? > > b. Why do you think a Forum (function) wouldn't be taken seriously? > > > > > understood otherwise. Many of these delegates also wrongly > associate > > model 2 of the WGIG report with the civil society caucus -- we must > > recall model 2 was built under the influence of ICANN-related > people and > > business reps in the WGIG. Do we really want this perception to > stay? > > Well Model 2 is the one that gives CS the greatest voice. If CS > supports model 2 more than any of the other models, why spend cycles > on caring about perception? > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From raul at lacnic.net Wed Sep 21 16:07:20 2005 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:07:20 -0300 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] slight postponement oftoday's caucus meeting In-Reply-To: References: <433130D0.8060908@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <4331BD78.4030407@lacnic.net> carlos a. afonso wrote: >People, > >..... > > ....... >I am afraid the presentation by Bill Drake is based on a vision which is >not shared by many civil society organizations. We understand we do not >want a "revolution" -- and this is mostly consensus -- but we need some >significant changes in the mechanisms, first, to consider the set of >priority issues which are not in the current ICANN-based system, and >second, to take into account the need for practical actions regarding >paragraph 48 of the WGIG report, among other reasons. If we endorse the >statement as a consensus, we are in practice almost doing what ICANN >wants us to do, ie., defend the creation of an innocuous >consultative/advisory forum which might never be really taken seriously. > > > Dear friend Carlos: As far as I understand, you, as all of the WGIG members supported the proposal regarding the Forum. I don't understand why you say what you say now if you didn't object the WGIG recommendation. Your perception regarding the Forum is just your perception, others think that the Forum will be an important improvement for civil society organizations and for developing countries and think that the Forum could be something not innocuous. . Then, I think that we should be more careful before undermine the Forum idea. BTW, I have not seen any new idea about how to implement a making policy forum. Brazilian delegation has expressed concerns regarding many issues related with new gTLDs. (i.e. .travel and .xxx) , I can not imagine how a global forum could deal with this kind of issues. I think that it is not enough to propose a decision making forum if there are not proposals about what are the kind of issues that the Forum would deal with, and how the forum would deal with them. On the other hand, it is very dangerous, specially for civil society organizations, to support the creation of a making policy forum, without clear scope and limits. >I understand the opening statement by Adam tried to show this did not >represent consensus, but I did a survey later on among Southern >delegates (Brazil, India, Iran, Cuba among others) and most of them >understood otherwise. Many of these delegates also wrongly associate >model 2 of the WGIG report with the civil society caucus -- we must >recall model 2 was built under the influence of ICANN-related people and >business reps in the WGIG. > I can't endorse what you say here. We agreed in the WGIG that we would not say who supported each model. So, I can not speak about other people, but I can speak on behalf of myself. I don't consider my self an "ICANN-related people" (and doubtfully I am a business rep.) and I supported model 2 in the understanding that, model 2, combined with the idea of the global forum and the implementation of the Genva principles in every Internet related organizations, is sincerley the best option. I supported model 2, of course, in a good faith. >Do we really want this perception to stay? >What will be our consensus position? > >Just to make clear, my position (to which the Brazilian position has >basically converged) was expressed in my "parallel" paper written during >the last months of the WGIG. > I read your paper and also know the Brazilian position, and I don't see the possibility that that positoin could become a consensus position of CS. With all my respect. Raúl _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Wed Sep 21 16:09:56 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:09:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Contributions : Sub-Committee A (Internet Governance) Message-ID: The itu now has the contributions online @ it would be good to have a CS contribution ASAP. 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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Thu Sep 22 03:57:57 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:57:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Privacy in Internet Governance Message-ID: <43326405.2060704@zedat.fu-berlin.de> The NSA was granted a Net location-tracking patent. The dark side of internet governance, so to speak, see below. Ah, by the way: The EU Commission yesterday has finalized its draft directive on mandatory data retention. See for more. The CS Privacy and Security Working Group will make an intervention in Subcommittee A this morning. I will send the final version as soon as we are down to 300 words. Some of the governments are really interested in privacy now, and the Montreux conference of data protection commissioners last week generated some momentum, too. So please support us in this, especially when reaching out to your governments. I have copies of the Montreux declaration here. Best, Ralf ---------------------- NSA granted Net location-tracking patent By Declan McCullagh Staff Writer, CNET News.com September 21, 2005 The National Security Agency has obtained a patent on a method of figuring out an Internet user's geographic location. Patent 6,947,978, granted Tuesday, describes a way to discover someone's physical location by comparing it to a "map" of Internet addresses with known locations. The NSA did not respond Wednesday to an interview request, and the patent description talks only generally about the technology's potential uses. It says the geographic location of Internet users could be used to "measure the effectiveness of advertising across geographic regions" or flag a password that "could be noted or disabled if not used from or near the appropriate location." Other applications of the geo-location patent, invented by Stephen Huffman and Michael Reifer of Maryland, could relate to the NSA's signals intelligence mission--which is, bluntly put, spying on the communications of non-U.S. citizens. "If someone's engaged in a dialogue or frequenting a 'bad' Web site, the NSA might want to know where they are," said Mike Liebhold, a senior researcher at the Institute for the Future who has studied geo-location technology. "It wouldn't give them precision, but it would give them a clue that they could use to narrow down the location with other intelligence methods." The NSA's patent relies on measuring the latency, meaning the time lag between computers exchanging data, of "numerous" locations on the Internet and building a "network latency topology map." Then, at least in theory, the Internet address to be identified can be looked up on the map by measuring how long it takes known computers to connect to the unknown one. Previous Next The technique isn't foolproof. People using a dial-up connection can't be traced beyond their Internet service provider--which could be in an different area of the country--and it doesn't account for proxy services like Anonymizer. Geo-location, sometimes called "geo-targeting" when used to deliver advertising, is an increasingly attractive area for Internet businesses. DoubleClick has licensed geo-location technology to deliver location-dependent advertising, and Visa has signed a deal to use the concept to identify possible credit card fraud in online orders. Digital Envoy holds a patent on geo-location, and Quova, a privately held firm in Mountain View, Calif., holds three more, one shared with Microsoft. "It's honestly not clear that there's anything special or technically advanced about what they're describing," Quova Vice President Gary Jackson said, referring to the NSA's patent. "I'd have to have our technical guys read it, but I don't think it impacts us in any way." _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Sep 22 04:02:34 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:02:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Consensus on the forum issue Message-ID: <4332651A.3070804@wz-berlin.de> Hi, although many of the active caucus members are here, there are obviously problems to meet. We have had two caucus meetings so far, both of them had lots of new attendees. While it is very good that other caucuses become interested in our work, it turns out to be difficult to discuss contested issues such as the forum. The fact that only a few WGIG members find the time to attend the caucus meetings doesn't exactly help. Having said that, I think we need to make an effort to clarify a number of things: 1. How far does consensus reach with regard to the forum? 2. What exactly do we disagree about? 3. How can we bypass this conflict? As far as I understand nobody opposes the idea of a forum in principle. Nobody supports the position of the business sector, which doesn't even recognize the need for a venue where Internet related issues can be discussed. What is more, we seem to agree that the forum should be open to anyone and composed in a multi stakeholder manner. From what I understand we disagree about the functions and the authority of such a forum. Some people think it should have only soft power without any decision making power. Others think we need a body that can make binding decisions. Another bone of contention might concern the so-called oversight function. Some people think this issue should be treated seperately from the forum, others think the role of the forum is related to that function. I would like to know if this is a correct description of our controversy? If so, I would like to suggest a possible compromise between these two differing views. The civil society statement has language to the effect that the forum can make decisions if all participating statekholders agree with this. (Former versions of Bill's statement included this clause. I think it only disappeared for the sake of brevity.) In other words, any extention of the forum's authority would have to be consensus-based and bottom up. The second common element I see has been pointed out by Avri. In her view, the forum has to earn its authority. It can only gain political authority if it is regarded useful by those who participante in the forum. Decision making authority for the forum would thus depend on two related if's: consensus among the participants and legitimate outcomes. This implies that the forum may grow over time. It would start in a very modest way with nothing but advisory functions but its authority could increase over time depending on its productivity and legitimacy. What do people think? Can we find a consensus along these lines? Jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Thu Sep 22 06:55:03 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:55:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Sept 22 / Morning subcomittee notes Message-ID: <20BA545A-BB0B-47B7-B45C-4DE20F8658DA@lists.privaterra.org> council of europe - makes reference to coe convention on cybercrime - asks for global ascension to cybercrime convention caricom ralf bendrath brazil UK / EU - supports general outline of chair - reserve the right to make comments - there is still much work to be dobne to iid common ground and common understanding and develop framekwork which different country concerns can be addressed. - question - > what is timeline to tabling a text - on tue welcomed wgig report as basis for this subcommittee. reiterates support for using wgig report. however, this is not a negotiated text. it serves as a starting point. - comments made so far provide valuable input - the EU regocnizes there is no UNIQUE definition of IG. should use the wgig definition as a working definition for IG. can revist it if needed. chair - timetable. probably afternoon and evening sessions. - definition. concern has been noted iraq - comments on part 5 (f/u and future arrangements) - framework for interface: recommendations og wgig founded on two piallers - oversight and forum. - Question on - "Framework for interface between existing and future arrangements ". should it be two subpoints and not one. chair: - evolutionary / incremental references come from reference made earier by ghana/africa group. that's the justification - framework for interface : is the overall chapeau for the bullets that follow. interface between the existing agreements and furture posibility - recommendation on forum: is a seperate point - delegates have to decide have to decide if structure is light, heavy or tighly controlled. across the spectrum there are mentions that it should be agile. it should NOT be a burdensome beaurocracy USA - contratulate chair on outlien that focus us on important issues - confirms that this is a working document, that each of the points are open for discussion. we will follow suite and offer our views on specifics - two poiints: 1. agree with EU that defn offered by WGIG report i an interesting one that can be used as a working definition. we have a view about it and will offer interesting discussion 2. models: agree with russia that models offered are not exhausted. other possibilities and external suggestion might come. - welcome the outline and look forward for discussion. chair: - thanks us for comments singapore - general support for chairman's document. - while might have individual comments, will make them at later stage - the scheme presented by chair is one we can agree with. honduras - agree with mayority of areas to express ddevelopment - wgig mentions them too in a way that creates a dialogue with dev countries - in different parts of the report -> recommend that a section on access to all be added to the chair paper. (to be added as an overaching goal) chair: - 3b : access to information and knowledge. - it is already in geneva documents. we will reinvoke a reference to it. saudi arabia - iranian part 5 proposal, support it - Q: will you restrucutre part 5 as per comments made earier by iran chair: - agreeded with iranian proposal. explained existing points. thinks that iranian delegate agreeded - you are putting too much emphasis to the points. we aren't negotiating yet, just points on what to talk about later,. cuba: - likes the chair discussion paper - 2 comemnts: 1. 4 in seperating it from #3, makes it seem that it does not related to public policy. but in the wgig report they were. 2. agree with iranian comment that section 5 needs to have more details - process comment: agree with brazil and colombia that we should move to comments on section 5, on models. chair - we are advancing on section #5. we are on that subject - there might be a misconconception on promoting development. they are seperated for understanding, but let's find language to conceptually link them. - we will come up with some language brazil - reference to ccbi talking about governance. quoting on what was said - "they do not support a more centralized system for IG". - brazilian delegation could not agree more with ccbi, as currently there is currently a centralized system controlled by a single computer in marina del rey.(ICANN) - the only way to move forward is to create aninternet council that can substitute work being done by icann an iana. this council is common to models 1,3 & 4. we just have to negotiate the details. - we need more than one government involved. i think this an unanimous comment from the wgig report. - don't think others oppose moving away from the existing centralized process. chair - at appropiate time cbbi might want to explain what they mentioned - i understand you support iic (intil internet council) haiti - comment on part 4. - add ict programs and projects to section 4 Egypt: - further expand part 4 - 53.4 in wgig report should be added - equitable access for all should be added. chair: - honduras also proposed that. will take note of it. stakeholders: - private sector (ISOC) - thanks wgig members - cost of access, advice and how to use the internet, security and usefull content, in language - we are here (para 4 of wsis declaration). we need to remind oursleces, on two issues: * connectivity and capacity building are key issues (seems to be repeating what is in ISOC comments to wgig report) - isoc has been keenly involved in capacity building and connectivity need to be - models: the existing models work and have been resliant - many of the policy areas are already being discussed. we need to build and evolve existing structures and organizations and not create new strucutures. - the internet community has adapted and become more open - the system works and evolves now ccbi: - forum function: a variety of existing organizations already - many of the organizations allow for discussion - the internet has worked well with decentralized control - this decentralzied control has allow for growth at edges. - supports greater participation and greater evolution - there may be in some cases call for issue specific fora - any issue specific event should include information exchange and horizonal collaboration - the space would need to be a neutral space to bring them together as equal partners. - existing organizations could increase participation to all stakehodlers at national and regional level. - information should be to favcilitate and exchange information. - ccbi looks forward to contribute further heather shaw (CBBI) - need to facilitate collaboration - new fora can be xpensive. need to make most of existing organizations before creating new organizations - capacity building important - all stakehodlers have a role to play on capacity building. ralf bendrath adam peake venezuela - wgig report is a guide. - the proposed models can be used as a guide only. we shouldbe able to make combinations and/or changes - there might be areas of convergence - we have limited time to discuss, and it is out last chance to reach an accord we have at this prepcom. there should not be a prepcom 3 bis. we have almost finished a week of declarations and we don't have text. - we are worried that we haven't yet been able to enter into a discussion in a text and plan of action. - the guide presented by chair is good. we sugegst the following section 1: - related to definition - we should be guided by the geneva principles section 2: - suggests addtion to have interactyion between stakehodlers - coordination, cooperation, section 3& 4: - we should put all of these into a single part called governance models - we should reach agreement section 5: - a section which should be subdivded: a. models of governance b. implementstion on models c. definition of public policies. we should go into details. at this stage there are elements that require further work - we are worried as time is moving on. we should start discussing now - recommendation: let us setup several groups. the important point is that we shoudl start by tomorrow. as time is short we need to hurry up. if we don't we will have to setup several groups that would make it difficult for small delegations such as ours. chair - one should banish worry - there will be no prepcom bis el salvador - will submit a list of written comments on parts 1 & 2 - section 3a & 5: there seems to be duplication. how to we proceed. - part 5: Question on oversight function - models: can we envisage other models that aren't in wgig report chair - there is overlap between 3a and one bullet in #5. we will try to rationalize it . saudi arabia ( on behalf of arab countries): - would like concentrate on part 5. - the essential decisions need to be taken on part 5 before we get to specific wording. chair - what we have done to-date has been easy. - we are now moving into a more difficult phase. it will be a challenging area. - will be need to focus on intelligence to strike compromises, to know that the other sides are saying. - let's do something more skill-full that can gen results. - drafting groups proposed to draft language. will circulate text that has blanks to be filled in. - status of papers: * food for thought: no status. just an aid to facilitate discussion * outline: tool to facilitate dsicussion * paper: no status. use it, substitute it, would be to focus mind and attention on subjects. * only text with status would be the ones emerging from the discussions. by monday we might have a rolling text. * this afternoon there should be a flurry of activcity. suggestion. - meet amongst yourself to strategise - tomorrow there will be a suggestion paper for thought. - let's have cross group dialogue - drafting groups: - how do we associate other stakeholders. I need your help on what to do. there are rules of procedures, but there are also calls for observers to be involved in the negotiating exercise. in summary: 1. create working groups 2. a non-paper will be circulated 3. seek guidance on how to involve observers in drafting groups. USA - while we consider your proposal - we thank you for these suggestions. we know it is not an easy task - two thoughts to have: 1. practicality - many delegations are small. - would ask that if drafting groups created that we don't have too many of them,as hard for small delegations 2. principle - we need to give very careful and full thought to observers - would seek that observers participate in the debate in the drafting groups - those communities need to be at the table. brazil - you are going in a good direction. - one practical difficulty. we are here to negotiate a text to be signed by heads of state. - there is a moment where governments need to sit among each other (that is exclude civil society) - we need to meet in small groups, practically it needs to be done in a quiet way chair - rules of procedure, what is there? - section 8. - there is no text that refers to observers in working groups saudi arabia (arab states) (1) - in the past had no objections to drafting groups. should limit the # - should only create them after the basic decisions have been made in plenary (2) observers: - the geneva summit set the present. the rules are clear. we should follow the rules from phase I. - in this context it would be difficult to involve them senegal (african countries) - satisfied with the method of work that has been proposed - drafting groups: will allow for a rather lively discussion. - we need to have a limited # of drafting groups , as otherwise it would be difficult for small delegations. - work of regional groups should also be considered. canada - thanks the chair for his propsal - we dont' have any agreement yet. 1. necesity to insure security and stability 2. multistakeholder approach - let's put it into practice. - supports us view that observers that they have a lot to contribute - working groups - we need to define well the groups and keep them to minimu the following should be first discussed in plenary: - defintions - role & responsivility of stakeholders - pass over the key issues, then, go to drafting text. summary: we need a bit more time in plenary that will condition what drafting groups will do. we need to include a broad group of stakeholders chair: - we must make progress methodology (thinking outloud) - if we distrubute work and have soem rough idea to working works, they will bring them back to plenary - plenary should not block work of the working groups. - hard to draft text in plenary. it would disastrous to try it. iran: - welcomes the initiative of the chair - would like to flag that there should be no proliferation of working groups. would make it hard for small delegations. - other stakeholders: * iran appreciates the input of all the stake-holders. * emphasis that this is an intergovernmental process. El salvador - support safety and security, multilaterism and transparency - we don't seem to be in the usual UN pattern - we had small drafting groups in intercessional in paris (phase 1). we had civil society participating in the past and make statements that helped us make concepts clearer and guide negotiations. - (supports cs) - proposal from el salvador for observers to attend and make contributions to drafting groups chair - this is a different process. - there are rules of procedure. but, there is a grey area. - there is (prepcom) precedent where cs & observers have been involved - let's take it as an agreed principle that all stake-holders participate. japan - good idea to create drafting groups. a concern with the # that might be created. - if they are in the afternoon, it will conflict with other subcomittee UK (on bahalf of EU) (1) - stakeholder participation in working groups. the MS nature of the internet. we need to involve all key stakeholders. - in the wg's that are created, we need to draw on the expertize (2) # of drafting groups. there is a difficulty for smaller delegations. - there is also a limited # of experts available. Australia - supports canada about what issues to be discussed in plenary - drafting groups - would prefer a smaller # - ngos: would support participation of ngos. they are fundamental - impressed by the high quality of the contributions of ngos - given the nature of the internet, the expertise is with ngos and their experience would help us. - supports that rules should support involvement of observers in working groups. chair - we need to make progress nicaragua: (on behlaf of grulag) - working groups : we need to be careful. it's an issue with small delegations. china: - two points. 1. support the chair as to the proposal that we shoudl start drafting 2. it's an intergovernmental process honduras - thanks chair for the methods to work - perhaps we can have meeting of regional groups - as we already have consensus - perhaps could regional coordinators could attend drafting working groups - need to take into account other stakeholders - they should be able to pariticiapte turkey: - thanks chair for proposals - looks forward to working with observers in accordance with rules of procedure - how many wg will be created? singapore 2 points: 1. concern about small delegations 2. the input from other observers is vital. supports el salvador that observers sit in meetings and contribute written comments. let's look for way to do it new zealand - agree with canada to insure security and stability of the intenet. whatever we do should be through that lense - agree with singapore, isoc and others - we have a responsibility to users in countries. we need to establish which issues need fixing . - we might not yet be at the drafting stage. - let's keep # of drafting groups small. - multistakeholder - this is a good opportunity to put into practractice norway: - welcomes initiative of chair & proposal of drafting groups. - important to bring ngo views and expertise into drafting groups. they could be helpful and useful. - the model proposed by el salvador is a good one. one where they are observers, where they can talk, but not in negotiating. pakistan (asian grp) - welcome the proposal for working groups - endorse that there should not be a proliferation of working groups. - multistakeholder: position of asia group: * that is prepcom should adhere to rules and principles of the geneva phase chair - let's come tomorrow to comment on today's comments switzerland - agree with creation of drafting groups. the # should be small. india - supports drafting groups creation - drafting groups must have the prsence of the other stakeholders. supports singapore view on this Canada - not all regional groups can work in a way to coordinate . ie. not possible for weog. barabados - supoports el salvador and singapore view that obervers be in wg togo - keep # of wg small. if possible do it in regional and/or sub- regional fashion so that smaller countries can be involved. sudan - will be frank in regards to DG. not convinced that the need to have drafting groups as ultimately it will come back to plenary. - of course can split subcommittee into two sections (1) 5 & 3: models, (2) all other matters. south africa - support for proposal - we should have small # of WG - ask for reassurance on what will adopt. chair indonesia - supports rule of procedure in regards to drafting group. nigeria - supports creation of WG. they should be limited so that regional associations can be involved - other stakehodlers: the rules need to be followed. observers should not have voting rights nepal - supports a limited # of WG - good that cs make stakements and written contributions to WG lebanon - support for proposal - ngos: supports saudi arabia , brazil and others that although value their contribution that CAN NOT agree that they participate in drafting groups. australia - Q on rules of procedure. acknowledge that there is ambiguity. there is a question is there a legal impediment on - asks for legal advice if there is legal impediment for them to participate - puts forward the proposal that ngos be able to participate. ngos would NOT be voting. chair - there is no legal impediment ????? - WG proposal good. - # of WG should be limited. - they be open ended groups - participation of other partners: however, would like to respect the rules of procedure and precedent. Egypt - support the formation of drafting group. should be strictly intergovernmental. - support the participation of multistakeholders - however underlines that drafting group stay strictly intergovernmental azerbajan - supports limited # of drafting groups. - it would be useful to invite multistakeholders - according to existing rules of procedure chair - made 3 proposals (1) - there is no objection for them to be created. they should be limited (2) will circulate a paper - no objection (3) stakeholders with drafting groups: there are two groups - el salvdor & singapore: they are objservers and can make contributions , but are not in negotaions. (like in pc 2) - asks el salvador to consult with others for 5 min to see if there can be an agreement on 3rd propsal. [ break for 5 min] _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Sep 23 07:46:15 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:46:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] today's Internet governance caucus meeting cancelled Message-ID: <4333EB07.5090600@wz-berlin.de> Hi, due to other meetings taking place at the same time the Internet Governance caucus has to cancel today's meeting. Since we don't need to oranize any interventions at the moment, we can postpone all other business to next week. jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Mon Sep 26 07:03:51 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:03:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] (no subject) Message-ID: <46F1DABE-4457-4224-98D1-C545C36CE8F8@lists.privaterra.org> 26 sept - internet governance subcommittee notes --- internet society (ISOC) - suggests add/improve capacity building - improve regulatory environment - to use existing fora and organizations for IG. IG already occurs at local, regional and intl levels - do not believe that call for new cooperation model is needed. - evolutionary change from existing organizations. - no consensus on next steps. ICC (on behalf of cbbi) Chair - - first reading of the chair's text - nothing is agreed. - we will not open document on agreeded documents, ie. geneva documents - suggest the following method: * go through para by para and submit proposals/revisions 1. INTRO SECTION El salvador - to make link CS on way IG should be achieved. - would like to insert before 39, an (to insert before 39) recognizing internet is a global facility available to the public. good IG is a foundation for a people centred inclusive and development oriented IS. furthermore, as a global sciality security and stability should be assured. (from the CS text?) chair: - why add this here? El salvador - there is no clear link between IG and information society towards development. these are things were implicit - are the reason d'etre. wanted to make this link clear. chair - concerned with the placement of the language - reaction by others? Bangladesh - ict activities must have involvement of - add reference so that UN specialized agencies can support the govt efforts. -(1) add request , add that UN specialised financial agencies support ongoing efforts - (2) unfettered access chair - bangladesh, do you have any specific comments on para 39 or first section of the chair's text? - another other suggestions? Russia: - add reference to scientific and academic community to para 39 iran - in what stage of our work are we? - are we just in drafting exercise and we will go along with it. - we support the initial proposal that we stick the agreed language as much as possible. - if we add new elements, then we have to enter a discussion of balance. let's avoid a conceptional discussion. - suggests: * dop 48, part of it is missing. add reference that IS is a global resource. - the internet has involved as a global resource. IG should be multilateral, govt, cs, ps, and intl organizations. saudi arabia / arab grp (add to 39-42) - add references ..to equitabile and "non discimatary ?? access to 39 US - supports el salvador proposal, in regards to the introduction - revise it as follows.. "..furthermore, as a global facility we commit to its security and stability" revised text now stands as follows: "Recognizing internet is a global facility available to the public. good IG is a foundation for a people centred inclusive and development oriented IS. furthermore, as a global facility we commit to the its stability and security." comment on 41-42 para 41. (add some in regards to issues & roles & responsibilities) - suggest that wgig report has raised and id some of the issues, and that it has aided us to understand some of the roles and responsibilities. - suggest this, as not all issues have been mentioned nor raised. nepal para 39. - clarification on distribution of resources chair. - it is a generic term Mauritania - underlines that 39 is a balanced paragraph as it refers to DoP and principles of IG. - nevertheless, support iran and saudi arabia's proposals ghana (africa grp) - reserve our comments on stakeholders until later new zealand - supports approach to para 39 - comment on para 40 * add secretariat to 2nd paragraph (to ack their role) - should have mention to security and stability of the internet. from para 6 of wgig report. - security and stability of the internet is of paramount importance (from wgig report) el salvador - concern that co-ordination be added as it's in DoP. - add reference to all inclusive information society. chair - let's not bombard para 39. let's keep the interventions focused iran - re-interate that stay to agreeded text - principle of stability and security of the internet (it's already in DoP in para 48) - we worry about subordinating principles to others. - if we add references to security then, we also need to add references to multi-lateral, democratic nature of the internet (no reference to multi-stakeholders...so it's only govts) - concept from el salvador is already in DoP. - if 39 changes from agreed text, then supports saudi propsoal egypt - supports el salvador & saudi - 39: should be multi-laternal, demcratic - supports saudi arabia: equitable and non-discriminatory nature dom republic - asks for clarification. need to add gender equality to the spanish translation. - need to have translation so that the language used is gender balanced. - add that refernce be added to human development chair - any suggestions to the language in spanish? - we should guarantee equality to man & woman cuba - supports arab group brazil - no providing any language - principle shall be that we are not going to ready agreeded to in geneva decl of principles. this end is important. - we should not pick and choose which principles to support and endorse - we have 11 principles chair - better to stick to previous documents - burkina faso - para 39. * fundamental rights to multilingualism should be added. chair - there are other numeric possibilities. please, please, give us input on other sections south africa - support comments made by brazil, cuba & iran in regards to stay with existing agreed text - revision to el salvador's text: need to ack * add referecne to legimitiacy, internationalization & inclusivity chair - ZA what do you mean? south africa - that all stake-holders are supposed to participate. - if there is a problem with security and stability and you need to re-state it, then you should do the same for legitimacy, internationalization and inclusivity chair - legitimacy is a loaded term. let's be careful saudi arabia - would like to support brazil's statement that we have already agreeded text. let's not re-open the text - proposal: concerns the text of para 6 of wgig report, and how it's referenced in pra 39 (48 in DoP). - if we are to choose between the wgig and the DoP, then we would prefer that para 17 - para . IG of the document should be multi-lateral, transparent and democratic.. we should not say "should be multi-lateral". the geneva declaration is far more firm. - suggests the spanish translation be used. take out refence to "should ". text should read " IG IS multi-lateral".... chair - we are trying to find common ground, as such "should" is ok. - algeria - we thought 39 as drafted was ok. - however, the all the proposals - the para 39 is changing away from the aim. - strongly supports para AS IS. however, if changes are made - we would agree of propso - furthermore, if there's a strong reference to security then there should also be a reference to multi-lateral reference to IG (south african proposal) - agree with new zealand proposal. para 41. - do not agree with "some" additional as suggested by USG chair - para 39 has become shadow boxing for the real fight ahead iran - supports 41 as is, as it comes from the mandate of the wgig (from the plan of action) US response: - agree that phase I should be used as governing text - in regards to qualifier "some" in 41. - the concept of "an enabling environment" is in the DoP, and not in the wgig report. it's is worth our attention. chair - change "some" to " a number of" ..public policy issues. Morocco - agree with chair's approach. - does not agree with approach being taken today. as it would not lead to a result in the immediate future. malawi - support South africa and others. - proposal that add one word "multi-lateral" to para 39 in regards to management nigeria - will all decions be taking place in subcomittee plenary? - there should be a balance between security and multilateralism russia: - speaking on behalf of CIS - seeks clarification on 39. can you put in screen to suggest specific admenments - after "the itnernet" ADD " a central element of the infrastructure of the information society - after "evolve" , "scientific and academic " these two changes would make it closer to what was proposed by WGIG report. chair - para 43 & 44 - comments? colombia - recommend : * 43a. with regard to support to governments in development in both global technical norms and public policy internet - reads as follows: * international organizations have developed and must continue to undertake an important role to support governments. * add reference to international norms and public policy issues 43d. responsibilities here are limited. revise by adding the following.. ", in addition to their current responsibilities, " - would express quite clearly the responsibilities of intergovernmental organizations 43a. wrt. for internet public policy issues, i - responsibilities to support governments resulting in intl organizations have a responsiblity for and rights with and must contunue to support governemnts in development of both global technical norms and international internet public policy issues congo para 42 - we must forget multilateral uruguay - para 43 in general seems to be ok as a basis for enabling us to come to some conclusions - add reference to technical and scientific community (sited from wgig report) - suggests that include another sub-para - f - to mention: ... the academic and technological community has made, and should continue to carry out a valuable contribution tot he development and functioning of the internet. el salvador - suggests a preable to section 2 - conviction that all stakeholders, cs, business, govts should actively participate in a co-ordinated and commensurate way with respct to their respective roles & rsponilibilities (from rio commitment) reasoning: everyone needs to chair - what is the added value to your proposal? el salvador - the added value . talks about co-ordination, which such be commensurate with the roles & responsibilities. - we should open the door to even individuals be able to contribute chair - WGIG came up with the language "respective roles of stake-holders". - we will reflect on this further bangladesh - insert in 43e. * international organizations including the United nations... chair - on friday evening we issues a cross references document. - from there, 43 comes from 49 of DoP. so we have a limited room to manover. unless we want to re-open the debate. - we have a delicate balance. iraq (1) - what does colombia exactly propose? - would disagree with colombia's proposal. (2) in rgeards to adding a new constituency (academic & technical constituency) - in geneva texts have followed comprehensive approach all possible stakeholders, as to who belongs to who. - stick to DoP and not added a new stakeholder. Senegal (african grp) - public authorities should also play a role in the development and coordination - we should be specific , the public authorities proposal: * role of public authorities : should add reference [link to digital solidarity fund/ cities & local authorities] saudi arabia - para 43 takes up most of DoP para 49 , as such this is agreeded text that should be retained as is. nigeria - para 43 is consistent with para 49 in DoP, and thus should be retarined. - suggests that academic and technical community be mentioned. but as they might be mentioned in australia (1) - technical and academic communities should be recognized. suggests 43f, and will suggest text. "academic , sci and tech communites have played a role.... (2) the role of CS is quite superficial vs. what in WGIG report. should get input from CS in this regard (3) revision to 43bis in regards to private sector dom republic - endorses the uruguay proposal to add role of technical and scientific community - import is the share the acquisition of knowledge. in regards to CS - talk about the communities. CS build capacity building 43c. add academic and scientific community to 43c (cs section). * thus, technical and scientific CHAIR DRAFTING GROUP - AN OPEN ENDING DRAFTING GROUP (1) uruguat chairs public policy issues EU - support wgig para 49. however if we are to look in modifying note that para 42 already talks about multistakehodlers - further promote dialogue between stakeholders - support referecne to academic sector 43c. - it is wider than community level. delete community reference CANADA - let's stay with 43 - roles of the academic, cs & technical community. many have mentioned there needs to be an increased role for those communities. we prefer that that discussion take place in section 5. ??? (LAC country) - 43bis : add reference to Rio commitment 3. public policy issues - Benin - para 45 : issue that only with single government. - do we express a good, bad or neutral appreciation? * we express our positive appreciation. we need to add a positive qualifier. chair rusia: - don't want to dwell on para 45. - would like to reflect the difficulties that exist. - suggest: * add para 19 from WGIG report - should list the difficulties that we have (from the wgig report) canada 3a. is broad and sweeping - we might come back to this - question of overall structure - para 57. should be moved to end of section 3a para 45: - recalling USG intervention on friday,. needs to be strengthened. an insurance should be made that security & stablity of the internet be maintained. saudi arabia - restructure 3a. para 47 & 48. - however we do not propose any solutions. the arab group would le 3a restructure as follows: * add a new para 45b which would be: - we recognize the need for multilateral, transparent and transparent over the root server and it's development para 48: should feature * after further development of gtld space, and the need to guarantee the sovereignty of the cctlds (add reference that cctld is a sovereignty perogative of states) - we seek to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of IP addresses. - remove reference in 46 to "clarification of the relationships among the different actors" iran - 3a. is compropized of 2 parts (45 & 46), 48 refers to public policy issues to critical itnernet resoruces 45 & 46: 45: * no problem with 1st sentance * would like to bring para 48 of wgig report in that no govt should have a pre-eminent role * ask for the deletion of the rest of the paragraph (don't need to make a reference, yet again to security and stability) 46: - delete the word more - replace "stronger" with "strong" - delete the rest of the sentence in regards to instrastructure: - supports saudi arabia. - we need to clearly support the root zone, gltld, cctld as a soverign right azerbajan - para 45 * important to mention some barriers and barriers to multistakeholder involvement . in IG * we should add para 19 from wgig report (supporting the rusian proposal) - support the iranian proposal, however propose we move it to section 5 brazil - supports rusian proposal to add para 45 (to include para 19 from wgig report) - a way out to not have a long para - perhaps use para 48, first bullet from wgig report here para 45 - end it, with a statement that no single govt should have a preminent role israel : - supports Canadian proposal - would not support Iranian proposal uganda para 45. - revise so it reads " we express our profound appreciation" - propose 45bis.?? - para 46 * delete "solid" before democratic and add "legitimate" instead. - para 47 - needs to be strengthened. - Add @ end. ...in this regard we call for the reinforcement of regional management institutions for the region to manage it's own internet resources .. we also recognize to further involvement of policies and procedures. - add reference of sovereign right of states to cctlds chair - APPEAL - please send detailed proposals to wsis-contributions at itu.int USG - para 46 - first sentance. there is a need to establish in this document a linkage between the current structures of the mangement of the internet and the overwhelming evidence of the growth of internet based on current struvutre. - the current, more rapid growth in the development growth - suggested revision: - we recognize and ack the vital role played by numerous existing organizations in the technical management. We strive to build on the current strucures that have facilitated the global growth of ithe internet in a secure and stable fashion. para 47: - in regards to cctld. let's see the saudi proposal in writting in regards to it. - comemnts on uganda: there is an import role of rir's and they their further development and concure and support uganda's proposal. two final points para 46: - want to see iranian proposal in written form - would associate with canadian proposal and would like to see it in writting. Civil Society (adam peake) india: - 3a. agree with sovereign right of countries in regards to cctld - supports 46, 47, 48 as proposed by iran china - agree with para 47 proposal by saudi arabia - proposing text on root server. JAPAN - para 45 & 46 - better if moved parts to para 5 -para 47: * ip addresses : importance of equitable allocation - UK (EU) - find sthat para 45 is useful balance para 46 - supports existing wording para 47 - seeks to ensure globally balanced distribution. can endorce saudi proposal para 48 - two additions * add technological before word "development" new zealand (1) supports canada on 45 & 46 (2) supports evolutionary change in mechanisms we are looking at (3) para 46. support japan's equitable reference para 47 in wgig report we might be able to burrow from - let's see uganda's prposal in writting venezuela para 46 - [battery died - more notes to follow] _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Mon Sep 26 07:05:59 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:05:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] 26 sept - internet governance subcommittee notes Message-ID: <09877A30-411C-40C0-9505-4E4990E14952@lists.privaterra.org> 26 sept - internet governance subcommittee notes --- internet society (ISOC) - suggests add/improve capacity building - improve regulatory environment - to use existing fora and organizations for IG. IG already occurs at local, regional and intl levels - do not believe that call for new cooperation model is needed. - evolutionary change from existing organizations. - no consensus on next steps. ICC (on behalf of cbbi) Chair - - first reading of the chair's text - nothing is agreed. - we will not open document on agreeded documents, ie. geneva documents - suggest the following method: * go through para by para and submit proposals/revisions 1. INTRO SECTION El salvador - to make link CS on way IG should be achieved. - would like to insert before 39, an (to insert before 39) recognizing internet is a global facility available to the public. good IG is a foundation for a people centred inclusive and development oriented IS. furthermore, as a global sciality security and stability should be assured. (from the CS text?) chair: - why add this here? El salvador - there is no clear link between IG and information society towards development. these are things were implicit - are the reason d'etre. wanted to make this link clear. chair - concerned with the placement of the language - reaction by others? Bangladesh - ict activities must have involvement of - add reference so that UN specialized agencies can support the govt efforts. -(1) add request , add that UN specialised financial agencies support ongoing efforts - (2) unfettered access chair - bangladesh, do you have any specific comments on para 39 or first section of the chair's text? - another other suggestions? Russia: - add reference to scientific and academic community to para 39 iran - in what stage of our work are we? - are we just in drafting exercise and we will go along with it. - we support the initial proposal that we stick the agreed language as much as possible. - if we add new elements, then we have to enter a discussion of balance. let's avoid a conceptional discussion. - suggests: * dop 48, part of it is missing. add reference that IS is a global resource. - the internet has involved as a global resource. IG should be multilateral, govt, cs, ps, and intl organizations. saudi arabia / arab grp (add to 39-42) - add references ..to equitabile and "non discimatary ?? access to 39 US - supports el salvador proposal, in regards to the introduction - revise it as follows.. "..furthermore, as a global facility we commit to its security and stability" revised text now stands as follows: "Recognizing internet is a global facility available to the public. good IG is a foundation for a people centred inclusive and development oriented IS. furthermore, as a global facility we commit to the its stability and security." comment on 41-42 para 41. (add some in regards to issues & roles & responsibilities) - suggest that wgig report has raised and id some of the issues, and that it has aided us to understand some of the roles and responsibilities. - suggest this, as not all issues have been mentioned nor raised. nepal para 39. - clarification on distribution of resources chair. - it is a generic term Mauritania - underlines that 39 is a balanced paragraph as it refers to DoP and principles of IG. - nevertheless, support iran and saudi arabia's proposals ghana (africa grp) - reserve our comments on stakeholders until later new zealand - supports approach to para 39 - comment on para 40 * add secretariat to 2nd paragraph (to ack their role) - should have mention to security and stability of the internet. from para 6 of wgig report. - security and stability of the internet is of paramount importance (from wgig report) el salvador - concern that co-ordination be added as it's in DoP. - add reference to all inclusive information society. chair - let's not bombard para 39. let's keep the interventions focused iran - re-interate that stay to agreeded text - principle of stability and security of the internet (it's already in DoP in para 48) - we worry about subordinating principles to others. - if we add references to security then, we also need to add references to multi-lateral, democratic nature of the internet (no reference to multi-stakeholders...so it's only govts) - concept from el salvador is already in DoP. - if 39 changes from agreed text, then supports saudi propsoal egypt - supports el salvador & saudi - 39: should be multi-laternal, demcratic - supports saudi arabia: equitable and non-discriminatory nature dom republic - asks for clarification. need to add gender equality to the spanish translation. - need to have translation so that the language used is gender balanced. - add that refernce be added to human development chair - any suggestions to the language in spanish? - we should guarantee equality to man & woman cuba - supports arab group brazil - no providing any language - principle shall be that we are not going to ready agreeded to in geneva decl of principles. this end is important. - we should not pick and choose which principles to support and endorse - we have 11 principles chair - better to stick to previous documents - burkina faso - para 39. * fundamental rights to multilingualism should be added. chair - there are other numeric possibilities. please, please, give us input on other sections south africa - support comments made by brazil, cuba & iran in regards to stay with existing agreed text - revision to el salvador's text: need to ack * add referecne to legimitiacy, internationalization & inclusivity chair - ZA what do you mean? south africa - that all stake-holders are supposed to participate. - if there is a problem with security and stability and you need to re-state it, then you should do the same for legitimacy, internationalization and inclusivity chair - legitimacy is a loaded term. let's be careful saudi arabia - would like to support brazil's statement that we have already agreeded text. let's not re-open the text - proposal: concerns the text of para 6 of wgig report, and how it's referenced in pra 39 (48 in DoP). - if we are to choose between the wgig and the DoP, then we would prefer that para 17 - para . IG of the document should be multi-lateral, transparent and democratic.. we should not say "should be multi-lateral". the geneva declaration is far more firm. - suggests the spanish translation be used. take out refence to "should ". text should read " IG IS multi-lateral".... chair - we are trying to find common ground, as such "should" is ok. - algeria - we thought 39 as drafted was ok. - however, the all the proposals - the para 39 is changing away from the aim. - strongly supports para AS IS. however, if changes are made - we would agree of propso - furthermore, if there's a strong reference to security then there should also be a reference to multi-lateral reference to IG (south african proposal) - agree with new zealand proposal. para 41. - do not agree with "some" additional as suggested by USG chair - para 39 has become shadow boxing for the real fight ahead iran - supports 41 as is, as it comes from the mandate of the wgig (from the plan of action) US response: - agree that phase I should be used as governing text - in regards to qualifier "some" in 41. - the concept of "an enabling environment" is in the DoP, and not in the wgig report. it's is worth our attention. chair - change "some" to " a number of" ..public policy issues. Morocco - agree with chair's approach. - does not agree with approach being taken today. as it would not lead to a result in the immediate future. malawi - support South africa and others. - proposal that add one word "multi-lateral" to para 39 in regards to management nigeria - will all decions be taking place in subcomittee plenary? - there should be a balance between security and multilateralism russia: - speaking on behalf of CIS - seeks clarification on 39. can you put in screen to suggest specific admenments - after "the itnernet" ADD " a central element of the infrastructure of the information society - after "evolve" , "scientific and academic " these two changes would make it closer to what was proposed by WGIG report. chair - para 43 & 44 - comments? colombia - recommend : * 43a. with regard to support to governments in development in both global technical norms and public policy internet - reads as follows: * international organizations have developed and must continue to undertake an important role to support governments. * add reference to international norms and public policy issues 43d. responsibilities here are limited. revise by adding the following.. ", in addition to their current responsibilities, " - would express quite clearly the responsibilities of intergovernmental organizations 43a. wrt. for internet public policy issues, i - responsibilities to support governments resulting in intl organizations have a responsiblity for and rights with and must contunue to support governemnts in development of both global technical norms and international internet public policy issues congo para 42 - we must forget multilateral uruguay - para 43 in general seems to be ok as a basis for enabling us to come to some conclusions - add reference to technical and scientific community (sited from wgig report) - suggests that include another sub-para - f - to mention: ... the academic and technological community has made, and should continue to carry out a valuable contribution tot he development and functioning of the internet. el salvador - suggests a preable to section 2 - conviction that all stakeholders, cs, business, govts should actively participate in a co-ordinated and commensurate way with respct to their respective roles & rsponilibilities (from rio commitment) reasoning: everyone needs to chair - what is the added value to your proposal? el salvador - the added value . talks about co-ordination, which such be commensurate with the roles & responsibilities. - we should open the door to even individuals be able to contribute chair - WGIG came up with the language "respective roles of stake-holders". - we will reflect on this further bangladesh - insert in 43e. * international organizations including the United nations... chair - on friday evening we issues a cross references document. - from there, 43 comes from 49 of DoP. so we have a limited room to manover. unless we want to re-open the debate. - we have a delicate balance. iraq (1) - what does colombia exactly propose? - would disagree with colombia's proposal. (2) in rgeards to adding a new constituency (academic & technical constituency) - in geneva texts have followed comprehensive approach all possible stakeholders, as to who belongs to who. - stick to DoP and not added a new stakeholder. Senegal (african grp) - public authorities should also play a role in the development and coordination - we should be specific , the public authorities proposal: * role of public authorities : should add reference [link to digital solidarity fund/ cities & local authorities] saudi arabia - para 43 takes up most of DoP para 49 , as such this is agreeded text that should be retained as is. nigeria - para 43 is consistent with para 49 in DoP, and thus should be retarined. - suggests that academic and technical community be mentioned. but as they might be mentioned in australia (1) - technical and academic communities should be recognized. suggests 43f, and will suggest text. "academic , sci and tech communites have played a role.... (2) the role of CS is quite superficial vs. what in WGIG report. should get input from CS in this regard (3) revision to 43bis in regards to private sector dom republic - endorses the uruguay proposal to add role of technical and scientific community - import is the share the acquisition of knowledge. in regards to CS - talk about the communities. CS build capacity building 43c. add academic and scientific community to 43c (cs section). * thus, technical and scientific CHAIR DRAFTING GROUP - AN OPEN ENDING DRAFTING GROUP (1) uruguat chairs public policy issues EU - support wgig para 49. however if we are to look in modifying note that para 42 already talks about multistakehodlers - further promote dialogue between stakeholders - support referecne to academic sector 43c. - it is wider than community level. delete community reference CANADA - let's stay with 43 - roles of the academic, cs & technical community. many have mentioned there needs to be an increased role for those communities. we prefer that that discussion take place in section 5. ??? (LAC country) - 43bis : add reference to Rio commitment 3. public policy issues - Benin - para 45 : issue that only with single government. - do we express a good, bad or neutral appreciation? * we express our positive appreciation. we need to add a positive qualifier. chair rusia: - don't want to dwell on para 45. - would like to reflect the difficulties that exist. - suggest: * add para 19 from WGIG report - should list the difficulties that we have (from the wgig report) canada 3a. is broad and sweeping - we might come back to this - question of overall structure - para 57. should be moved to end of section 3a para 45: - recalling USG intervention on friday,. needs to be strengthened. an insurance should be made that security & stablity of the internet be maintained. saudi arabia - restructure 3a. para 47 & 48. - however we do not propose any solutions. the arab group would le 3a restructure as follows: * add a new para 45b which would be: - we recognize the need for multilateral, transparent and transparent over the root server and it's development para 48: should feature * after further development of gtld space, and the need to guarantee the sovereignty of the cctlds (add reference that cctld is a sovereignty perogative of states) - we seek to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of IP addresses. - remove reference in 46 to "clarification of the relationships among the different actors" iran - 3a. is compropized of 2 parts (45 & 46), 48 refers to public policy issues to critical itnernet resoruces 45 & 46: 45: * no problem with 1st sentance * would like to bring para 48 of wgig report in that no govt should have a pre-eminent role * ask for the deletion of the rest of the paragraph (don't need to make a reference, yet again to security and stability) 46: - delete the word more - replace "stronger" with "strong" - delete the rest of the sentence in regards to instrastructure: - supports saudi arabia. - we need to clearly support the root zone, gltld, cctld as a soverign right azerbajan - para 45 * important to mention some barriers and barriers to multistakeholder involvement . in IG * we should add para 19 from wgig report (supporting the rusian proposal) - support the iranian proposal, however propose we move it to section 5 brazil - supports rusian proposal to add para 45 (to include para 19 from wgig report) - a way out to not have a long para - perhaps use para 48, first bullet from wgig report here para 45 - end it, with a statement that no single govt should have a preminent role israel : - supports Canadian proposal - would not support Iranian proposal uganda para 45. - revise so it reads " we express our profound appreciation" - propose 45bis.?? - para 46 * delete "solid" before democratic and add "legitimate" instead. - para 47 - needs to be strengthened. - Add @ end. ...in this regard we call for the reinforcement of regional management institutions for the region to manage it's own internet resources .. we also recognize to further involvement of policies and procedures. - add reference of sovereign right of states to cctlds chair - APPEAL - please send detailed proposals to wsis-contributions at itu.int USG - para 46 - first sentance. there is a need to establish in this document a linkage between the current structures of the mangement of the internet and the overwhelming evidence of the growth of internet based on current struvutre. - the current, more rapid growth in the development growth - suggested revision: - we recognize and ack the vital role played by numerous existing organizations in the technical management. We strive to build on the current strucures that have facilitated the global growth of ithe internet in a secure and stable fashion. para 47: - in regards to cctld. let's see the saudi proposal in writting in regards to it. - comemnts on uganda: there is an import role of rir's and they their further development and concure and support uganda's proposal. two final points para 46: - want to see iranian proposal in written form - would associate with canadian proposal and would like to see it in writting. Civil Society (adam peake) india: - 3a. agree with sovereign right of countries in regards to cctld - supports 46, 47, 48 as proposed by iran china - agree with para 47 proposal by saudi arabia - proposing text on root server. JAPAN - para 45 & 46 - better if moved parts to para 5 -para 47: * ip addresses : importance of equitable allocation - UK (EU) - find sthat para 45 is useful balance para 46 - supports existing wording para 47 - seeks to ensure globally balanced distribution. can endorce saudi proposal para 48 - two additions * add technological before word "development" new zealand (1) supports canada on 45 & 46 (2) supports evolutionary change in mechanisms we are looking at (3) para 46. support japan's equitable reference para 47 in wgig report we might be able to burrow from - let's see uganda's prposal in writting venezuela para 46 - [battery died - more notes to follow] _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Mon Sep 26 08:58:56 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:58:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] privacy language proposals, paras 49-54 Message-ID: <4337F090.2020208@zedat.fu-berlin.de> See attachment. We are proud to present a joint proposal with the Human Rights Caucus. :-) CU in a minute, Ralf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CS-Privacy-Proposals for paras 49-54 final.rtf Type: application/msword Size: 47031 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Sep 28 09:29:59 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:29:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: nomination] Message-ID: <433A9AD7.5060703@wz-berlin.de> Tracey asked me to forward to the governance list her proposal to the governance caucus to nominate Laina as the civil society plenary speaker for Tunis. * Hi I would like to nominate Laina Raveendran Greeneas a Plenary speaker at the Summit, through the IG Caucus. Laina Raveendran Greene is the founder of GetIT Multimedia ** **Pte Ltd (www.getitmm.com ) in Singapore. * *I found her to have expertise that had erstwhile been unknown to civil society, and was amazed at her recent input and substantive expertise. * ** *CV attached* * * *Tracey Naughton* If I am not mistaken we just missed the deadline, which was earlier today. On the other hand, we have ignored the rules of procedure so often these days, perhaps this deadline is another thing we don't need to take too seriously. So, if anybody wants to comment on Tracey's suggestion or propose another person... jeanette * * -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: telecom resume-India (2) (3).doc Type: application/applefile Size: 390 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: telecom resume-India (2) (3).doc Type: application/msword Size: 28672 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 rguerra at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 06:01:29 2005 From: rguerra at gmail.com (Mr. Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:01:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Canada text on Forum function In-Reply-To: <3058.156.106.225.194.1127987429.squirrel@156.106.225.194> References: <3042.156.106.225.194.1127982958.squirrel@156.106.225.194> <433BACFB.4070604@wz-berlin.de> <6.2.0.14.0.20050929103335.0602a710@pop.gn.apc.org> <3058.156.106.225.194.1127987429.squirrel@156.106.225.194> Message-ID: Here's a copy of the text Canada proposed this morning. I would be keen that it be considered in whole or in part by the CS IG caucus. The Canadian delegation is keen to hear comments - and keen to hear the CS view on their proposal regards Robert Canada Proposed Terms of Reference for Forum on Internet Governance To be inserted either in section 4 (Development), or section 5 (The Way Forward) ================ NEW PARAGRAPH (# to be determined) We commit to establishing a new forum mechanism, dedicated to enhancing the capacity of all stakeholders, particularly those from developing countries, to participate fully and effectively in all forums relevant to Internet governance. Recognizing the rapid development of technology and institutions, we propose that the forum mechanism periodically be reviewed to determine the need for its continuation. Further, we propose that it be constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process chiefly to facilitate the exchange of information and best practices and to identify issues that are not otherwise being adequately addressed. The forum mechanism should be viewed as a continuation of the "multistakeholder" approach of the WSIS, building on the valuable lessons learned in the WSIS and WGIG processes, in particular I the open WGIG consultations. We call upon all stakeholders to engage in and fully support this important new mechanism. The forum mechanism should be established in a timely fashion to: · Strengthen and enhance stakeholders’ engagement in existing and future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly for those from developing countries; · Develop capacity to participate in discussions and decisions on pertinent topics under consideration in relevant institutions; · Encourage the full involvement and participation of all stakeholders and experts engaged in Internet governance to benefit from their expertise, including those of the academic and scientific communities, to facilitate coordination and collaboration, and to avoid duplication; · Make full use of the tools of the information society to conduct capacity building activities, minimizing the need for conferences and face-to-face meetings; and · Establish ongoing electronic forums on pertinent topics and, when appropriate, create a permanent on-line record for future use in capacity development activities, and to continue to add value over time. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Thu Sep 29 17:54:02 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:54:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Canada's proposal on IG forum - its COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE Message-ID: <433C627A.5020204@zedat.fu-berlin.de> From the planary list for those of you who are not on it. Parminder is not subscribed here, but maybe should... He has some good points. BTW: Has anyone been able to get an electronic version of the new Canadian proposal? They did another version this evening, but I only saw it on paper briefly. Ralf -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Canada's proposal on IG forum - its COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 02:36:24 +0530 From: Parminder Reply-To: plenary at wsis-cs.org To: plenary at wsis-cs.org [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people] Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message! _______________________________________ Hi All, I am sorry to use the the already crowded plenary list to state these views on matters in front of sub-committee A , but I am not subscribed on the IG CS list and I really wanted to share this with all. I found a lot of enthusiasm in CS content and themes meeting on the Canadian proposal on the forum. Most of the support came because canadian proposal seems strong on the MSP priciple. That’s great, but we need the 'substance' too - perhaps that may be more important. And if we look at the canadian proposal on the forum from 'substance' or 'content;' angle, it is abysmal (excuse my use of strong language). It completely transforms the very purpose and agenda of the 'forum' as was nicely laid out by WGIG reports points 43 to 47 - it was supposed to be a global IG policy deliberation space. But the canada proposal makes it into a capacity building body for developing countires etc- badly reeking of WIPO's technical assistence programs which suppose that 'they' know everything and the those with poor capacities (read, developing counteries)need to be 'taught' what the right frameworks and concepts are. The canadian proposal (cut-pasted at the end of the email) opens in this fashion -- >>>We commit to establishing a new forum mechanism, dedicated to >>>enhancing the capacity of all stakeholders, particularly those from developing countries, to participate fully and effectively in all forums relevant to Internet governance. >>> Were we looking for a forum for this purpose, I thought we wanted it for policy deliberation, advise, taking new issues (see WGIG report, pt.s 43 to 47).... Capacity building is only one of the functions of the forum, and it comes way down on the list....... Why is there an attempt to cut out such needed global policy spaces by subtly substituting them with 'capacity building' bodies. And why should the CS be in a hurry to accept that - do we have such aversion to global public policy deliberations and policy development. This is a very status quo-ist view..... Things are fine as they are..... And lets obfuscate and confuse substantial policy issues, since developing countires in any case have poor capacities, and are liable to miss the subterfuge. CS need not be enthused about it just because MSP principle is promised - MSP for what....... I thought CS always wanted a forum as proposed by WGIG - the canadian proposal is NOT about the same 'forum'. And if anyone has some doubt, see the fact that canada has even proposed to move the 'forum' section to the part 4 of the working document. This section deals with development aspects of Internet. So the forum is now about building capapcity of developing countires - on issues already decided and firmly established..... It is about development (building capacities of developing countires to adopt to dominant paradigms)and not about the the 'way forward' (which would put the 'forum' in part 5 on the 'way forward'). Pl see canadian proposal below... In stating the above, I don’t mean dis-respect for any one's views. This is how I see the whole thing..... I may not have followed the IG debate well, And I will be glad to be corrected on the issues I have put here...... Regards Parminder _____________________________________________ Canada's proposal Proposed Terms of Reference for Forum on Internet Governance To be inserted either in section 4 (Development), or section 5 (The Way Forward) ================ NEW PARAGRAPH (# to be determined) We commit to establishing a new forum mechanism, dedicated to enhancing the capacity of all stakeholders, particularly those from developing countries, to participate fully and effectively in all forums relevant to Internet governance. Recognizing the rapid development of technology and institutions, we propose that the forum mechanism periodically be reviewed to determine the need for its continuation. Further, we propose that it be constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process chiefly to facilitate the exchange of information and best practices and to identify issues that are not otherwise being adequately addressed. The forum mechanism should be viewed as a continuation of the "multistakeholder" approach of the WSIS, building on the valuable lessons learned in the WSIS and WGIG processes, in particular I the open WGIG consultations. We call upon all stakeholders to engage in and fully support this important new mechanism. The forum mechanism should be established in a timely fashion to: . Strengthen and enhance stakeholders' engagement in existing and future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly for those from developing countries; . Develop capacity to participate in discussions and decisions on pertinent topics under consideration in relevant institutions; . Encourage the full involvement and participation of all stakeholders and experts engaged in Internet governance to benefit from their expertise, including those of the academic and scientific communities, to facilitate coordination and collaboration, and to avoid duplication; . Make full use of the tools of the information society to conduct capacity building activities, minimizing the need for conferences and face-to-face meetings; and . Establish ongoing electronic forums on pertinent topics and, when appropriate, create a permanent on-line record for future use in capacity development activities, and to continue to add value over time. - Parminder www.ITforChange.net IT for Change Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing list Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary -- ----------------------------------------------------- Dipl. Pol. Ralf Bendrath Universität Bremen Sonderforschungsbereich 597 "Staatlichkeit im Wandel" Linzer Str. 9a, D-28359 Bremen, Germany Tel. +49 (421) 218-8735 Fax +49 (421) 218-8721 Mobil +49 (179) 2154614 http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~bendrath _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Fri Sep 30 07:10:19 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:10:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Paper tabled by Argentina In-Reply-To: <191903F2031B524CAF24466A2093920C041C9EE1@msg-mb1.icent.ic.gc.ca> References: <191903F2031B524CAF24466A2093920C041C9EE1@msg-mb1.icent.ic.gc.ca> Message-ID: <232B557C-98A0-4449-B080-8981BC501FD5@lists.privaterra.org> Here is the paper tabled by Argentina. 10 countries + likely the African group behind it. Look forward for comments at the IG meeting this afternoon. regards Robert -- PART 5 : We recognize the efforts deployed by the initiators of the Internet, and the need to guarantee a stable and secure operation of this efficient tool for humanity. We are also convinced that there is a need for an evolutionary process towards a new transparent, democratic, and multilateral framework, with the participation of government, private sector, civil society and international organizations. We support the evolution and internationalization of the Internet governance system, based on the Geneva Principles through existing and future mechanisms, institutions and fora. It is our conviction that all stakeholders -- governments, the private sector, civil society and other interested parties -- should actively participate in Internet governance in a coordinated and balanced manner, commensurate with their respective roles and responsibilities. We recall that the main responsibility of all stakeholders is awareness raising, capacity building and to propose solutions to accelerate availability and affordability of Internet in developing world. In order to strengthen the global multistakeholder interaction and cooperation on public policy issues and developmental aspects relating to Internet governance we propose a forum. This forum should not replace existing mechanisms or institutions but should build on the existing structures on Internet governance, should contribute to the sustainability, stability and robustness of the Internet by addressing appropriately public policy issues that are not otherwise being adequately addressed (referred to in para....) excluding any involvement in the day to day operation of the Internet. It should be constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process to facilitate the exchange of information and best practices and to identify issues and make known its findings, to enhance awareness and build consensus and engagement. Recognizing the rapid development of technology and institutions, we propose that the forum mechanism periodically be reviewed to determine the need for its continuation. We also encourage the development of multistakeholder processes at the national and regional levels to discuss and collaborate on Internet expansion and dissemination and support development efforts to achieve Millenium Declaration goals and to support global processes. 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. -- 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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Fri Sep 30 07:26:33 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:26:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Press Statement from Privacy and Security Working Group on Subcomm A Message-ID: <433D20E9.7010705@zedat.fu-berlin.de> FYI. Just sent it to CONGO. Ralf --------------------- 30 September 2005 The Civil Society Privacy and Security Working Group issues the following statement at the closing of the 3rd Preparatory COnference of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS): We, together with the Human Right Caucus, were very concerend about a new paragraph that would condemn the use of the Internet for terrorist purposes. We issued our protest, criticizing the vague language that would have opened it to all kinds of arbitrary interpretation and misuse, and the lack of any reference to human rights protection. We are satisfied that our calls were heard. The current version with the paragraph cut down to one short sentence is much more acceptable, especially because of the reference to human rights protection. We still are not convinced that the proble of terrorism belongs into an "Internet governance" document, as nobody would put a reference on the "terrorist use of streets" into a summit document on public trasportation infrastructures. We would have preferred a language that makes clear the positive contribution of the Internet for international solidarity, understanding and tolerance. We are happy to find much better and more comprehensive language on privacy protection in the current draft Tunis documents than in the WSIS Geneva Declaration of 2003. We would have preferred to see the language originally proposed by the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and the chairman of the respective subcommittee B, which called all governments for "legislation on privacy and/or data protection". The version agreed upon now unfortunately is less binding. On the other hand it takes into account all measures available for privacy protection to all stakeholders. It is important now to seriously follow up on this and establish a Global Privacy Forum on a multi-stakeholder basis, as was suggested by the recent Montreux Declaration of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners and by the International Working Group on Data Protection in Telecommunications. The Privacy and Security Working Group will closely monitor further developments before and after the Tunis summit, and will make its contribution to a serious follow-up process on the respective parts of the summit documents. Contact: Ralf Bendrath Tel. +49-179-215 4614 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Fri Sep 30 11:31:58 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 17:31:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] (Tentative) dinner plans for friday Message-ID: Should it be possible, and the prepcom schedule permits - i'd like to see if dinner plans can be arranged for this evening. As had been suggested by the group, the address of the Brazilian restraurant suggested by the hotel is as follows: Churrascaria Gaucho 1 Chemin Malombré tel 022 346 1150 I have no idea as a possible time. Please advise if , there might be a chance , you would like to attend so that can make reservation regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Fri Sep 30 12:31:44 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:31:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] kahn's new paper online Message-ID: <433D6870.6010104@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Just released: The list of proposals for part 5 of the IG chapter that will be sent to Tunis is: Khan's newest food for thought African Group Argentina EU Brazil Canada Iran Japan Russia / Aserbaidjan / Belarus / Moldowa Saudi-Arabia (Arab Group) _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Tue Sep 27 03:52:58 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:52:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] compilation of comments on Khan's paper on IG online Message-ID: <4338FA5A.20805@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Just out this morning, and very nice again, with our language submissions next to the governments's proposals. :-) Ralf ------------------------ http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1998|0 Document WSIS-II/PC-3/DT/14 E Compilation of comments received on the Chair’s Paper (DT/10), Chapter Three: Internet Governance 27 September 2005 This document contains a compilation of comments on Chapter Three: Internet Governance, Chair’s Paper (DT/10) received between the publication of the paper on 23 September and 26 September. The complete text of all the contributions received is available at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/listing.asp?lang=en?&c_event=pc2|3&c_type=co|sca. This is a working document that will be updated as additional comments are submitted. Please send comments and addition contributions to wsis-contributions at itu.int. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Wed Sep 28 10:39:44 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 16:39:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] ALERT: new "terrorist" paragraph 50bis introduced Message-ID: <433AAB30.1040401@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Hi all, a disturbing development occured this afternoon: In the working group chaired by Canada from 13:30-15:00, Isreael at the very end introduced a new paragraph proposal (50bis). Other delegations said they have to consult before discussing it, and they will discuss it this evening, I think. The paragraph reads: “New 50bis. We underline the importance of countering the manifestations of terrorism at all its forms in the Internet. In particular, we condemn the use of the internet for purposes of financing of terrorist acts, radicalization towards terrorist acts, recruitment for terrorist acts, and glorification of terrorist acts that may incite further terrorist acts.” The Privacy & Security Working Group and the Human Rights Caucus will issue a statement this evening. But in the meantime, talk to your delegations and tell them we don't like this at all. As much as we hate terrorism - formulations like "glorification" etc. are way too ambigous and vague and may easily lead to restrictions of freedom of speech. Best, Ralf PS: The drafting group was open to observers for the whole time, but I did not ask for the floor. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Thu Sep 29 09:58:32 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 15:58:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] CS intervention on new "terrorism" paragraph this morning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <433BF308.8060006@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Hi all, as a number of people had already asked about it, below is our intervention on the new paragraph 50bis Israel had introduced yesterday afternoon. It is already online at the ITU site at . I just came from the drafting group session: It seems we left some impression. Is much shorter and less vague now and includes human rights references. :-) Ralf ------------------------ WSIS Tunis Phase, PrepCom-3 WSIS Civil Society Privacy and Security Working Group WSIS Civil Society Human Rights Caucus Statement in Subcommittee A, morning session, 29 September 2005 Yesterday afternoon Israel proposed a new paragraph 50bis. Because it was introduced in a drafting group and not in the subcommittee, I will read it for you for the sake of transparency: “We underline the importance of countering the manifestations of terrorism at all its forms in the Internet. In particular, we condemn the use of the internet for purposes of financing of terrorist acts, radicalization towards terrorist acts, recruitment for terrorist acts, and glorification of terrorist acts that may incite further terrorist acts.” Civil society is impressed by the fact that it is possible to use the word “terrorist” not less than six times in one single sentence. We are very concerned about this paragraph and strongly oppose it, for the following reasons: 1. The international community has tried for years, but has not yet been able to reach agreement on how to define terrorists or terrorism. The Secretary General Report for the Millenium Summit again called for Member States to adopt a definition of terrorism. Before this has happened, we want to remind you of the old wisdom that “one country’s freedom fighter is the other one’s terrorist”. Therefore, this paragraph would introduce vague language that is open to all kinds of interpretation and misuse. 2. The same argument applies to the language of “manifestations of terrorism at all its forms in the Internet”. 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. 3. Likewise, mentioning “glorification of terrorist acts that may incite further terrorist acts” is equally imprecise and vague. What acts of terror can you not glorify? What is glorification? Which kind of internet use “may incite” other acts, and which one would not? If CNN or Al-Jazeera report about acts of terrorism and show footage of the attacks – as happened around the world, online and offline, on September 11, 2001 – it could be seen as glorification. The terrorists’ supporters surely loved it. 4. We are also uncertain what is meant by “financing terror on the internet”. Maybe this refers to websites that accept donations, but that already falls under international rules on funding terror – the FATF rules and other banking rules. This is well covered in other agreements and has nothing to do with Internet Governance. 5. We get the feeling that some governments are using the debate around Internet governance to sneak in all kinds of other issues that do not belong here. In the Compilation of Comments received on the WGIG report, the contribution from Israel - which includes reference to terrorism - is listed under "other issues not directly addressed in the WGIG report". To make clear how imprecise and arbitrary the paragraph is, we want to read it to you again with a minor change, just exchanging “internet” with another public infrastructure: “We underline the importance of countering the manifestations of terrorism at all its forms in the streets. In particular, we condemn the use of the streets for purposes of financing of terrorist acts, radicalization towards terrorist acts, recruitment for terrorist acts, and glorification of terrorist acts that may incite further terrorist acts.” Would you really want a paragraph like that in a UN summit declaration on traffic and public transport? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Wed Sep 21 04:18:44 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:18:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Reporting from Internet Governance plenary. Message-ID: I'm in the room now - could others also in the room let me know. would be good to be share and combine each others notes at the end of the session. -- 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