From muguet at mdpi.net Sat Apr 1 06:02:51 2006 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 13:02:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top Policy Issues for Athens In-Reply-To: <442DA65C.5070704@knowprose.com> References: <442C6EC6.4090802@ipjustice.org> <442DA65C.5070704@knowprose.com> Message-ID: <442E5DDB.8010108@mdpi.net> Dear Taran > Isn't the problem then with the German Law rather than the document? the recent German law ( transcription of the European directive ) is even more repressive than the French one, and does not include DRM interoperability. I don(t know the legislative status of this law. Any info from Germany ? It would be good that all Europeans unite their efforts against those laws/ > > I think it's dangerous to dismiss DRM the concept. It is the reverse, the DRM concept is dangerous, because it limits Freedom and would extend to digital objects what is valid for material things. Digital objects are in nature different from material objects in the sense that they cannot be replicated, and "consuming" them does not destroy them. Therefore to simply extend concepts originating from category of objects to another is just not waranted. It is a question of semantic and basic philosophy. then First, a obvious danger is that DRMs are going to lead into a police state. Second, there is a belief that in order to be financially compensated you need DRMs, this is *wrong*. Imagination must spent towards exploring non-DRM based schemes instead of trying to implement DRMs that are going to be one day or another cracked. One non-DRM based is the "Global Patronage" scheme, that has been described on this list, but they might be others, as I hinted in other posts ( Artic Monkeys, etc... ) It is quite regretable that the Korean Civil Society is not more involved in the WSIS, because it is one of the most advanced country in the world, that is connected trough a fiber optic network, and could give us hints of things to come. File sharing occurs on a massive scale that is not yet thinkable elsewhere. Interestingly the commercial Soribada P2P file "to charge 500 won for users downloading music files labeled with digital right management, 700 won for music files without DRM" http://english.etnews.co.kr/news/detail_top.html?id=200603270001&art_grad=9 article en Français : http://www.ratiatum.com/news2992_En_Coree_le_DRM_se_paye_moins_cher.html It yet another example that DRM is not required. DRM is a pest, better not to be contaminated by this pandemic. Best Francis >The implementations > are where I have problems. It's much like the patent system, which > extends way beyond software... the patent system doesn't really do what > the concept of patents is supposed to do in the first place, and while > hacking around it in GPLv3 draft might be effective in the short term, > it's only attacking the symptom. So is attacking DRM in this manner, > though I am subject to change my opinion. over the next few days (and > subsequently, the rest of my life). > > DRM could have valid implementations - for example, to assure that the > rights of Free Software are maintained. Rights are rights, but licenses > vary - and so do implementations of objects. > > Richard Stallman wrote: > >> I would support any of these specific recommendations in another >> context. But this document takes a point of view that accepts DRM, >> per se, as legitimate. It opposes the prohibition of P2P software, >> but doesn't call for the legalization of P2P sharing; it says nothing >> to oppose laws such as the new German law, which would imprison all >> people for sharing movies. >> >> For that reason, I have to urge people not to endorse the document. >> _______________________________________________ >> WSIS-PCT mailing list >> WSIS-PCT at fsfeurope.org >> https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/wsis-pct >> >> >> >> > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals Associate Publisher http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net ENSTA Paris, France KNIS lab. Director "Knowledge Networks & Information Society" (KNIS) muguet at ensta.fr http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web UNMSP project : http://www.unmsp.org WTIS initiative: http://www.wtis.org ------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From cnd at knowprose.com Sat Apr 1 11:36:53 2006 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 12:36:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top Policy Issues for Athens In-Reply-To: <442E5DDB.8010108@mdpi.net> References: <442C6EC6.4090802@ipjustice.org> <442DA65C.5070704@knowprose.com> <442E5DDB.8010108@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <442EAC25.1040101@knowprose.com> Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote: > > Dear Taran >> Isn't the problem then with the German Law rather than the document? > the recent German law ( transcription of the European directive ) > is even more repressive than the French one, and does not > include DRM interoperability. > I don(t know the legislative status of this law. > Any info from Germany ? > > It would be good that all Europeans unite their efforts > against those laws/ And yet, Europe is not the center of the world. At least, not outside of Europe. :-) >> >> I think it's dangerous to dismiss DRM the concept. > It is the reverse, the DRM concept is dangerous, because > it limits Freedom and would extend to digital objects what > is valid for material things. > Digital objects are in nature different from material objects in > the sense that they cannot be replicated, and "consuming" them > does not destroy them. > Therefore to simply extend concepts originating from category > of objects to another is just not waranted. > It is a question of semantic and basic philosophy. > > then > First, a obvious danger is that > DRMs are going to lead into a police state. Whoa. Hold on a minute. DRM is a name. It's an acronym. It's the implementation that is dangerous, not the name. Attack the disease not the symptoms. Digital Rights Management, as a concept, is not a bad thing. Digital Rights Management, as it is being used, is a bad thing. Think of fruit. Sometimes you get sweet oranges. Sometimes you get sour oranges. Do not damn the sweet oranges with the sour oranges because some people are selling sour oranges. > > Second, there is a belief that in order to be financially > compensated you need DRMs, this is *wrong*. I know that this is wrong right *now*, but I don't believe in burning bridges in the future. I believe that utilizing the phrase 'Digital Rights Management' in such negative connotations may get the short term attention that people are seeking, but the long term impacts do not necessarily fall under 'good'. In fact, I think it sucks as much as DRM itself. We cannot attack the problem at the same level of thinking which created it, to paraphrase Albert Einstein. Change levels. > Imagination must spent towards exploring non-DRM based > schemes instead of trying to implement DRMs that are going > to be one day or another cracked. Again, people are stuck on sour oranges. The GPL itself could be called DRM. What the criticism is against is *how* Digital Rights are managed. To take into account that future generations are going to have to deal with what we screw up, as those before us have done, we need to make sure we don't write ourselves into corners. In 100 years, DRM could be implemented in a much different way. We desperately need to take a long view here; there is a danger of intellectual incest if we go around saying that the name of a thing is bad when the actions of the thing in question are really what is bad. > One non-DRM based is the "Global Patronage" scheme, > that has been described on this list, but they might be others, > as I hinted in other posts ( Artic Monkeys, etc... ) Which is, in fact, a form of Digital Rights Management. It's just not invasive, and is generally a better term. We're talking now about documents that I believe that everyone wishes to last. Don't talk about DRM (Geez, I'm sounding a little like RMS here), talk about what the implementations of DRM do. If freedom is really the issue here - and I believe it is - then the document should be human-centric, not acronym-centric. We call this the PCT caucus because we don't like the phrase 'intellectual property'. How odd it is to use another ambiguous term so carelessly. How odd that when we make issue of the differences between Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks that we forget that there ARE Digital Rights, that this isn't just about software licensing, and that there are human beings involved who deserve their Digital Rights defended... It is not their fault that the present implementation of what is called DRM is a sour orange. Shall we chop down the tree? I say NO! I say tell them that the fruit from that tree is sour, and show them a sweeter tree. Or shall we stamp 'orange' and DRM out of their vocabulary like language nazis? This is not about Europe. This is not about Korea. This is about the world, but it's not about the world, it's about people. It's about rights. It is about Digital Rights. It's about the right to manage our own digital rights as we see fit. No matter how hard one tries, DRM as a concept cannot be destroyed only because there is a semblance of something good in it that people see. So attack what is wrong with it. This shouldn't be too difficult for people to grasp, I think. To clarify, I disagree with DRM in the present instantiation, but I agree with DRM such as GPL and Creative Commons Licenses. If you're stuck in the rut of thinking that DRM can only be one thing, then you can be assured that DRM will change it's name and come back another time, and we'll get to have this conversation all over again over EIEIO. The name is a symptom. Attack the disease, don't use the name. We may have use for that name yet. -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago cnd at knowprose.com Looking for contracts/work! http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786 New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat Apr 1 11:52:40 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 11:52:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] have more time Message-ID: I don't think there has been sufficient discussion for the caucus to agree on a prioritization of the submitted themes. Therefore we should just forward them to the IGF presented as coming from "members of the WSIS-CS IGC. >>> "William Drake" 03/31/06 9:08 AM >>> Over the weekend it might be good to clarify the framing of the submissions. Should they be presented as individual submissions, submissions 'by members of the caucus,' (suitably ambiguous), submissions of the caucus...? In one file, or many, in standardized format or why bother, etc? In any event I think they'd prefer PDFs to emails... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat Apr 1 11:56:38 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 11:56:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] a caveat on theme submissions Message-ID: By the way, if the comments on the structure of the MAG are any guide, it won't make a lot of difference how we frame our submissions. The IGF Secertariat obviously did not pay a lot of attention to the public comments last time. If one reads ALL the published comments, nearly all of them call for a small, 12-15 person MAG. Not a single one calls for a larger, 40 person MAG. And yet, what did we get? A 40-person MAG. I hope the IGF secretariat understands the long term consequences of ignoring public comment on the record to favor private, behind-the-scenes negotiations with favored stakeholders. ICANN provides a precedent: after a while, no one will take the process seriously and there will be no quality comments. Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> "William Drake" 03/31/06 9:08 AM >>> Hi, As it's 4pm in Geneva and it didn't appear that there'd be movement to consolidate and submit all the theme proposals today, I called the IGF office. Markus is away but Chengetai was there. There's no rush, they are zen and would be happy to receive proposals at the beginning of next week. Over the weekend it might be good to clarify the framing of the submissions. Should they be presented as individual submissions, submissions 'by members of the caucus,' (suitably ambiguous), submissions of the caucus...? In one file, or many, in standardized format or why bother, etc? In any event I think they'd prefer PDFs to emails... Bye, BD ******************************************************* William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake ******************************************************* _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sat Apr 1 12:03:02 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 12:03:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] RFC 4041 / Requirements for Morality Sections in Routing Area Drafts Message-ID: <442EB246.20202@lists.privaterra.org> As we are going to use an RFC for the elections, I think we should all be familiar with RFC 4041. Especially on this special day. regards Robert http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4041.txt Network Working Group A. Farrel Request for Comments: 4041 Old Dog Consulting Category: Informational 1 April 2005 Requirements for Morality Sections in Routing Area Drafts Status of This Memo This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). Abstract It has often been the case that morality has not been given proper consideration in the design and specification of protocols produced within the Routing Area. This has led to a decline in the moral values within the Internet and attempts to retrofit a suitable moral code to implemented and deployed protocols has been shown to be sub-optimal. This document specifies a requirement for all new Routing Area Internet-Drafts to include a "Morality Considerations" section, and gives guidance on what that section should contain. 1. Introduction It is well accepted by popular opinion and other reliable metrics that moral values are declining and that degeneracy is increasing. Young people are particularly at risk from the rising depravity in society and much of the blame can be squarely placed at the door of the Internet. If you do not feel safe on the streets at night, what do you think it is like on the Information Superhighway? When new protocols or protocol extensions are developed within the Routing Area, it is often the case that not enough consideration is given to the impact of the protocol on the moral fiber of the Internet. The result is that moral consequences are only understood once the protocols have been implemented, and sometimes not until after they have been deployed. Farrel Informational [Page 1] RFC 4041 Routing Morality Section Requirements 1 April 2005 The resultant attempts to restore appropriate behavior and purge the community of improper activities are not always easy or architecturally pleasant. Further, it is possible that certain protocol designs make morality particularly hard to achieve. Recognising that moral issues are fundamental to the utility and success of protocols designed within the IETF, and that simply making a wishy-washy liberal-minded statement does not necessarily provide adequate guarantees of a correct and proper outcome for society, this document defines requirements for the inclusion of Morality Considerations sections in all Internet-Drafts produced within the Routing Area. Meeting these requirements will ensure that proper consideration is given to moral issues at all stages of the protocol development process, from Requirements and Architecture, through Specification and Applicability. The remainder of this document describes the necessary subsections of the Morality Considerations sections, and gives guidance about what information should be contained in those subsections. 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. The key words "SHALT", "SHALT NOT", "SMITE", and "PILLAR OF SALT" in this document are to be interpreted as expected. 2. Presence and Placement of Morality Considerations Sections 2.1. Null Morality Considerations Sections It may be the case that the authors of Internet-Drafts have no or few morals. This does not relieve them of their duty to understand the consequences of their actions. The more likely an author is to say that a null Morality Considerations section is acceptable, the more pressure must be exerted on him by the Area and the appropriate Working Group to ensure that he gives full consideration to his actions, and reflects long and hard on the consequences of his writing and the value of his life. On the other hand, some authors are well known to have the highest moral pedigree: a fact that is plainly obvious from the company they keep, the Working Groups they attend, and their eligibility for NomCom. It is clearly unnecessary for such esteemed persons to waste Farrel Informational [Page 2] RFC 4041 Routing Morality Section Requirements 1 April 2005 effort on Morality Considerations sections. It is inconceivable that anything that they write would have anything other than a beneficial effect on the Routing Area and the Internet in general. 2.2. Mandatory Subsections If the Morality Considerations section is present, it MUST contain at least the following subsections. The content of these subsections is surely self-evident to any right-thinking person. Further guidance can be obtained from your moral guardian, your household gods, or from any member of the IMM (Internet Moral Majority). - Likelihood of misuse by depraved or sick individuals. This subsection must fully address the possibility that the proposed protocols or protocol extensions might be used for the distribution of blue, smutty, or plain disgusting images. - Likelihood of misuse by misguided individuals. There is an obvious need to protect minors and people with misguided thought processes from utilising the protocols or protocol extensions for purposes that would inevitably do them harm. - Likelihood of misuse by large, multi-national corporations. Such a thought is, of course, unthinkable. - Availability of oversight facilities. There are those who would corrupt our morals motivated as they are by a hatred of the freedom of Internet access with which we are graced. We place a significant burden of responsibility on those who guard our community from these evil-doers and it is only fitting that we give them as much support as is possible. Therefore, all encryption and obfuscation techniques MUST be excluded - individuals who have nothing to hide need to fear the oversight of those whose morals are beyond doubt. - Inter-SDO impact. We must allow for other moral frameworks and fully respect other people's right to subscribe to other belief systems. Such people are, however, wrong and doomed to spend eternity in a dark corner with only dial-up access. So it has been written. - Care and concern for avian carriers. A duck may be somebody's mother. Even if one or more of these subsections are considered irrelevant, they MUST all still be present, and MUST contain a full rebuttal of this deviant thought. Farrel Informational [Page 3] RFC 4041 Routing Morality Section Requirements 1 April 2005 2.3. Optional Subsections Additional subsections may be added to accommodate zealots. 2.4. Placement of Morality Considerations Sections The Morality Considerations section MUST be given full prominence in each Internet Draft. 3. Applicability Scenarios This section outlines, by way of example, some particular areas that are in dire need of reform and where a short, sharp shock could make a really big difference. 3.1. Provision of Services We must do our utmost to ensure that services are delivered in a timely and reliable way. Emphasis should be placed on Quality of Service (QoS) and meeting the needs of the consumer of the service. Arrangements should be made for regular provision of services, and sermons should be to the point and contain a strong moral message. 3.2. Political Correctness (PC) Political correctness has gone too far. This problem can be traced way back to the 1970s when the desktop PC was invented. It is necessary for Internet-Drafts to observe a form of political correctness, but note that you do not always have to mean what you say. 3.2.1. Differentiated Services Segregation of packets on the grounds of color is now banned and Internet-Drafts must not make use of this technique. If you follow all of the recommendations in this document, you will find that "packets of color" (as we must now refer to them) tend to avoid your points of presence, and you will no longer be troubled by them. 3.2.2. Jumbo Packets It is no longer appropriate to refer to "jumbo packets". Please use the term "capacitorially challenged". Farrel Informational [Page 4] RFC 4041 Routing Morality Section Requirements 1 April 2005 3.2.3. Byte Ordering Note that within Internet-Drafts, bytes (and bits) progress from the left to the right. This is how things should be. 3.3. Protection or Abstinence Much has been made recently of the need to provide protection within the Internet. It is the role of the IMM to determine when protection is required, and the role of the IESG bulldogs to ensure that we are all protected. However, protection is only one way to prevent unplanned outages and, as we all know, the ready availability of protection schemes such as 1:1 (one-on-one) or 1:n (orgy-mode) have lead to a belief that it is acceptable to switch (or swing) at will. It should be noted that protection can fail, and under no circumstances should extra traffic be countenanced. In reality, the only safe way to avoid passing data to your friends is to agree to pledge to have no control plane before marriage. Join our campaign and sign up for the SONET Ring Thing. 3.4. Promiscuity Various disgusting protocols indulge in promiscuity. This appears to happen most often when an operator is unwilling to select a single partner and wants to play the field. Promiscuous modes of operation are an abomination, exceeded only by multicast. 4. Terminology Admission Control The caring investigative arm of the IMM. Doom Port 666. Need we say more? ECMP What is this? Some kind of Communism? Money The root of all evil. Farrel Informational [Page 5] RFC 4041 Routing Morality Section Requirements 1 April 2005 MPLS What is with this "layer two-and-a-half" nonsense? The world is flat, just accept the fact. Packet Switching Sounds like fraud to me. Path The route of all LSPs. Policy Control The administrative arm of the IMM. Random Walk Substance abuse is to be avoided. Rendezvous Point Poorly lit street corner. Not to be confused with the root of all multicast. Standard Body What we should all strive for. Strawberry Ice Cream Something that wills the void between rational discussion and all-out thermo nuclear war [SCREAM]. 5. Morality Considerations The moral pedigree of the author of this document places him and his writings beyond question. 6. IANA Considerations IANA should think carefully about the protection of their immortal souls. 7. Security Considerations Security is of the utmost importance. A secure Internet community will ensure the security of all of its members. Farrel Informational [Page 6] RFC 4041 Routing Morality Section Requirements 1 April 2005 8. Acknowledgements I would like to thank my guru Alex Dipandra-Zinin. Jozef Wroblewski, who clearly knows promiscuous behavior when he sees it, pointed out some of the dangers in promiscuous operation. No avian carriers were harmed in the production of this document. 9. Intellectual Property Considerations Property is theft. What is yours is mine. What is mine, you keep your hands off. 10. Normative References I don't need to be told how to formulate my morals. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 11. Informative References To be frank, I don't find many other documents informative. [SCREAM] Farrel, A., "Observations on Proposing Protocol Enhancements that Address Stated Requirements but also go Further by Meeting more General Needs", Work in Progress, June 2003. Author's Address Adrian Farrel Old Dog Consulting Phone: I'm not telling you that. Why do you ask, anyway? EMail: adrian at olddog.co.uk Farrel Informational [Page 7] RFC 4041 Routing Morality Section Requirements 1 April 2005 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and at www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- ipr at ietf.org. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Farrel Informational [Page 8] -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra 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 mueller at syr.edu Sat Apr 1 12:06:02 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 12:06:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] Comments and Draft of HR caucus proposal to IGF Message-ID: Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> Meryem Marzouki 03/31/06 4:05 AM >>> >I'm sorry to jump in the discussion so late Yes, this is sad, because your comments are worth paying attention to and I had hoped to stimulate just such a discussion on the issue you raise below when proposing the FoE theme. Nothing happened. Indeed, discussion of the themes has been cursory in general. >However, proposing this in the IGF framework will certainly open >the way to a definition of "ethical content", "acceptable by all in the >whole world" allowed on the Internet. I agree with you that that would be an undesirable outcome. But the Forum would allow those of us who oppose that, including several governments, to voice their views. Why not deal with this issue? It is much safer in the Forum context than in others. And could it not also put pressure on govts using censorship for purely political purposes? the more basic issue is: who is on the defensive and who is on the offensive? It seems that international processes seem to be driven entirely by people who have some kind of agenda for controlling or restricting the internet in some way, for various reasons. Why can there not be pressure in the other direction, a more positive assertion of liberty of expression? Do you think real FoE can be preserved and protected by simply keeping it off the agenda and refusing to talk about it? Won't it be chipped away bit by bit using that tactic? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Apr 1 14:44:46 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 21:44:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] have more time Message-ID: I agree with Milton, let it as it is and move forward. Do not forget that we are not the final master of the process. We deliver input into the process. And if the arguments are strong for the single subjects - and they are - than there is no need for a priority list. And do not forget, it is a four-day-meeting with an opening and a closing ceremony. Next internal group step should be working and the launch for discussions groups around a selected number of issues. Best wolfgang ________________________________ From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Milton Mueller Sent: Sat 1/04/2006 6:52 p.m. To: drake at hei.unige.ch; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] have more time I don't think there has been sufficient discussion for the caucus to agree on a prioritization of the submitted themes. Therefore we should just forward them to the IGF presented as coming from "members of the WSIS-CS IGC. >>> "William Drake" 03/31/06 9:08 AM >>> Over the weekend it might be good to clarify the framing of the submissions. Should they be presented as individual submissions, submissions 'by members of the caucus,' (suitably ambiguous), submissions of the caucus...? In one file, or many, in standardized format or why bother, etc? In any event I think they'd prefer PDFs to emails... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Sat Apr 1 16:45:22 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 23:45:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Comments and Draft of HR caucus proposal to IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2B0E04FD-3F1A-4E6A-8B46-E2A6E30D68AB@ras.eu.org> Le 1 avr. 06 à 19:06, Milton Mueller a écrit : >>>> Meryem Marzouki 03/31/06 4:05 AM >>> >> I'm sorry to jump in the discussion so late > > Yes, this is sad, because your comments are worth paying attention > to and I had hoped to stimulate just such a discussion on the issue > you raise below when proposing the FoE theme. Nothing happened. > Indeed, discussion of the themes has been cursory in general. I do apologize. It's not that easy to have a full time job, and run (many) volunteer activities besides that. Generally speaking, I agree with you that it's sad that there has been, all in all, very little discussion on the themes proposals. And this list has been the most active on the proposal side! >> However, proposing this in the IGF framework will certainly open >> the way to a definition of "ethical content", "acceptable by all >> in the >> whole world" allowed on the Internet. > > I agree with you that that would be an undesirable outcome. But the > Forum would allow those of us who oppose that, including several > governments, to voice their views. Why not deal with this issue? It > is much safer in the Forum context than in others. And could it not > also put pressure on govts using censorship for purely political > purposes? I'm not sure at all it would work. I'm not that optimist. I know people who normally are on the FoE defenders side, and who think it would be good to define some kind of 'general agreement' on 'limits'. I've provided the example of the Mahomet cartoons because it's becoming like a 'syndrom', you know... The issue that you proposed is dangerous because it is framed in terms of 'ethics'. People who want to limit FoE will jump on this: those who don't want to talk about rights talk about ethics, it's well known, and we keep facing this attitude. You cannot imagine how much it works, even with well intentionned people. It's the reason why it's better to frame it in terms of corporate social responsibility, for companies, rather than ethics. Obviously, when talking about companies, we cannot frame the issue in terms of rights to be respected, because they're not binded by rights instruments: they're only binded by the national legislation under which they're established (and/or of the markets they want to enter). > the more basic issue is: who is on the defensive and who is on the > offensive? It seems that international processes seem to be driven > entirely by people who have some kind of agenda for controlling or > restricting the internet in some way, for various reasons. Why can > there not be pressure in the other direction, a more positive > assertion of liberty of expression? Because we're not going at all towards this. On the contrary, we're going backwards and it's a hard time just to get things _preserved_... And I'm saying that with more than 10 years of experience in this field, and presence in intergovernmental arenas. Even the most committed to HR and FoE, like the council of Europe. But people think and behave like crazy when we discuss Internet issue. For them, it's the devil... Could you imagine that we're again witnessing now discussions that happened 10 years ago. Have a look at this to simply figure out the situation: http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.5/coe > Do you think real FoE can be preserved and protected by simply > keeping it off the agenda and refusing to talk about it? Won't it > be chipped away bit by bit using that tactic? No, I don't think this at all, and this was not my point. Don't get it wrong: the issue is not to avoid or escape the debate on this. My point is simply that : (1) for this particular proposal, the 'ethics' framing is wrong and dangerous, and (2) for FoE in general: is not a governance issue, and it's a big mistake, I think, to discuss _rights_ in a governance arena. It's a good strategy however to take rights (specially when already defined in international instruments which are binding for governements) as a starting point/justification/perspective/argument to obtain what is seen as a political progress. Best, Meryem _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Sat Apr 1 17:33:20 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 00:33:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Need for coordinators - Re: Public policy issues to be discussed at the first meeting of the IGF In-Reply-To: <442DB865.5070300@lists.privaterra.org> References: <442DB865.5070300@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <7E4E7279-9DDC-43DD-8BEC-F2A6B5B85372@ras.eu.org> Le 1 avr. 06 à 01:16, Robert Guerra a écrit : > Dear colleagues: > > For the record, I wanted to the members of this list know that Ihave > just sent a collection of documents to the IGF secretariat. > > Sent just before 23:55 Geneva Time, the documents are the submissions > which I had some doubt weather they had been submitted directly > already. > > I thank the authors of the texts for their effort. Frankly, I first thought this was an April 1st joke. We were in the process of discussing how proposals should be submitted, I've myself raised the issue, and Bill has just said that we had still some time to decide what to do and how to do it, and you decide by yourself to send some proposals ? Can we have a clue on the way you chose the proposals you sent ? You've sent 7 of them: > > > > > > > > Why those and not others ? Some of these 7 documents have already been sent by their proponents. I don't even know whether all the proponents wanted to have their proposals forwarded to the IGF: some have sent them to this list for discussion by members of this caucus, how did you make sure that the versions you sent were the right, final ones ? how did you make sure that all proposals you sent were still valid ? Parminder's proposal () has been sent to the plenary with a call for support. one can reasonably assume this was on the purpose of sending the proposal with a list of supporting organizations, so that it gains more attention. The text has been sent by you without any support. Etc. I'm sorry to say this, but it seems that someone has to. The least minimum would have been to send a clear message to the list saying : "I'll send this list of proposal to the IGF on that day. Please react before this deadline if you don't agree". I think, whatever we decide (prioritizing or not, this is not the main point now), we need at least minimal coordination on this list. And we need coordinators, unless I've missed something and the governance caucus has decided on nominating coordinators. In this case, could someone please brief me on who are the coordinators ? Otherwise, the last proposal I can find is Milton's proposal on March 6: "I suggest that we conscript Avri Doria and Meryem Merzouki (or, if she declines, Bill Drake) as co-coordinators for the next year and charge them with facilitating the creation of a structure." Then I declined (one caucus is enough:)). Then Jovan was also proposed. Then we jumped in a discussion on the right to development (which I would be pleased to pursue:)). Then themes proposals. Then some complex process has been started to organize CS for the MAG... And, unless I'm wrong, we don't have any coordinator yet! Can Avri, Bill and Jovan tell us if they would be ready to act as coordinators ? If they're not, can anyone else propose her/himself ? Thanks in advance, Best, Meryem _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sat Apr 1 18:30:15 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 18:30:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Need for coordinators - Re: Public policy issues to be discussed at the first meeting of the IGF In-Reply-To: <7E4E7279-9DDC-43DD-8BEC-F2A6B5B85372@ras.eu.org> References: <442DB865.5070300@lists.privaterra.org> <7E4E7279-9DDC-43DD-8BEC-F2A6B5B85372@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <442F0D07.8080804@lists.privaterra.org> Meryem: All I offered to do in a completely volunteer fashion was to encourage a discussion to issue of themes. I collated the documents and , as i mention in my email, forwarded submissions that did explicitly mention they were being sent directly. The documents were sent in the name of the original authors. My intentions were honest. My goal, a humble one was to encourage people to stay focused on themes and try to compile what was submitted. Not an easy task, but someone had to do it. No one volunteered, and I offered to do the thankless job. Perhaps you would have preferred to do it yourself. But you didn't, neither than anyone else. The key players from the past, seem to have made the strategic decision to instead invest time, energy and efforts on the IGF advisory board.. Why did that happen? well, would be good to know. As for who should co-ordinate efforts on this list. You mention a few names, which is fine. Others may have a different opinion. Now if an election process is justified to name the governance caucus nominees to the IGF advisory board then surely, a process is called for to select coordinators of the governance caucus itself. Regards, Robert Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Le 1 avr. 06 à 01:16, Robert Guerra a écrit : > >> Dear colleagues: >> >> For the record, I wanted to the members of this list know that Ihave >> just sent a collection of documents to the IGF secretariat. >> >> Sent just before 23:55 Geneva Time, the documents are the submissions >> which I had some doubt weather they had been submitted directly >> already. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Sat Apr 1 20:20:56 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 17:20:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Need for coordinators - Re: Public policy issues to be discussed at the first meeting of the IGF In-Reply-To: <442F0D07.8080804@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <20060402012056.96498.qmail@web54709.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Robert, You deserve our thanks, indeed, for having stimulated our reaction in drafting the theme proposals, and tried to collect them. Unfortunately, we hadn't heard from you several days before March 31, and there were other proposals that came in after the last day you apparently stopped collecting them (e.g. I made a second proposal), and other suggestions were also made. For example, if you read just the 3 emails that preceded yours last Friday (31st), including the one Bill posted about his communication with the IGF Secretariat with regard to the submission, you wouldn't certainly have sent out the proposals you collected as they were. Now that any submission is normally overdue, but based on the latest information from the secretariat, and considering we agreed not to proritize and send just 3 themes, I can only think of a single posting of a cluster of themes/files on behalf of the Caucus (if the causus is still willing to supplement the first batch sent out by Robert). Could Bill take care of this? Mawaki --- Robert Guerra wrote: > Meryem: > > All I offered to do in a completely volunteer fashion was to > encourage a > discussion to issue of themes. I collated the documents and , as i > mention in my email, forwarded submissions that did explicitly > mention > they were being sent directly. > > The documents were sent in the name of the original authors. > > My intentions were honest. My goal, a humble one was to encourage > people > to stay focused on themes and try to compile what was submitted. > Not an > easy task, but someone had to do it. No one volunteered, and I > offered > to do the thankless job. > > Perhaps you would have preferred to do it yourself. But you didn't, > neither than anyone else. The key players from the past, seem to > have > made the strategic decision to instead invest time, energy and > efforts > on the IGF advisory board.. Why did that happen? well, would be > good to > know. > > As for who should co-ordinate efforts on this list. You mention a > few > names, which is fine. Others may have a different opinion. > > Now if an election process is justified to name the governance > caucus > nominees to the IGF advisory board then surely, a process is called > for > to select coordinators of the governance caucus itself. > > Regards, > > > Robert > > > > > > > Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > Le 1 avr. 06 à 01:16, Robert Guerra a écrit : > > > >> Dear colleagues: > >> > >> For the record, I wanted to the members of this list know that > Ihave > >> just sent a collection of documents to the IGF secretariat. > >> > >> Sent just before 23:55 Geneva Time, the documents are the > submissions > >> which I had some doubt weather they had been submitted directly > > >> already. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From cnd at knowprose.com Sat Apr 1 23:33:49 2006 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 00:33:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top Policy Issues forAthens In-Reply-To: <442F32DA.5EB7331F@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> References: <442C6EC6.4090802@ipjustice.org> <442DA65C.5070704@knowprose.com> <442F32DA.5EB7331F@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <442F542D.3020103@knowprose.com> Of course, Don didn't say which side of the fence he considered himself. Seth Johnson wrote: > See this post by Don Marti from another list . . . > > :-) > > > Seth > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: DRM-incompatible licenses > Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 13:51:44 -0800 > From: Don Marti > To: fsb at crynwr.com > > > Anti-DRMer: DRM is harmful. For example, (any DRM > system that has ever existed)... > > DRMer: Well, yes, that DRM is harmful, but > MY definition of DRM is Fantasy DRM that is > compatible with all devices, allows Fair Use, > painlessly foils all pirates even the nautical kind, > gives all musicians a million dollars and a batch > of fresh-baked blueberry muffins every morning, > and anyone who doesn't run it gets their herpes > test results posted to the front page of digg.com. > HOW CAN YOU BE AGAINST ALL DRM!?!?! > > -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago cnd at knowprose.com Looking for contracts/work! http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786 New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Sat Apr 1 23:46:24 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 14:46:24 +1000 Subject: [governance] Preliminary Nomcom results Message-ID: Hi, The seeds from 1 April are in, - Irish national Lottery http://www.lotto.ie/ 12 15 16 34 39 40 - UK national lottery http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/ 9 17 18 21 23 39 - US Powerball http://www.powerball.com 1 10 23 50 55 and I have run the randomization program for the top 6 choices: (for the geeks among you who read the RFC) Key is: 12.15.16.34.39.40./9.17.18.21.23.39./1.10.23.50.55./ index hex value of MD5 div selected 1 AD7396D323A2984ADED1D463AF747240 34 -> 23 <- 2 CE78E7A09C53C022D480F7D150796F40 33 -> 34 <- 3 9F7A0825C121C9167B265ED4CBEB4FB0 32 -> 17 <- 4 DB12EFEFB577869C39828F9FE4D7C3C1 31 -> 33 <- 5 DC154A207C656DDC5D448760D662883C 30 -> 18 <- 6 C3FC1C277F1505FE181ADACE7A0E9F32 29 -> 1 <- Hence, the members of the Nomcom appear to be: Magaly Pazello Rainer Kuhlen Bret Faucett Karen Banks Richard Draves with Danny Butt the winner of the bottle of wine. I will be getting on a plane soon and won't be back on line until tomorrow. If anyone wishes to rerun the program to confirm my results, I would be glad of it. (note: i think a reproducible result which is not reproduced lacks something) If no one disputes the result as of tomorrow (AnyTZ), I will start the nomcom and we can start the (self) nomination process. I will set up a mailing list etc by then. --- I have not written anything on criteria yet, but my suggestion for a goal: - CS participants - At least 2 from each of the 5 regions with gender balance - 5 additional to balance for skill/knowledge set, age, disability - Additionally I propose that anyone can nominate, including members of the nomcom. At a minimum, I recommend that all nominations and self nominations consist of the following: - Name - Nationality - Country of Residence - Gender - Short Bio relevant to IG - Why the (self)nominee is a good choice for the MAG Again, thanks for all who volunteered. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From cnd at knowprose.com Sat Apr 1 23:47:14 2006 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 00:47:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top Policy Issues forAthens In-Reply-To: <442F3917.4B558CBE@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> References: <442C6EC6.4090802@ipjustice.org> <442DA65C.5070704@knowprose.com> <442E5DDB.8010108@mdpi.net> <442EAC25.1040101@knowprose.com> <442F3917.4B558CBE@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <442F5752.1000806@knowprose.com> Seth Johnson wrote: > I would oppose anything that speaks of "managing" "rights." > By using a copyright license on something you create, you are effectively managing your rights as a creator. The extra step of imposing 'copyright protections' is also managing rights. How rights are managed is different. You could hire a horde of lawyers, or you could try to keep people from copying your stuff. You could stick a dongle in a port, you could use software keys... and yes, all of these can, will, and will continue to be bypassed. So they aren't so effective. The problem I have with the GPL draft at this point is that it will give creators less options. And to be frank, 30 years ago software isn't the issue that it is now. What will fall under copyright under the next 30 years? Does everyone really think that the human race has nothing beyond software, writing, music/podcasts and movies to create? I think you oppose someone else managing your rights. That's different. As a user, I don't like people forcing me to use their creation in a certain way. I don't like DVD players that I buy from people who import from the Far East not being able to play the movies that I buy from the people who import from other parts of the world. To bypass that, there are plenty of video stores in Trinidad and Tobago with ripped DVDs. They aren't paying the creators. DRM backfired. Kaboom. That doesn't work. But with such a small market anyway, multinational corporations don't really care too much. So I exercise choice. As Gandhi said, freedom means nothing if it doesn't mean the freedom to make mistakes. I doubt that some caveman studied science to create fire - the fire appeared, more than likely, and man eventually figured out how to start one. A software license that forces different licensing of content is not something I believe is sensible, in fact, it's counterproductive. This isn't just about software anymore with the present GPL v3 Draft. This becomes an issue with content, business processes and so on. Let's talk about the digital rights related to trade secrets. That would be an interesting topic which might shed some light on things. -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago cnd at knowprose.com Looking for contracts/work! http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786 New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From cnd at knowprose.com Sun Apr 2 00:12:15 2006 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 01:12:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top Policy Issues for Athens In-Reply-To: References: <442C6EC6.4090802@ipjustice.org> <442DA65C.5070704@knowprose.com> Message-ID: <442F5D2F.40104@knowprose.com> Richard Stallman wrote: > Isn't the problem then with the German Law rather than the document? > > That is a strange assumption, that it has to be one or the other. > I tend to agree. But the way it was presented, it seemed like the only option that was presented was one - and not the other. > The newly proposed German law is bad, and the document is flawed > because it doesn't oppose such proposals. > > I think it's dangerous to dismiss DRM the concept. > > We should not dismiss it, we should oppose it. > Well, you can oppose it. I believe content creators shouldn't be hamstrung in competing in a global market. DRM as we are discussing it is a poor way to manage things. DRM as a concept is something different; what the problem is remains the implementation. > The implementations > are where I have problems. > > Many implementations have secondary problems of various kinds, and the > document is flawed because it criticized only these secondary > problems, without condemning the thing that is basically wrong in DRM: > that it uses your computer to restrict you. > Let's do something novel. Let's eliminate the computer, the hardware and software - and talk about what digital rights are associated with copyright and patents. A book/magazine was effective DRM when (1) most people were not literate, (2) Gutenberg wasn't around yet, and (3) photocopiers didn't exist (pre-Edison). Once literacy became more widespread (note the term computer literacy), and then the printing press allowed people to mass copy, more people began to read. When more people could read, people figured out that they could sell copies and make some money (proprietary software). Oddly enough, the Royal Society was the first recorded organization I have found in history that basically said that human knowledge should be accessible to everyone... but then Newton started censoring from his position as he was censored before. As a sidenote, the fact that Leibniz and Newton came up with calculus independently is an interesting point that I have yet to hear used with patents. At all points, creators somehow eeked out a living. Be they monks locked in rooms transcribing while their friends were getting sick with 'almost blue cheese...', or as writers who printed things on a Gutenberg press (or derivative) and sold to cover their costs, or even today where they get money for writing books through royalties. Royalties. Wait a minute. That's how people make money. Royalties. It's also how they get screwed, but that's another issue.... still, creators somehow get paid. Some get paid too much, some get paid too little. Most never get paid their worth, for better or worse. But what is their worth? Back to digital rights. Now we can burn CDs, burn DVDs, record magnetic media, store information on flash drives... now, the *cost* should go down for electronic works (and it hasn't!) since there's less material involved. With a larger market, less money per user should pay for more than it does now. DRM in it's present implementation benefits publishers, not creators. Creators sell their rights so that they can pay bills and buy other content. Maybe it's inflated (I think it is). But at the end of the day, creators get paid. The problem of the Sonny Bono Act and other issues really seems to be the problem. And then there's the issue of privacy. How can the GPL support encryption and not DRM? They could be seen as two different sides of the same coin. > DRM could have valid implementations - for example, to assure that the > rights of Free Software are maintained. > > That idea is a pipedream, completely impossible. > (You would need magic, not DRM, to achieve that.) > Again, you're thinking of DRM as it is implemented, not as a concept. Please read above. If you require magic beans, perhaps the Enola bean will be an entertaining diversio > However, even if it were possible to do this, it would not justify the > harm that DRM normally does. > Then focus on the harm of implementation instead of the concept of protection of a creator's rights. Next year, they'll call it EIEIO. Will the GPL be rewritten for that, too? -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago cnd at knowprose.com Looking for contracts/work! http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786 New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From cnd at knowprose.com Sun Apr 2 00:15:21 2006 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 01:15:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top Policy Issues for Athens In-Reply-To: <20060402043432.GA5475@mundula.cs.mu.OZ.AU> References: <442C6EC6.4090802@ipjustice.org> <442DA65C.5070704@knowprose.com> <442E5DDB.8010108@mdpi.net> <442EAC25.1040101@knowprose.com> <20060402043432.GA5475@mundula.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Message-ID: <442F5DE9.5050000@knowprose.com> Peter Eckersley wrote: > On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 12:36:53PM -0400, Taran Rampersad wrote: > > >> Again, people are stuck on sour oranges. The GPL itself could be called >> DRM. >> > > Taran, > > you will be excused for trolling on April Fools' Day, but no other day of the > year. > > If you say that creators have no rights over what they create, I suppose that could be seen as trolling. Is that your contention? -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago cnd at knowprose.com Looking for contracts/work! http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786 New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From cnd at knowprose.com Sun Apr 2 00:34:50 2006 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 01:34:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top PolicyIssues forAthens In-Reply-To: <442F5D64.82E12E3@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> References: <442C6EC6.4090802@ipjustice.org> <442DA65C.5070704@knowprose.com> <442E5DDB.8010108@mdpi.net> <442EAC25.1040101@knowprose.com> <442F3917.4B558CBE@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <442F5752.1000806@knowprose.com> <442F5D64.82E12E3@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <442F627A.40103@knowprose.com> Seth Johnson wrote: > Right. I oppose someone using exclusive rights in a manner that > attacks anybody else's fundamental rights. > > Let's start from brass tacks -- or at least, what appears to be > such for you: > > What on god's green earth do you mean by "digital rights?" > I think of it as blue, but let's continue. > I have never, ever heard of such a thing, and the concept frankly > freaks me out, if I understand it right. > Rights which are related to digital things. The creator's rights and the user's rights. The problem is that they are imbalanced right now, I think that we can all agree. Yet we cannot deny that the creator has rights, and we cannot deny that the user has rights. There is a contract between the creator or user, with the exception of public domain (which is that thing dwindling off in the distance, a little past Sonny Bono...). It used to be physical handshakes, now it's electronic handshakes. > Now, this is one of the things I knew were being packed into the > phrase "digital rights management" -- it could be parsed as > either "rights management" that is "digital" or as "management" > of "digital rights." > Exactly. It was phrased that way to make it nice, friendly and something people wouldn't complain too much about because they think - they believe - that the present implementation defends the user's rights. Perception is a powerful thing. The phrase is not broken out by either side - the people who are for or against. What really are the Digital Rights of people? Of creators? Of users? What is a digital signature? That's much easier, and sheds some light on things. Signature is not confusing to people. 'Rights' is because not only does the average person stutter when questioned what their rights are, they also tend to think of rights as centered around themselves. When I think of digital rights, I think of my rights in a digital world. > You represent the first empirical instance I have encountered of > someone who actually expressed a belief in such a thing. > Sad, I think. I haven't either. > Let me note: The concept of "digital rights" exists NOWHERE > except in this idiotic phrase that you seem to think needs to be > coddled and respected. > LOL. I didn't say it had to be coddled, respected or even watered. But it certainly needs to be understood, and the reason that I've brought it up is because I believe that people do have rights, we are having discussions on the digital world, and also because like any other thing it could be used sensibly or not. So instead of attacking this from a technical center, let's toss in human rights to the mix. Not just copyright and patent and software. Rights. The right to be treated equally. The right to be allowed to use what you have as you wish, as long as it doesn't adversely affect others. So on, so forth. > So, go ahead: tell me what a "digital right" is, and try to make > it palatable, okay? > I tried. I'll keep trying. At the end of the day, we use 'free' for Free Software even though the word has been and continues to be abused by marketers ('free of what? Lice?'). but we're willing to toss a phrase on the bonfire because it's ambiguous. Meanwhile, 'Open Source' has become about as ambiguous. -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago cnd at knowprose.com Looking for contracts/work! http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786 New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From cnd at knowprose.com Sun Apr 2 04:12:13 2006 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 04:12:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top PolicyIssuesforAthens In-Reply-To: <442F6D16.28521071@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> References: <442C6EC6.4090802@ipjustice.org> <442DA65C.5070704@knowprose.com> <442E5DDB.8010108@mdpi.net> <442EAC25.1040101@knowprose.com> <442F3917.4B558CBE@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <442F5752.1000806@knowprose.com> <442F5D64.82E12E3@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <442F627A.40103@knowprose.com> <442F6D16.28521071@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <442F875D.1010402@knowprose.com> There are links within that demonstrate that the phrase 'digital rights' is not something that are read only one way. Seth Johnson wrote: >>> >> Rights which are related to digital things. The creator's rights and the >> user's rights. The problem is that they are imbalanced right now, I >> think that we can all agree. Yet we cannot deny that the creator has >> rights, and we cannot deny that the user has rights. There is a contract >> between the creator or user, with the exception of public domain (which >> is that thing dwindling off in the distance, a little past Sonny >> Bono...). It used to be physical handshakes, now it's electronic >> handshakes. >> > > > There are no rights related to digital things. > Then why are there software licenses in the first place? Clearly, proprietary licenses work - in my opinion solely -in the interest of a copyright holder's rights. And FLOS licenses try to allow for more rights with the user. Some people call these 'rights' 'freedoms', as in the GPL. > Copyright is not a contract between authors and the recipients of > their works. > The use of copyrighted works is a contract. So I was unclear. I'm sorry. >>> Now, this is one of the things I knew were being packed into the >>> phrase "digital rights management" -- it could be parsed as >>> either "rights management" that is "digital" or as "management" >>> of "digital rights." >>> >>> >> Exactly. It was phrased that way to make it nice, friendly and something >> people wouldn't complain too much about because they think - they >> believe - that the present implementation defends the user's rights. >> > > > Hardly anyone thinks that. They mostly think that the "rights" > being "managed" are the author's. Only the author doesn't > actually have the rights that "digital rights management" tries > to give them. > Well, there's the author and there's the person who owns the copyright. The creator isn't necessarily the person or entity who owns the copyright. > And you're avoiding the point. People aren't stupid enough when > they read the phrase "digital rights management" to think they > have "digital rights" -- they mostly have incorrect notions of > the "rights" they have as authors; they don't think they have > "digital rights" because they think either statutory or other > kinds of "rights" in themselves apply in the first place -- they > think that "digital rights management" lets them "manage" their > "rights" in the "digital" domain; they don't jump to the > conclusion that they have something called "digital rights" just > as a matter of reading comprehension. > Umm. I think you misunderstood, or I was not clear. I didn't say that people would think that they do have rights because of all of that. ********And honestly, everyone is sidestepping the main point that started this: Next year, people who advocate DRM may be calling it Bob. Attacking DRM in a software license might work next year, but shall we draft everything all over again when they call it Bob? Labeling it DRM and forgetting about it won't work. It will be back. It's got a nice tag now for what is undoubtedly > You're the first one I've found to try to argue for "digital > rights" per se on no other basis than the existence of this > neologism. > I didn't create a new word, and I certainly didn't create the phrase. And I'm not arguing for or against it. I'm saying that it could exist. In some ways, it does exist. However, the phrase can be interpreted many ways. What I have been trying to point out is exactly that. 'Free Software' is much the same. Some people think that it means no cost, some don't. Not everyone understands the difference. >> Perception is a powerful thing. The phrase is not broken out by either >> side - the people who are for or against. What really are the Digital >> Rights of people? Of creators? Of users? >> > > > There are no valid "digital rights." So, people don't deserve to be treated equally on the internet? What about security? The ability to discuss things openly without being persecuted? The right to freedom of speech? All within a subset of computers, this could be seen as 'digital rights'. What is digital activism? What is the Digital Divide? Why not Digital Rights? Or would people be more comfortable with Digital Freedoms? Come to think of it, they might call what is being implemented as DRM as Digital Freedom Management next year after DRM is clad in the GPL v3. And then people will say, "wow, we never saw that coming!" > Describe a "digital right" > -- in particular, describe how "digital rights" would work under > copyright. > Why does it have to be just copyright for you? Why can't digital rights be 'freedoms'? I'm not telling you what digital rights are And bear in mind, that the context of the original discussion was related to the GPL v3 as related to the Internet Governance Forum, which certainly has a broader context than the tendril of this discussion about a 'basis of neologism'. >> What is a digital signature? That's much easier, and sheds some light on >> things. Signature is not confusing to people. 'Rights' is because not >> only does the average person stutter when questioned what their rights >> are, they also tend to think of rights as centered around themselves. >> >> When I think of digital rights, I think of my rights in a digital world. >> >>> You represent the first empirical instance I have encountered of >>> someone who actually expressed a belief in such a thing. >>> Maybe not. I decided to Google http://www.digitalrights.dk/ http://ukcdr.org/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4617176.stm http://www.digitalrights.ie/ http://www.digital-rights.net/ There's 5. If you really decide to look, you'll find that the phrase 'digital rights' shows up a lot and has different meanings to different people. > > > No. Simply cease encouraging people to confuse these areas, > using terms that are explicitly designed to get people to confuse > these areas. > I didn't start the fire, Seth. I'm just telling everyone that there is a fire. >> The right to be treated >> equally. The right to be allowed to use what you have as you wish, as >> long as it doesn't adversely affect others. So on, so forth. >> > > > I can use copyrighted works in ways that might be disadvantageous > to the author. The author only has a few rights. None of them > "digital rights." > Oh, enough about copyright already. Copyright isn't the only part of this, as the links should demonstrate to you. > > >>> So, go ahead: tell me what a "digital right" is, and try to make >>> it palatable, okay? >>> >>> >> I tried. >> > > > No you didn't. You haven't described a "digital right." > Actually, I did. I suppose the links will help you understand better, and perhaps understanding the context related to IGF might help as well. Civil Society isn't just a bunch of geeks with compilers and software licenses. > > >> I'll keep trying. >> > > > Please do. > >> At the end of the day, we use 'free' for Free >> Software even though the word has been and continues to be abused by >> marketers ('free of what? Lice?'). but we're willing to toss a phrase on >> the bonfire because it's ambiguous. Meanwhile, 'Open Source' has become >> about as ambiguous. >> > > > "Free software" has only had one ambiguity, under the English > vernacular, for the unacquainted. "Open Source" started out > ambiguous in innumerable ways, and is not necessarily any more > ambiguous now than it was from the beginning. > > That's an opinion, just like mine that you're refuting. We'll go nowhere down that path. Check those links and consider the larger context. People don't always think like we do. It would have been a lot easier for me to not have even started this discussion, and le everything slide, but here I am... saying that not everyone sees the world the same, uses words in the same way, or uses phrases in the same way. English doesn't have standards, or an agency that looks after the language ('The Language Instinct', Stephen Pinker). The French have that beaten. On a global level, there are different cultures, different ways of looking at things, and if we really want stuff to work outside of a context of a relatively small subset of the planet's population, we should describe what we are against instead of what it is called. A simple thing like, "any software that infringes the rights of the user, or forces them to use a computer in *insert manner here*" says a lot more than a clause on DRM. Sure, the WTO might have TRIPs agreements with everyone, but that doesn't mean that all laws and word definitions are the same. For example, by the copyright act in Trinidad and Tobago, a database is copyright the owner. Thus DRM as implemented could have very nasty implications for users... and this is just one country. While, in the context of copyright (where this conversation has been fixated, though it is a larger topic) DRM has become a catchprase for something people love or hate, 'Digital Rights' is something a lot of nations could be said to be working toward. And that's not even the point that I started off with. In a software license, just calling it DRM means next year when they call it Bob or Sally, it will no longer cover what it is that the GPLv3 doesn't want to support. So why not define exactly what it is about DRM's implementation that the GPLv3 will not support and be done with it? And, in a broader context, many people are working on things that could be considered 'digital rights', even within the U.S. itself. Not everyone has access to a computer. Not everyone has access to the internet. And perhaps because they don't have these things, you don't hear about them... in my circles, I do. -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago cnd at knowprose.com Looking for contracts/work! http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786 New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From cnd at knowprose.com Sun Apr 2 04:53:33 2006 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 04:53:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top Policy Issues for Athens In-Reply-To: <20060402070009.GA8497@mundula.cs.mu.OZ.AU> References: <442C6EC6.4090802@ipjustice.org> <442DA65C.5070704@knowprose.com> <442E5DDB.8010108@mdpi.net> <442EAC25.1040101@knowprose.com> <20060402043432.GA5475@mundula.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <442F5DE9.5050000@knowprose.com> <20060402070009.GA8497@mundula.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Message-ID: <442F910D.8090808@knowprose.com> Peter Eckersley wrote: > On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 01:15:21AM -0400, Taran Rampersad wrote: > > >> If you say that creators have no rights over what they create, I suppose >> that could be seen as trolling. Is that your contention? >> > > I can't deny that they have legal rights. > > I do deny that that the exclusive right of reproduction (or the de facto > exclusive right of access) is a moral right, a natural right, a human right, > etc. It's a legalised monopoly, and in digital environments it's dubious > policy. > > I agree with you in the context of what is being implemented under the name 'DRM'; there's no simple panacea. I'm the person who doesn't understand why I can buy firewood and nail it together in the form of a house I would be charged with arson. As long as nobody else is hurt, and nobody else's property is damaged, I should be able to do what I wish. Not everything falls into neat piles when it comes to creating things. Morally speaking, I make my work as free as possible. Personally, I know I will never use means of infringing people's rights so that I get what I 'think I'm owed'; I'll leave that to the BSA, RIAA and MPAA. But I'm also leery of all of this talk about how someone can assure that they make a living - not rip people off. We're moving from a period where the publishing industries (paper, media) had control over things to a time where creators have more of a direct relationship with the users of data. And they do have to eat. It's only now being tested. Like so many things, the people who tend to take polar opinions already have their bread buttered, and the people who don't are the ones who want butter . The answer certainly isn't 'DRM' as the corporations have them. What advocates of the implementation of 'DRM' say is not completely wrong, in that people do need to be compensated. If society is honest and inherently good, that shouldn't be an issue. The draconian measures that irk me aren't something a starving poet or artist would dream up. Creating for the joy of creation is fine, but if a child of yours said that they wanted to be a musician, wouldn't you be concerned about how the child would make a living? Or would you hope it was an April Fool's joke? I don't know. What I do know is that nobody has really addressed all manner of creators being compensated because 'all manner' isn't defined yet, and will never be defined because people are always innovating. Then, too, there's what society is willing to support. And then, there's the issue of public domain which has been slowed in growth... if anything, I think that's a bigger threat than any form of copy protection (because that's what DRM in it's present implementation really is, or is evolved from). Society needs poets, musicians, and other forms of creators. What we have to find are models which allow them - not the middle men - to continue to survive. Before I pull out the carpet, I'd like to know that there is a floor that works for creators around the world. -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago cnd at knowprose.com Looking for contracts/work! http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786 New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Sun Apr 2 06:32:48 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 12:32:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Need for coordinators => process going forward In-Reply-To: <20060402012056.96498.qmail@web54709.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi, Maybe my morning coffee hasn't kicked in enough yet, but the dialogue and the process over the past few days seems confused. Let me try to reconstruct. Sorry, long message. *On Friday I asked what's going on, we didn't have a complete compilation of finalized proposals, there'd been no discussion about how these should be framed in relation to the caucus and its priorities, etc. As the presumed deadline was fast approaching, I talked to the secretariat, was told we had time, and wrote to the list saying ok can we please now sort things out, reach a clear understanding amongst ourselves, and send a complete and final set early next week. => *Nevertheless, eight hours later, Robert went ahead and sent the secretariat eight of the proposals with some reformatting (I'll have to fix mine). => *Meryem objected to this being done before there was discussion within the caucus to determine the terms of submission and that all proposals were finalized and included. => *Robert replied that his intentions were honest and his goal was humble. => *Mawaki replied echoing Meryem's concerns and proposing that we resubmit as a caucus, preferably with three themes prioritized. A few thoughts: First, as a general matter, we cannot build consensus and function as a group if people don't: a. Directly respond to the specific points and concerns being raised by others, rather than ignoring them or offering nonsequitur replies; b. Keep track of where the dialogue is, who has argued for what, what the overall blend seems to be with what exceptions/minority positions, and report these points back to the list so people can appraise and suggest next steps; c. Keep track of external deadlines and make sure there's a calibrated schedule for all steps leading up to them; d. Draft and circulate for discussion and agreement, in a timely manner, the necessary substantive and procedural texts; e. Refrain from impromptu actions that pre-empt further collaboration. These points are not so much intended as criticism of anyone, but rather as 'lessons learned' we should consider adhering to going forward. In fact, we have in the past. If one looks back at how various caucus texts were drafted and finalized, e.g. the caucus inputs to the two CS summit declarations, the response to the WGIG report, etc, these things usually were done. In a few cases where we were on site at prepcoms and interventions had to be formulated in response to the governments' immediate discussions and circulated very quickly, we did have people take exception to this or that point made, but usually this was a problem of time lags and the disjuncture between on site and off site in other time zones. Similarly, while I admit that I at one point misunderstood part of the process, having looked post hoc at the thread related to the nomcom, this too has been a model of clarity by comparison. Avri set clear procedures and time frames, said what she would and would not do when, and all was adhered to. Second, in this particular case, it would seem we may want some course correction. a. The eight proposal that were sent in do not indicate that they have any relationship whatsoever to the caucus, nor are any other endorsements mentioned. On the one hand, this raises the question of why did we bother submitting and discussing them here, people could have sent their inputs directly to the secretariat earlier without waiting on a caucus process. On the other hand, it undercuts what I thought was a shared objective, which was to keep the caucus name brand and have governments and other stakeholders believe we are still organized and doing things that as a legitimate and noteworthy collective player. b. As Meryem and Mawaki note, some proposals made in the past days were not included in the submission, or may not have been finalized. c. Mawaki suggests we need to prioritize and submit a top three. Others have said we should not try this. I suggested Friday that if we don't prioritize and just send it ten or whatever, there at least ought to be a note to the secretariat or disclaimer on the submissions (whether separate or in one file) about why we are sending what we have. It's not clear that to me that any consensus has been reached on what to do here. Mawaki asks whether I could take care of this. Obviously not, anything we do has to be agreed and have buy in, no one person can make decisions for everyone else. Again, we have a few days. Chengetai said if we send the secretariat material by COB Tuesday Geneve it will be ok. So could we have some discussion now and do this right? 1. Let's make sure we have all the proposals in their final form. If someone has something that was not included in the bloc of eight sent, please resend it to the list? 2. Do we want to try to prioritize or just send them all? Personally, I have concerns that some of the topics proposed, while vitally important generally, are not really IG subjects, or have a loose link to IG. Others, most notably the authors, will disagree. I also think that in many cases there's absolute zero chance that they'd be accepted as plenary topics, which raises tactical questions concerning trade-offs and whether it looks like CS has any shared preferences regarding topics the powers that be will consider plausible. 3. Relatedly, the proposals generally do not indicate whether they are suggestions for plenary sessions or smaller break-out sessions; I think only mine does. In some cases, saying this is an idea for a break-out might increase the chances of a positive reception... 4. Again, how do we want to frame what's sent: a) individual submissions, with no relation to the caucus; b) 'proposal from members of the IGC;' or c) 'proposals from the IGC'? The second is a reasonable fudge, but if we're sending them all rather than making choices, why fudge when we could just say in a disclaimer that the caucus is serving in this case as a conduit. 5. If we did options 4b or 4c, would it make sense to submit a single file or ten separate ones with a standardized header and disclaimer? Finally (!), regarding Meryem's need for coordinators point, this is pretty obvious, but I would suggest that with limited time and bandwidth we not launch that thread now and first try to get a coherent process in place to send thematic submissions by Tuesday. Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango > Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 3:21 AM > To: Robert Guerra; Meryem Marzouki > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Need for coordinators - Re: Public policy > issues to be discussed at the first meeting of the IGF > > > Dear Robert, > > You deserve our thanks, indeed, for having stimulated our reaction in > drafting the theme proposals, and tried to collect them. > Unfortunately, we hadn't heard from you several days before March 31, > and there were other proposals that came in after the last day you > apparently stopped collecting them (e.g. I made a second proposal), > and other suggestions were also made. For example, if you read just > the 3 emails that preceded yours last Friday (31st), including the > one Bill posted about his communication with the IGF Secretariat with > regard to the submission, you wouldn't certainly have sent out the > proposals you collected as they were. > > Now that any submission is normally overdue, but based on the latest > information from the secretariat, and considering we agreed not to > proritize and send just 3 themes, I can only think of a single > posting of a cluster of themes/files on behalf of the Caucus (if the > causus is still willing to supplement the first batch sent out by > Robert). > > Could Bill take care of this? > > Mawaki > > > --- Robert Guerra wrote: > > > Meryem: > > > > All I offered to do in a completely volunteer fashion was to > > encourage a > > discussion to issue of themes. I collated the documents and , as i > > mention in my email, forwarded submissions that did explicitly > > mention > > they were being sent directly. > > > > The documents were sent in the name of the original authors. > > > > My intentions were honest. My goal, a humble one was to encourage > > people > > to stay focused on themes and try to compile what was submitted. > > Not an > > easy task, but someone had to do it. No one volunteered, and I > > offered > > to do the thankless job. > > > > Perhaps you would have preferred to do it yourself. But you didn't, > > neither than anyone else. The key players from the past, seem to > > have > > made the strategic decision to instead invest time, energy and > > efforts > > on the IGF advisory board.. Why did that happen? well, would be > > good to > > know. > > > > As for who should co-ordinate efforts on this list. You mention a > > few > > names, which is fine. Others may have a different opinion. > > > > Now if an election process is justified to name the governance > > caucus > > nominees to the IGF advisory board then surely, a process is called > > for > > to select coordinators of the governance caucus itself. > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Robert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > > Le 1 avr. 06 à 01:16, Robert Guerra a écrit : > > > > > >> Dear colleagues: > > >> > > >> For the record, I wanted to the members of this list know that > > Ihave > > >> just sent a collection of documents to the IGF secretariat. > > >> > > >> Sent just before 23:55 Geneva Time, the documents are the > > submissions > > >> which I had some doubt weather they had been submitted directly > > > > >> already. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.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 peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Sun Apr 2 06:52:48 2006 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 12:52:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top Policy Issues for Athens In-Reply-To: <442F910D.8090808@knowprose.com> References: <442C6EC6.4090802@ipjustice.org> <442DA65C.5070704@knowprose.com> <442E5DDB.8010108@mdpi.net> <442EAC25.1040101@knowprose.com> <20060402043432.GA5475@mundula.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <442F5DE9.5050000@knowprose.com> <20060402070009.GA8497@mundula.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <442F910D.8090808@knowprose.com> Message-ID: <442FAD00.2060405@echnaton.serveftp.com> Taran Rampersad wrote: > Peter Eckersley wrote: > >>On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 01:15:21AM -0400, Taran Rampersad wrote: >> >> >> >>>If you say that creators have no rights over what they create, I suppose >>>that could be seen as trolling. Is that your contention? >>> >> >>I can't deny that they have legal rights. >> >>I do deny that that the exclusive right of reproduction (or the de facto >>exclusive right of access) is a moral right, a natural right, a human right, >>etc. It's a legalised monopoly, and in digital environments it's dubious >>policy. >> >> > > I agree with you in the context of what is being implemented under the > name 'DRM'; there's no simple panacea. I'm the person who doesn't > understand why I can buy firewood and nail it together in the form of a > house I would be charged with arson. As long as nobody else is hurt, and > nobody else's property is damaged, I should be able to do what I wish. > > Not everything falls into neat piles when it comes to creating things. > Morally speaking, I make my work as free as possible. Personally, I know > I will never use means of infringing people's rights so that I get what > I 'think I'm owed'; I'll leave that to the BSA, RIAA and MPAA. But I'm > also leery of all of this talk about how someone can assure that they > make a living - not rip people off. We're moving from a period where the > publishing industries (paper, media) had control over things to a time > where creators have more of a direct relationship with the users of > data. And they do have to eat. It's only now being tested. I dont want BSA, RIAA and MPAA to earn money from what I am doing. They dont give me a penny but they earn money from my work and at the same time they take money from me for every copy of my own work - wether I store it on paper or data. I have seen that same nonsense with "VGWORT" here in germany. They claim to support starving writers but they dont give us a penny untill we start publishing books. Then they come and take taxes. But they always find an excuse for not paying you when you really need it. For me BSA, RIAA and MPAA is just a bunch of gangsters killing art by stopping it from spreading and by fostering a bunch of willing idiots. > > Like so many things, the people who tend to take polar opinions already > have their bread buttered, and the people who don't are the ones who > want butter . The answer certainly isn't 'DRM' as the corporations have > them. What advocates of the implementation of 'DRM' say is not > completely wrong, in that people do need to be compensated. If society > is honest and inherently good, that shouldn't be an issue. The draconian > measures that irk me aren't something a starving poet or artist would > dream up. Creating for the joy of creation is fine, but if a child of > yours said that they wanted to be a musician, wouldn't you be concerned > about how the child would make a living? Or would you hope it was an > April Fool's joke? DRM is completely wrong. I prevents children from recording their own, selfmade musik. It forces them to listen to some garbadge some grownups deem good for them. It extinguishes their creativety. But it will never feed them until they dont need it any longer. > > I don't know. What I do know is that nobody has really addressed all > manner of creators being compensated because 'all manner' isn't defined > yet, and will never be defined because people are always innovating. > Then, too, there's what society is willing to support. And then, there's > the issue of public domain which has been slowed in growth... if > anything, I think that's a bigger threat than any form of copy > protection (because that's what DRM in it's present implementation > really is, or is evolved from). It will never feed creative people because it depends on kilometers of red tape bound by people who never have seen what creativety is or they would not be in the red tape bussiness at all. The only people profiting from DRM are censors and dictators because DRM is perfect for controlling. Creativety is the opposite of beeing controlled. > > Society needs poets, musicians, and other forms of creators. What we > have to find are models which allow them - not the middle men - to > continue to survive. Before I pull out the carpet, I'd like to know that > there is a floor that works for creators around the world. > Creators dont need a red carpet for their bare feet. Bread and butter would serve them. There are other people who are not interested in DRM either but who are more interested in keeping the tax away from their money. They are not creators any longer but they live already from the works others have created for them. DRM cares for the wrong and at the same time is kicking the ass of the real creators. -- Peter and Karin Dambier The Public-Root Consortium Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Sun Apr 2 08:16:40 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 14:16:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality & IG Message-ID: Hi, Aside from being an element of Parminder's 'publicness' theme proposal, there's generally been little discussion on the list of the NN issue. Three Sunday afternoon prompted by news items: According to the Benton Foundation, Bush just signed legislation effectively ending the game in the US by giving network operators what they want www.benton.org/index.php?q=node/1946. The assault on NN could now spread. The ITU's recent Next Generation Network workshop was interesting in this regard. Operators in a number of countries are already switching from legacy circuit switched PSTNs to packet switched IP-based networks capable of delivery all IP-enabled services, including video, and more will follow. They will all want to recoup these investments, capture new markets (or compensate for losses in old ones, e.g. due to VOIP), and presumably seek to provide differentiated QoS. One would think operators in many countries will be emboldened by the US carriers' win to push for the same treatment, arguing inter alia that they have to have the same opportunities as the US firms due to globalization and potential competition to deliver cross-border services. NN might seem to be a topic on which there are not shared or generally applicable international rules in place, aka IG. This may be wrong on at least two counts. First, there's a lot of standards work under way to create the conditions for convergent IP-enabled services and by extension QoS differentiation. Second, the biggest hole in the IG debate has been attention to the fact that in monopolistic or oligopolistic markets, companies may in effect set internationally applicable rules through their daily business practices and strategies without having formally negotiated a shared framework. Major operators with significant market power pursuing symmetric strategies could in effect reshape the net in some respects. And of course, policy coordination could emerge. As with interconnection pricing and developments in the 'security' field, supposedly dusty old telecom operators and institutions could prove more important to IG than some people want to believe. Tim Berners-Lee recently said in an interview that absent NN, "It stops being the Net... It would no longer be an open information space." Maybe we should push for him being a keynoter on this theme in Athens, governments et al. undoubtedly would like some big name speakers... http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1143499812060&call_pageid=968350072197&StarSource=RSS Best, Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake ******************************************************* -------------- 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 ki_chango at yahoo.com Sun Apr 2 10:16:54 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 07:16:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Need for coordinators => process going forward In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060402141654.15831.qmail@web54714.mail.yahoo.com> Hi: Bill, maybe the coffee still has some way to go:), or maybe I just wasn't clear. I meant to say: "...and considering we agreed not to proritize and [NOT to] send just 3 themes," and I'm part of that agreement. Also, I was suggesting that, if the caucus is willing to supplement the subimissions (I've also slightly fixed mines), you may help us coordinate this specific and limited process till Tuesday, just as you've started doing since the call to Chengetai last Friday. Finally, --- William Drake wrote: > > 4. Again, how do we want to frame what's sent: a) individual > submissions, > with no relation to the caucus; b) 'proposal from members of the > IGC;' or c) > 'proposals from the IGC'? The second is a reasonable fudge, but if > we're > sending them all rather than making choices, why fudge when we > could just > say in a disclaimer that the caucus is serving in this case as a > conduit. I would eliminate 4a, so for me either 4b or 4c would be fine, depending what others think. The problem is, as you mentioned, you and probably some others may not agree/think some proposals are relevant to IGF or strategically worth submitting as plenary agenda items, etc. and we probably don't have time to start that discussion. As a consequence, some may feel uncomfortable with 4c. My 2 cents, Mawaki > > 5. If we did options 4b or 4c, would it make sense to submit a > single file > or ten separate ones with a standardized header and disclaimer? > > > Finally (!), regarding Meryem's need for coordinators point, this > is pretty > obvious, but I would suggest that with limited time and bandwidth > we not > launch that thread now and first try to get a coherent process in > place to > send thematic submissions by Tuesday. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Mawaki > Chango > > Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 3:21 AM > > To: Robert Guerra; Meryem Marzouki > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Need for coordinators - Re: Public > policy > > issues to be discussed at the first meeting of the IGF > === message truncated === _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Apr 2 11:26:36 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 11:26:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality & IG Message-ID: Bill, this is too good. You are the victim of an April Fool's joke. Happens to the best of us.... >>> "William Drake" 4/2/2006 8:16:40 AM >>> >According to the Benton Foundation, Bush just signed legislation >effectively ending the game in the US by giving network >operators what they want www.benton.org/index.php?q=node/1946. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Sun Apr 2 11:33:34 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 17:33:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality & IG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 5:27 PM > To: drake at hei.unige.ch; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality & IG > > > Bill, this is too good. You are the victim of an April Fool's > joke. Happens to the best of us.... Doh! Multitasking and totally forgot the date, which doesn't generate much in the way of merriment, or reminders, in Geneva. That said, the rest of what I said still holds, methinks. Homer _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Apr 2 11:36:14 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 11:36:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top Policy Issues for Athens Message-ID: Peter Eckersley wrote: > I can't deny that they have legal rights. Peter: As I understand his argument, Taran Rampersand isn't saying that content creators are asking for a legal monopoly. He's asking you why you consider it inherently immoral or illegitmate for people to build their own (digital) fences around content they create in order to retain some ability to be compensated for it. That's the whole point about DRM. It doesn't have to rely on legally enforced rights. Of course, the DMCA law in the US and other laws take it way too far. But let's discuss the principle at stake. Suppose I write a poem or an article or a piece of research, put it online on a password-protected site and won't let you see it unless you pay me money, whereby I give you a password to access the content. Is that wrong? Forget about DRM for a moment, focus on the princple: Do creators of content have any right to withhold or exclude it in order to gain compensation? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Apr 2 13:39:12 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 13:39:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] FoE rights Message-ID: >>> Meryem Marzouki 4/1/2006 4:45:22 PM >>> >I do apologize. It's not that easy to have a full time job, and >run (many) volunteer activities besides that. I fully understand. I am in the same condition! No need to apologize, just expressing my disappointment that we didn't benefit from your wisdom sooner. Based on your argument below, I am not convinced we are raising the dangers you claim, but it is not too late to modify the theme proposal in the next two days if you have specific changes to propose. Let me explain why I am not convinced. You say that we base our claim on "ethics" and not "rights." This constitutes a misunderstanding of what we are doing, I think. Or maybe we didn't formulate it clearly. We assume that individuals have rights to FoE, and wish to assert those globally by confronting the problem of multinational ISPs who cooperate with states who violate those rights. Recognizing that neither IGF nor probably anyone else can overcome national sovereignty of the local law, we ask: how can we define principles for interaction with these states that a) put pressure on the repressive states to recognize rights to FoE, and b) encourage ISPs to minimize the damage to FoE; c) encourage ISPs to recognize an ethical obligation to do so. So it is the ethical obligation to recognize FoE rights, not ethics in a broad sense that would encompass any kind of claim to regulate content regardless of rights, that we are interested in. Let me know if that addresses any of your concerns. And I welcome simple editorial changes that might clarify things or avoid problems. Even major editorial changes, if you are willing to do that. >I've provided the example of the Mahomet cartoons because it's >becoming like a 'syndrom', you know... The issue that you proposed is dangerous because it is framed in terms of 'ethics'. People who want to limit FoE will jump on this: those who don't want to talk about rights talk about ethics, it's well known, and we keep facing this attitude. You cannot imagine how much it works, even with well intentionned people. It's the reason why it's better to frame it in terms of corporate social responsibility, for companies, rather than ethics. Obviously, when talking about companies, we cannot frame the issue in terms of rights to be respected, because they're not binded by rights instruments: they're only binded by the national legislation under which they're established (and/or of the markets they want to enter). > the more basic issue is: who is on the defensive and who is on the > offensive? It seems that international processes seem to be driven > entirely by people who have some kind of agenda for controlling or > restricting the internet in some way, for various reasons. Why can > there not be pressure in the other direction, a more positive > assertion of liberty of expression? Because we're not going at all towards this. On the contrary, we're going backwards and it's a hard time just to get things _preserved_... And I'm saying that with more than 10 years of experience in this field, and presence in intergovernmental arenas. Even the most committed to HR and FoE, like the council of Europe. But people think and behave like crazy when we discuss Internet issue. For them, it's the devil... Could you imagine that we're again witnessing now discussions that happened 10 years ago. Have a look at this to simply figure out the situation: http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.5/coe > Do you think real FoE can be preserved and protected by simply > keeping it off the agenda and refusing to talk about it? Won't it > be chipped away bit by bit using that tactic? No, I don't think this at all, and this was not my point. Don't get it wrong: the issue is not to avoid or escape the debate on this. My point is simply that : (1) for this particular proposal, the 'ethics' framing is wrong and dangerous, and (2) for FoE in general: is not a governance issue, and it's a big mistake, I think, to discuss _rights_ in a governance arena. It's a good strategy however to take rights (specially when already defined in international instruments which are binding for governements) as a starting point/justification/perspective/argument to obtain what is seen as a political progress. Best, Meryem _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.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 Apr 2 15:43:48 2006 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 05:43:48 +1000 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality & IG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200604021943.k32Jhipc044529@squirrel.dmpriest.net.uk> I agree with Bill, and raised network neutrality here some time ago as a theme for IGF to take up. Another way to sort through the various topics and issues is to try and isolate those where a government led forum might actually make some headway. In this respect, issues which are largely regulatory such as network neutrality are good targets where something might be achieved. On the other hand, topics with strong technical components (such as spam and multilingualism) can benefit from government attention, but rely on technical work for resolution, which is proving difficult in both cases. So resolution will take longer. It would be good to see IGF addressing issues where governments could make a difference. Ian Peter _____ From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Sunday, 2 April 2006 10:17 PM To: Governance Subject: [governance] Net neutrality & IG Hi, Aside from being an element of Parminder's 'publicness' theme proposal, there's generally been little discussion on the list of the NN issue. Three Sunday afternoon prompted by news items: According to the Benton Foundation, Bush just signed legislation effectively ending the game in the US by giving network operators what they want HYPERLINK "http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=node/1946"www.benton.org/index.php?q=node /1946. The assault on NN could now spread. The ITU's recent Next Generation Network workshop was interesting in this regard. Operators in a number of countries are already switching from legacy circuit switched PSTNs to packet switched IP-based networks capable of delivery all IP-enabled services, including video, and more will follow. They will all want to recoup these investments, capture new markets (or compensate for losses in old ones, e.g. due to VOIP), and presumably seek to provide differentiated QoS. One would think operators in many countries will be emboldened by the US carriers' win to push for the same treatment, arguing inter alia that they have to have the same opportunities as the US firms due to globalization and potential competition to deliver cross-border services. NN might seem to be a topic on which there are not shared or generally applicable international rules in place, aka IG. This may be wrong on at least two counts. First, there's a lot of standards work under way to create the conditions for convergent IP-enabled services and by extension QoS differentiation. Second, the biggest hole in the IG debate has been attention to the fact that in monopolistic or oligopolistic markets, companies may in effect set internationally applicable rules through their daily business practices and strategies without having formally negotiated a shared framework. Major operators with significant market power pursuing symmetric strategies could in effect reshape the net in some respects. And of course, policy coordination could emerge. As with interconnection pricing and developments in the 'security' field, supposedly dusty old telecom operators and institutions could prove more important to IG than some people want to believe. Tim Berners-Lee recently said in an interview that absent NN, "It stops being the Net... It would no longer be an open information space." Maybe we should push for him being a keynoter on this theme in Athens, governments et al. undoubtedly would like some big name speakers... HYPERLINK "http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Arti cle_Type1&c=Article&cid=1143499812060&call_pageid=968350072197&StarSource=RS S"http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Art icle_Type1&c=Article&cid=1143499812060&call_pageid=968350072197&StarSource=R SS Best, Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake HYPERLINK "mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch"drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility HYPERLINK "http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake"http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake ******************************************************* -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.4/299 - Release Date: 31/03/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.4/299 - Release Date: 31/03/2006 -------------- 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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sun Apr 2 20:43:38 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 20:43:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality & IG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Like Bill, I was initially taken in by this. And indeed the piece, but especially Bill's analysis, point squarely at some hot-button stuff for governance. To go one step further, in the NGN discussion from a week ago, a question left in the air: would new / old monopolies also create vertical walled gardens, despite rhetoric? Since the discussion was appropriately preliminary, there were mainly questions, rather than answers. And there were alternative outcomes also suggested. But this was one 'big one.' A notable figure, as Bill suggests, might well be an approach to foster serious consideration at IGF. Can think of one or two myself. David At 2:16 PM +0200 4/2/06, William Drake wrote: >Aside from being an element of Parminder's 'publicness' theme proposal, there's generally been little discussion on the list of the NN issue. Three Sunday afternoon prompted by news items: > >According to the Benton Foundation, Bush just signed legislation effectively ending the game in the US by giving network operators what they want www.benton.org/index.php?q=node/1946. The assault on NN could now spread. The ITU's recent Next Generation Network workshop was interesting in this regard. Operators in a number of countries are already switching from legacy circuit switched PSTNs to packet switched IP-based networks capable of delivery all IP-enabled services, including video, and more will follow. They will all want to recoup these investments, capture new markets (or compensate for losses in old ones, e.g. due to VOIP), and presumably seek to provide differentiated QoS. One would think operators in many countries will be emboldened by the US carriers' win to push for the same treatment, arguing inter alia that they have to have the same opportunities as the US firms due to globalization and potential competition to ! deliver cross-border services. > >NN might seem to be a topic on which there are not shared or generally applicable international rules in place, aka IG. This may be wrong on at least two counts. First, there's a lot of standards work under way to create the conditions for convergent IP-enabled services and by extension QoS differentiation. Second, the biggest hole in the IG debate has been attention to the fact that in monopolistic or oligopolistic markets, companies may in effect set internationally applicable rules through their daily business practices and strategies without having formally negotiated a shared framework. Major operators with significant market power pursuing symmetric strategies could in effect reshape the net in some respects. And of course, policy coordination could emerge. As with interconnection pricing and developments in the 'security' field, supposedly dusty old telecom operators and institutions could prove more important to IG than some people want to believe. > >Tim Berners-Lee recently said in an interview that absent NN, "It stops being the Net... It would no longer be an open information space." Maybe we should push for him being a keynoter on this theme in Athens, governments et al. undoubtedly would like some big name speakers... http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1143499812060&call_pageid=968350072197&StarSource=RSS > >Best, > >Bill > > >******************************************************* >William J. Drake >Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake > >******************************************************* _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From cnd at knowprose.com Sun Apr 2 23:32:48 2006 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 23:32:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top PolicyIssuesforAthens In-Reply-To: <44302E95.C9E4D868@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> References: <442C6EC6.4090802@ipjustice.org> <442DA65C.5070704@knowprose.com> <442E5DDB.8010108@mdpi.net> <442EAC25.1040101@knowprose.com> <442F3917.4B558CBE@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <442F5752.1000806@knowprose.com> <442F5D64.82E12E3@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <442F627A.40103@knowprose.com> <442F6D16.28521071@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <442F875D.1010402@knowprose.com> <44302E95.C9E4D868@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <44309760.80803@knowprose.com> This is my last email in this thread. I could go blue in the face explaining that not everyone sees things the same, and have it continuously lost in discussion. I see problems being attacked at the same level of thinking that created them, and it disturbs me. I won't lose sleep, though. :-) And again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a software license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will change, why not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license? Seth Johnson wrote: >> Some people call these 'rights' 'freedoms', as in the GPL. >> > > > If you take "rights" in the "as numerous as the sands on the > beach" view of human rights, the view that held that enumerating > rights by adding the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution would > not limit our rights to those alone, then maybe. The GPL is an > instrument for assuring some freedoms that are not enumerated in > law -- specific freedoms we should have in code. I would agree > that these are rights, but that's not the world we're living in, > so we approximate it with the GPL. > And thus, one could say that freedoms are being protected by the GPL. Is freedom a right? Or is it only for a select few people, Seth? But again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a software license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will change, why not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license? >> The use of copyrighted works is a contract. So I was unclear. I'm sorry. >> > > > Nope. The use of copyrighted works is not a contract. > OK, Seth, I'll play: What is the use of copyrighted works, and how does it vary from the use of public domain works? Explain that. But again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a software license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will change, why not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license? >>> >>> >> Well, there's the author and there's the person who owns the copyright. >> The creator isn't necessarily the person or entity who owns the copyright. >> > > > The copyright holder doesn't actually have the rights that > "digital rights management" tries to give them. "Digital rights > management" just makes stuff up. > I think if we got past how this label sticks in people's minds instead of how it's being incorporated, we might negotiate meaning instead of arbitrarily defining it by warm fuzzy and cold prickly feelings. You've been asking for definitions, but it seems your basis is that what other people name something defines what it does, at least for you. All I've been asking you and others to do is to take 3 steps away from your own thoughts and look at the bigger picture when it comes to that phrase. I'm not here to argue with you or prove a point; instead I am having something I have feared being proven to me. I shouldn't be surprised. But again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a software license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will change, why not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license? >>> >> Umm. I think you misunderstood, or I was not clear. I didn't say that >> people would think that they do have rights because of all of that. >> > > > You said that people think the present implementation defends the > user's rights. You said that by way of introducing your "user > digital rights/author digital rights" motif, in response to my > pointing out that "digital rights management" could be read two > ways, neither of which is normally regarded as about "user > rights." > Would you agree that the instantiation of DRM we see now is nothing more than evolved 'copy protection'? That's what 'DRM' has been defined as in your mind, I think. Like religions with sects, there are fundamentalists, extremists, and so forth. We could call the present implementation of DRM 'extremist' (complete with suicide CDs), an act of terrorism, etc... but that doesn't make everything labeled 'DRM' bad, or I would hope that it wouldn't. I suppose it's the easiest way for people to handle it, but 'easy' doesn't make something right, even when you shave with Ockham's razor. Negotiating human meaning is quite different than dealing with a compiler. But again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a software license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will change, why not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license? > Hardly anyone thinks "DRM" defends user's rights. They mostly > think that the "rights" being "managed" are the author's. > This is arbitrary. It was folly of me to bring it up, since the point was moot, but I thought I was having a discussion that would allow me to get a better feel for what people who are strongly biased against DRM feel. As Don said so wittily, there is no middle ground between the pro and anti-DRM. But my point is this: The relevance of the WORDS 'DRM' are arbitrary. But to you, they have a meaning which (strangely) you are defending! But again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a software license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will change, why not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license? >> ********And honestly, everyone is sidestepping the main point that >> started this: Next year, people who advocate DRM may be calling it Bob. >> Attacking DRM in a software license might work next year, but shall we >> draft everything all over again when they call it Bob? Labeling it DRM >> and forgetting about it won't work. It will be back. It's got a nice tag >> now for what is undoubtedly >> >> > > A valid generic term and definition would suffice. "Digital > restrictions management" would pretty much cover it. > And Digital Restrictions Management in a software license is as arbitrary as calling it 'Bob'. The license still doesn't solve the problem you are quite vehemently against. But again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a software license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will change, why not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license? > Free Software is what it is. "Octophobia" is not fear of > octopuses. > Ahh. The root of all this is exactly that words and phrases can mean more than one thing. If you can't see that, much less agree to it, than further discussion is pointless. But again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a software license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will change, why not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license? > > >>>> Perception is a powerful thing. The phrase is not broken out by either >>>> side - the people who are for or against. What really are the Digital >>>> Rights of people? Of creators? Of users? >>>> >>> There are no valid "digital rights." >>> >> So, people don't deserve to be treated equally on the internet? What >> about security? The ability to discuss things openly without being >> persecuted? The right to freedom of speech? All within a subset of >> computers, this could be seen as 'digital rights'. >> > > > Why do we need "digital" rights? > Maybe you don't. Brow beating people with other perspectives is a wonderful tactic, but generally speaking digital rights are about human rights within a digital framework.But again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a software license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will change, why not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license? > Give me an example that shows what a "digital right" would be. > Sure. The right to write something on the internet and not be shoved in jail for criticizing the government. If you need more, take a serious look around. But again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a software license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will change, why not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license? >> What is digital activism? What is the Digital Divide? Why not Digital >> Rights? Or would people be more comfortable with Digital Freedoms? Come >> to think of it, they might call what is being implemented as DRM as >> Digital Freedom Management next year after DRM is clad in the GPL v3. >> > > > Anything that speaks of "managing" "freedom" would be > "restrictions management." > But if I use my freedom to curtail the freedom of others, am I not infringing on the other people's rights? Is freedom a right, or is it for the select few? If freedom is not for the select few, then it is a right. But again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a software license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will change, why not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license? > > >> And then people will say, "wow, we never saw that coming!" >> >>> Describe a "digital right" >>> -- in particular, describe how "digital rights" would work under >>> copyright. >>> >>> >> Why does it have to be just copyright for you? >> > > > Because copyright is the problem. If digital restrictions > management is used for copyright, it's wrong. > You're moving back and forth to try to maintain your vantage, but when you deny that there are 'digital rights' you've been denying that there are copyrights. Even the GPL disagrees with that since it's based on copyright, and is a copyright license. But again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a software license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will change, why not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license? > When are you going to describe a "digital right?" In particular, > please describe how "digital rights" would work under copyright. > The point is that something has to work. Copy protection - what you call DRM - doesn't work. Copyrights were much easier to deal with for publishers prior to the internet because they could control the media physically. On the internet, they cannot do that so they are trying to control the systems which connect to the internet. That's bad. But users should have rights as well, and when used in the context of the internet or digital media, they could be called digital rights. And those digital rights, I believe, include fair use which copy protection schemes do not allow for (not to mention laws). But again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a software license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will change, why not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license? > > >> Why can't digital rights >> be 'freedoms'? I'm not telling you what digital rights are And bear in >> mind, that the context of the original discussion was related to the GPL >> v3 as related to the Internet Governance Forum, which certainly has a >> broader context than the tendril of this discussion about a 'basis of >> neologism'. >> >>>> What is a digital signature? That's much easier, and sheds some light on >>>> things. Signature is not confusing to people. 'Rights' is because not >>>> only does the average person stutter when questioned what their rights >>>> are, they also tend to think of rights as centered around themselves. >>>> >>>> When I think of digital rights, I think of my rights in a digital world. >>>> >>>> >>>>> You represent the first empirical instance I have encountered of >>>>> someone who actually expressed a belief in such a thing. >>>>> >>>>> >> Maybe not. I decided to Google >> >> http://www.digitalrights.dk/ >> > > "Digital Rights is a non-profit civil organisation aimed at > raising awareness of rights in the digital world" > Yes, I read that. So what do they define Digital Rights as, Seth? Did you check that? > >> http://ukcdr.org/ >> > > "The Campaign for Digital Rights campaigns for fair and balanced > laws for the information society. > > "We support: > > * freedom of speech online > * positive fair use rights for copyrighted material > * narrowing anti-circumvention laws > * honest labelling of copy-protected CDs > * the BBC's Creative Archive > > "We are a group of citizens who are concerned about control over > digital media. In particular, we are worried about proposed laws, > regulations and technological systems that will make digital > media more expensive, less useful, less diverse and less > democratic." > Yes, I read that. So does this answer some of your question? > >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4617176.stm >> > > "The National Consumer Council (NCC) said anti-piracy efforts > were eroding established rights to digital media." > Yes, I read that. But I notice that you didn't post the title. > >> http://www.digitalrights.ie/ >> > > "Digital Rights Ireland Ltd is a body devoted to defending Civil, > Human and Legal rights in a digital age." > Very good, Seth, this copy and paste thing is really working. > >> http://www.digital-rights.net/ >> > > "Human Rights in the Digital Age" > > No one specific quote summarizes it well, though it is a > compilation of essays about applying human rights in the digital > age, and I see none espousing "digital rights." > Yup, read that too. > >> http://www.edri.org >> > > "European Digital Rights was founded in June 2002. Currently 21 > privacy and civil rights organisations from 14 different > countries in Europe have EDRI membership. Members of European > Digital Rights have joined forces to defend civil rights in the > information society. The need for cooperation among European > organizations is increasing as more regulation regarding the > internet, copyright and privacy is originating from the European > Union." > > >> There's 5. If you really decide to look, you'll find that the phrase >> 'digital rights' shows up a lot and has different meanings to different >> people. >> > > > I added one more. They all appeal to applying recognized human > rights in the digital age. None espouse "digital rights" -- > though ukcdr might be read as aiming that way, yet still I doubt > they would argue for "digital rights" so much as protecting > recognized rights in the face of certain policymaking activities. > > You're the one talking about "digital rights" like they ought to > be something on their own. > > I still haven't heard what a "digital right" would be. > Read above about not being thrown in jail for criticizing the government on the internet. In the context of the internet, where groups are focusing on globalization issues related to the internet, the meaning is not as well defined as you wish for. Perhaps you could start off with stating what rights you have on the internet that you have? Do you have no rights when using a computer? A mobile phone? And again, if you claim that you support freedom but do not establish freedom as a right, what are you really doing? > > >>> No. Simply cease encouraging people to confuse these areas, >>> using terms that are explicitly designed to get people to confuse >>> these areas. >>> >>> >> I didn't start the fire, Seth. I'm just telling everyone that there is a >> fire. >> > > > No, *I'm* telling *you* there's a fire. You see smoke, and you > say let's work with the fire that must be over there, or work > around it, rather than go and put it out, and prevent it from > happening again. > No, Seth, I'm telling you that fire is bad when you stick your hand in it, but if you use it wisely you can cook your food. Fortunately, the branch of society that was screaming about the 'evil burning hand flame' probably died, though perhaps a recessive gene still haunts us. And again, you're mixing two separate discussions to try to support what you already believe. You might be surprised that in a lot of ways I agree with you, but to be truly circumspect I have to go beyond what I believe and see the larger contexts. I'd hope others would do the same. Obviously, everyone on the planet doesn't agree on things. >>>> The right to be treated >>>> equally. The right to be allowed to use what you have as you wish, as >>>> long as it doesn't adversely affect others. So on, so forth. >>>> >>> I can use copyrighted works in ways that might be disadvantageous >>> to the author. The author only has a few rights. None of them >>> "digital rights." >>> >>> >> Oh, enough about copyright already. Copyright isn't the only part of >> this, as the links should demonstrate to you. >> > > > "The right to be allowed to use what you have as you wish, as > long as it doesn't adversely affect others" is inappropriate for > copyright. All of the links you point at highlight the fact that > copyright is fundamental to the problems we're confronting in the > digital age. > And I never denied that. But if the problem is copyright, why not address the problem? Tell us, Seth, how do you believe all of this should be run in a manner that allows everyone to pay their bills, create things, and not screw over users? Maybe something is working for you, or maybe you believe something will work in the future, but right now there are entire parts of the world that are trying to do the same and are looking for answers. Maybe you're in a position where you have all the answers. I don't. And because I don't have all the answers, I consider it worthwhile to allow for a future that I do not expect or believe in. Hallelujahs don't feed people. Someone offlisted me a paper about publicly funded works, which I like but there are concerns I have about anything that is centrally controlled. But at least I got something back from them, something of worth and something that allowed me to consider other options.What options would you present? How would a poet in Ethiopia, with a computer connection, be able to make enough money to pay the bills? What's your answer? But again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a software license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will change, why not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license? > "Rights which are related to digital things." > > "The creator's rights and the user's rights." > > "What is a digital signature? That's much easier, and sheds some > light on things. Signature is not confusing to people. 'Rights' > is because not only does the average person stutter when > questioned what their rights are, they also tend to think of > rights as centered around themselves." > > "When I think of digital rights, I think of my rights in a > digital world." > > "[. . .] the reason that I've brought [DRM] up is because I > believe that people do have rights, we are having discussions on > the digital world, and also because like any other thing it could > be used sensibly or not. So instead of attacking this from a > technical center, let's toss in human rights to the mix. Not just > copyright and patent and software. Rights. The right to be > treated equally. The right to be allowed to use what you have as > you wish, as long as it doesn't adversely affect others. So on, > so forth." > > > Nothing stating what a "digital right" would be. Maybe because you've decided that you believe that there are no 'digital rights' and have been working rather hard to defend your position. I don't have the luxury of a trench, but outside of trenches, the horizon on all sides encompasses more surface area. Again, this started off about the wording of 'DRM' in a software license. Instead of using a name which more than likely will change, why not attack what's wrong with what it does within the license? Spike the ball on your end of the field if you wish, but I wasn't approaching this as a competition. I was trying to raise a little awareness. Maybe it worked, maybe it didn't. Time will tell. Maybe you'll try to define what rights you have when you're on the internet instead of having someone define those rights for you. And that's a start. -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago cnd at knowprose.com Looking for contracts/work! http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786 New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From cnd at knowprose.com Mon Apr 3 00:11:00 2006 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 00:11:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top PolicyIssues forAthens In-Reply-To: References: <442C6EC6.4090802@ipjustice.org> <442DA65C.5070704@knowprose.com> <442E5DDB.8010108@mdpi.net> <442EAC25.1040101@knowprose.com> <442F3917.4B558CBE@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <442F5752.1000806@knowprose.com> <442F5D64.82E12E3@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <442F627A.40103@knowprose.com> Message-ID: <4430A054.8080307@knowprose.com> Richard Stallman wrote: > You seem to be trying to support DRM. > No. > The arguments that you are using are just vague analogies, > so I don't think they require specific refutation. > Maybe the world isn't as small as you think. -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago cnd at knowprose.com Looking for contracts/work! http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786 New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From nb at bollow.ch Mon Apr 3 03:36:29 2006 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 09:36:29 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top Policy Issues forAthens In-Reply-To: <442F5752.1000806@knowprose.com> (message from Taran Rampersad on Sun, 02 Apr 2006 00:47:14 -0400) References: <442C6EC6.4090802@ipjustice.org> <442DA65C.5070704@knowprose.com> <442E5DDB.8010108@mdpi.net> <442EAC25.1040101@knowprose.com> <442F3917.4B558CBE@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <442F5752.1000806@knowprose.com> Message-ID: <20060403073629.5F72C1FD499@quill.bollow.ch> Taran Rampersad wrote: > The problem I have with the GPL draft at this point is that it will give > creators less options. How so? I think it gives me, in addition to all the options that I had previously for licensing my work, the additional option to license it in a copyleft way which is incompatible with DRM but compatible with enforcing trademarks and with enforcing defensive patents against aggressors. Those who like DRM are still free to use it, but I am able to prevent them from _redistributing_ _my_ work, or a derivative work thereof, as part of a DRM scheme to which try to subject third parties. When I release a program that I have written as Free Software, I want this activity to increase the amount of freedom which exists in the world, and I want to take precautions against my work having unintended effects of actually decreasing the freedom which exists in the world. In other words, because the GPLv3 draft has been created, I have gained the ability to do what I want (thank you, FSF), while pro-DRM people retain the ability to do what they want. Of course I hope that over time, a social consensus will emerge that DRM (in the sense of allowing anyone to impose restrictions on what someone else's computer may be programmed to do) is not acceptable in any form or shape. In the meantime, those who are in favor of DRM vote with their actions for their opinion, by using some kind of DRM system for those creative works concerning which they control copyright-related rights. It's only fair when we who are opposed to DRM can also vote with our actions for our opinion, by using DRM-incompatible licensensing for our creative works. Greetings, Norbert _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Apr 3 04:44:59 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 10:44:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] HR Caucus Contribution to IGF Substantive Agenda Message-ID: <559401C6-0F79-40F6-9AB0-AE4EBC88EC27@ras.eu.org> Dear all / Chers tous The WSIS CS Human Rights Caucus has sent its contribution to the Internet Governance Forum on IGF Substantive Agenda. English version is available on the caucus website at: [HTML] http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/hris- igfagenda310306-en.html [PDF] http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/hris- igfagenda310306-en.pdf Le caucus droits de l'homme formé par des organisations de la société civile participant au SMSI a transmis sa contribution au Forum sur la gouvernance d'Internet, concernant la détermination des priorités thématiques de l'IGF. La version française est disponible sur le site du caucus à: [HTML] http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/hris- igfagenda310306-fr.html [PDF] http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/hris- igfagenda310306-fr.pdf Best regards / Cordialement Meryem Marzouki HR Caucus co-chair / Co-responsable du Caucus DDH -- Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire 294 rue de Charenton - 75012 Paris Tel/Fax. +33(0)144749239 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Apr 3 05:28:45 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 11:28:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] URGENT - Proposal: guidelines to send IGC submissions Message-ID: <6AB3701A-2C30-49D3-882C-74F2552FD6E9@ras.eu.org> Hi all, Please find below very quick guidelines that could be followed to send finalized submissions on Tuesday (tomorrow) from the governance caucus to IGF. I think they are workable. Best, Meryem - Guidelines for proponents: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1/ Any individual or group who want its submission(s) to be sent through the IGF caucus should post a message before Tuesday, 1pm CET, with: - the name(s) of the proponent(s) - the clear mention that this is/are the final version(s) of the proposal(s) - its finalized proposal(s) as attached files 2/ This should be done whether or not the proposal has already been sent by Robert - Guidelines for the caucus: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1/ The caucus only submit to IGF proposal(s) made by either individuals or groups (groups of individuals, NGOs, institutions, projects, etc.). 2/ The caucus will NOT send proposals originating from any other WSIS CS coalition with a "status" comparable to the governance caucus (i.e. proposals from Privacy and Security Working Group, from the Education, Academia and Research Taskforce, from regional caucuses, from the Human Rights caucus will NOT be sent through the governance caucus. In any case, those which have been posted to this mailing list have already been sent by their own to the IGF). 3/ I will keep track of the proposals sent to this list, before Tuesday 1pm CET according to the guidelines for proponents and to the guidelines for the caucus (item 1 and 2 of this section). I will send a compilation of them to the list before Tuesday 2pm CET. If there is no opposition from proponents, the list of these proposals will be sent to IGF secretariat by Tuesday 4pm CET. 4/ The final list of proposals will be sent to IGF by Robert, with the governance caucus list in Cc. The accompanying message should state that: - This submission replaces the former submission made by Robert - The proposals contained in the submission is made by individuals and/or groups members of the governance caucus. - The governance caucus has decided NOT to make any priority list, and NOT to keep within the limits of the three themes. - The governance caucus reminds the position expressed by many of its members at the IGF consultation meeting in Geneva: the IGF is seen as an umbrella under which various initiatives could be taken on a bottom-up basis by concerned stakeholders. We recommend to create working groups to deal with the various proposed issues, in the framework of an on-going process. [or any better formulation of this]. =========== _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon Apr 3 07:08:57 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 13:08:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] URGENT - Proposal: guidelines to send IGC submissions In-Reply-To: <6AB3701A-2C30-49D3-882C-74F2552FD6E9@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: Hi Meryem, Thanks for moving this along. A couple of quick questions: Unless I'm missing something, as described, this seems like sort of path of least resistance, status quo proposal, essentially a 'do again' without any substantive changes other than that we make sure all are included and are in finalized form. Am I correct that you do not envision that each of the proposals would be labeled as coming from 'members of the IGC' or from 'the IGC'? Similarly, that they would not each include a standardized disclaimer/explanation---it sounds like this would only be done in an email to the secretariat? In that case, the only people who would see it are the IGF staff; when visitors download the proposals from the IGF website, they'd not see anything telling them the contents of your point 4/and related issues. Another simple approach would be to include in each proposal a standardized caption like "Theme Proposal for the IGF Submitted by the IGC" and a disclaimer paragraph so that readers see this came from the caucus space but there's no prioritization or specific endorsement of each, why they're all in Bertrand's standardized format, etc...It wouldn't be hard to write this, but there's no point if there's not much interest here in preserving the brand etc... Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Meryem Marzouki > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 11:29 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] URGENT - Proposal: guidelines to send IGC > submissions > > > Hi all, > > Please find below very quick guidelines that could be followed to > send finalized submissions on Tuesday (tomorrow) from the governance > caucus to IGF. I think they are workable. > Best, > Meryem > > - Guidelines for proponents: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 1/ Any individual or group who want its submission(s) to be sent > through the IGF caucus should post a message before Tuesday, 1pm CET, > with: > - the name(s) of the proponent(s) > - the clear mention that this is/are the final version(s) of the > proposal(s) > - its finalized proposal(s) as attached files > > 2/ This should be done whether or not the proposal has already been > sent by Robert > > - Guidelines for the caucus: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 1/ The caucus only submit to IGF proposal(s) made by either > individuals or groups (groups of individuals, NGOs, institutions, > projects, etc.). > > 2/ The caucus will NOT send proposals originating from any other WSIS > CS coalition with a "status" comparable to the governance caucus > (i.e. proposals from Privacy and Security Working Group, from the > Education, Academia and Research Taskforce, from regional caucuses, > from the Human Rights caucus will NOT be sent through the governance > caucus. In any case, those which have been posted to this mailing > list have already been sent by their own to the IGF). > > 3/ I will keep track of the proposals sent to this list, before > Tuesday 1pm CET according to the guidelines for proponents and to the > guidelines for the caucus (item 1 and 2 of this section). > I will send a compilation of them to the list before Tuesday 2pm CET. > If there is no opposition from proponents, the list of these > proposals will be sent to IGF secretariat by Tuesday 4pm CET. > > 4/ The final list of proposals will be sent to IGF by Robert, with > the governance caucus list in Cc. > The accompanying message should state that: > - This submission replaces the former submission made by Robert > - The proposals contained in the submission is made by individuals > and/or groups members of the governance caucus. > - The governance caucus has decided NOT to make any priority list, > and NOT to keep within the limits of the three themes. > - The governance caucus reminds the position expressed by many of its > members at the IGF consultation meeting in Geneva: the IGF is seen as > an umbrella under which various initiatives could be taken on a > bottom-up basis by > concerned stakeholders. We recommend to create working groups to deal > with the various proposed issues, in the framework of an on-going > process. [or any better formulation of this]. > > =========== > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Apr 3 07:35:58 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 13:35:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] What a mess! In-Reply-To: <6AB3701A-2C30-49D3-882C-74F2552FD6E9@ras.eu.org> References: <6AB3701A-2C30-49D3-882C-74F2552FD6E9@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: Sorry to bother you again but I've now found that proposals sent by Robert are now included (for those which weren't already sent by their proponents, as submissions from their authors (or, in the case of Mawaki and Ken, by the African CS). The 8 proposals sent by Robert are presented on IGF website as described below. Questions and comments: 1/ this means that the governance caucus appears NOWHERE, and has NOT A SINGLE proposal 2/ How it comes that Mawaki's two proposals have been sent (before Robert sends them) by the African CS proposal, Mawaki being not named? Mawaki has never told us this, which could have been a helpful information: his proposals were to be sent by another WSIS CS constituency, and not by the governance caucus 3/ Same applies for Ken's proposal (sent later on, and presented as the second submission by the African CS constituency, Ken being not named. Here is what one can found on the IGF website, regarding the 8 proposals sent by Robert: > (Mawaki's proposal) ==> "The African Civil Society For The Information Society (ACSIS), 29 March 2006" > (Mawaki's proposal) ==>"The African Civil Society For The Information Society (ACSIS), 29 March 2006" > (Ginger's proposal) ==> "United Nations Association of Venezuela, 29 March 2006" > (Garth's proposal) ==> "Telecommunities Canada 31 March 2006" >> (Bill's proposal) ==> "Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, 31 March 2006" >> (Parminder's proposal) > ==> "IT for Change, 31 March 2006" >> > ==> already directly sent by the WSIS Education, Academia and > Research Taskforce, kept as is >> (Ken's proposal) ==> "The African Civil Society For The Information Society (ACSIS), 30 March 2006" _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Apr 3 08:15:25 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:45:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] What a mess! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200604031211.k33CBeMm053444@trout.cpsr.org> Sorry to add to the confusion, but, we had made this small outreach effort to call for endorsements of CS organizations that may or may not have been involved in WSIS. And compared to the outreach effort the response has been huge. Especially also in the context of the limited time and the fact that many organizations generally were enthusiastic about saving the Internet for our common purposes but a bit unsure of some of the technical terms involved in the debate. Response to the call was still coming in when today morning I decided to cut it off - and send the proposal to the IGF, because I was getting a bit nervous about the timelines, and wanted to send it early in the day for IGF office. Since most of these supporting organizations are outside IGC, I thought it necessary to send the proposal directly to the IGF as well, with the names of supporting organizations. Now, I am not sure which category does this proposal stand as - though it originated very much from IGC and always desired to a part of IGC submissions. I will be very happy to have this proposal sent through the IGC bunch (if one is going), while keeping the names of supporting organizations on the proposal. On the different note, I am enclosing the proposal as sent to IGF, and also listing the names of the supporting organizations below here. I also take the opportunity to thank all the organizations that extended their support. Parminder List of organizations that supported the IGF theme proposal - Defining and fostering the 'public-ness' of the Internet - issues of public interest, public domain, public infrastructure and public good in the context of the Internet Proposed by IT for Change, India, with support of the following civil society organizations. 1. World Radio and Television Council 2. Comunica-ch, the platform of Swiss civil society for the Information Society 3. HIVOS, Netherlands 4. African Women's Development and Communication Network (FEMNET) 5. Foundation for Media Alternatives, Philippines 6. Public Affairs Foundation, Bangalore 7. Alternate Law Forum, Bangalore 8. femLINKPACIFIC: Media Initiatives for Women, Fiji Islands 9. International Gender and Trade Network - Asia 10. IP Justice 11. United Nations Association of Uganda 12. Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN) 13. Third World Institute (ITeM), Uruguay 14. Association for Progressive Communications 15. Isis International-Manila 16. Madhyam, Bangalore 17. The Centre for Women's Research, Sri Lanka 18. Action Aid International-India 19. Panos Institute West Africa 20. Danish United Nations Association 21. Voices, Bangalore 22. Mahila Samakhaya, Karnataka, India 23. Mazdoor Kissan Shakti Sangathan, India 24. Kutch Mahila Vikas Sangathan, India 25. Abhiyan, India ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Meryem Marzouki Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 5:06 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] What a mess! Sorry to bother you again but I've now found that proposals sent by Robert are now included (for those which weren't already sent by their proponents, as submissions from their authors (or, in the case of Mawaki and Ken, by the African CS). The 8 proposals sent by Robert are presented on IGF website as described below. Questions and comments: 1/ this means that the governance caucus appears NOWHERE, and has NOT A SINGLE proposal 2/ How it comes that Mawaki's two proposals have been sent (before Robert sends them) by the African CS proposal, Mawaki being not named? Mawaki has never told us this, which could have been a helpful information: his proposals were to be sent by another WSIS CS constituency, and not by the governance caucus 3/ Same applies for Ken's proposal (sent later on, and presented as the second submission by the African CS constituency, Ken being not named. Here is what one can found on the IGF website, regarding the 8 proposals sent by Robert: > (Mawaki's proposal) ==> "The African Civil Society For The Information Society (ACSIS), 29 March 2006" > (Mawaki's proposal) ==>"The African Civil Society For The Information Society (ACSIS), 29 March 2006" > (Ginger's proposal) ==> "United Nations Association of Venezuela, 29 March 2006" > (Garth's proposal) ==> "Telecommunities Canada 31 March 2006" >> (Bill's proposal) ==> "Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, 31 March 2006" >> (Parminder's proposal) > ==> "IT for Change, 31 March 2006" >> > ==> already directly sent by the WSIS Education, Academia and > Research Taskforce, kept as is >> (Ken's proposal) ==> "The African Civil Society For The Information Society (ACSIS), 30 March 2006" _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ITfC and other NGOs - submission to IGF.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 24443 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Apr 3 08:26:01 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 14:26:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] URGENT - Proposal: guidelines to send IGC submissions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bill, My point was indeed to "limit the damages", and to present them as originating from members of the IGC. i.e. Have the IGC mentioned and making submissions, while keeping this softer than an 'IGC proposal' agreed by all. Your suggestions below (end of your message) could have helped. However, now we are even beyond this approach (see my other message with subject "what a mess"). The governance caucus shouldn't even talk off submissions made by other constituencies, this meaning dropping off Mawaki's and Ken's proposal (3 proposals all in all) from any IGC "claim". Remaining proposals are: Parminder's, Bill's, Garth's, Ginger's. Maybe other to come (APC? others?). The status of Milton's proposal (under IGP) is unclear w.r.t. to any IGC "claim". This situation is really a pity. This shows where we are, not only in the governance caucus, but in CS as a whole. No priority, not even coordination, only weakness. Not even a status quo, but steps backwards. And be sure governments and the IGF secretariat will take due note of this. Given this situation, I would withdraw my suggestion of guidelines for submission by the IGC. I would rather propose that a letter be sent to the IGF, asking them to kindly publish it on its website, when all proposals will be received, saying that the IGC has made no proposal under its name on purpose, so as to let all CS component to freely express its priorities and to demonstrate the need for a large number of working groups. The IGC acting here as a facilitator forsome CS components w.r.t. IGF issues. If only this caucus could agree on anything, I would propose to add that, the IGC establishes in the same letter its priorities given _all_ the submitted proposals, making clear this would serve only as guidelines for 1st IGF plenary meeting, asking that side workshops should be facilitated. But I'm wondering if this is workable. I'm also wondering how members of this caucus may dare think of nominating people to the MAG, when it's not even possible to gather proposals and send them in a consistent and responsible way. It's really disappointing. The coordinators issue is really urgent to sort out. Best, Meryem Le 3 avr. 06 à 13:08, William Drake a écrit : > Hi Meryem, > > Thanks for moving this along. A couple of quick questions: > > Unless I'm missing something, as described, this seems like sort of > path of > least resistance, status quo proposal, essentially a 'do again' > without any > substantive changes other than that we make sure all are included > and are in > finalized form. Am I correct that you do not envision that each of > the > proposals would be labeled as coming from 'members of the IGC' or > from 'the > IGC'? Similarly, that they would not each include a standardized > disclaimer/explanation---it sounds like this would only be done in > an email > to the secretariat? In that case, the only people who would see it > are the > IGF staff; when visitors download the proposals from the IGF > website, they'd > not see anything telling them the contents of your point 4/and related > issues. > > Another simple approach would be to include in each proposal a > standardized > caption like "Theme Proposal for the IGF Submitted by the IGC" and a > disclaimer paragraph so that readers see this came from the caucus > space but > there's no prioritization or specific endorsement of each, why > they're all > in Bertrand's standardized format, etc...It wouldn't be hard to > write this, > but there's no point if there's not much interest here in > preserving the > brand etc... > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Meryem >> Marzouki >> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 11:29 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] URGENT - Proposal: guidelines to send IGC >> submissions >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> Please find below very quick guidelines that could be followed to >> send finalized submissions on Tuesday (tomorrow) from the governance >> caucus to IGF. I think they are workable. >> Best, >> Meryem >> >> - Guidelines for proponents: >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> 1/ Any individual or group who want its submission(s) to be sent >> through the IGF caucus should post a message before Tuesday, 1pm CET, >> with: >> - the name(s) of the proponent(s) >> - the clear mention that this is/are the final version(s) of the >> proposal(s) >> - its finalized proposal(s) as attached files >> >> 2/ This should be done whether or not the proposal has already been >> sent by Robert >> >> - Guidelines for the caucus: >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> 1/ The caucus only submit to IGF proposal(s) made by either >> individuals or groups (groups of individuals, NGOs, institutions, >> projects, etc.). >> >> 2/ The caucus will NOT send proposals originating from any other WSIS >> CS coalition with a "status" comparable to the governance caucus >> (i.e. proposals from Privacy and Security Working Group, from the >> Education, Academia and Research Taskforce, from regional caucuses, >> from the Human Rights caucus will NOT be sent through the governance >> caucus. In any case, those which have been posted to this mailing >> list have already been sent by their own to the IGF). >> >> 3/ I will keep track of the proposals sent to this list, before >> Tuesday 1pm CET according to the guidelines for proponents and to the >> guidelines for the caucus (item 1 and 2 of this section). >> I will send a compilation of them to the list before Tuesday 2pm CET. >> If there is no opposition from proponents, the list of these >> proposals will be sent to IGF secretariat by Tuesday 4pm CET. >> >> 4/ The final list of proposals will be sent to IGF by Robert, with >> the governance caucus list in Cc. >> The accompanying message should state that: >> - This submission replaces the former submission made by Robert >> - The proposals contained in the submission is made by individuals >> and/or groups members of the governance caucus. >> - The governance caucus has decided NOT to make any priority list, >> and NOT to keep within the limits of the three themes. >> - The governance caucus reminds the position expressed by many of its >> members at the IGF consultation meeting in Geneva: the IGF is seen as >> an umbrella under which various initiatives could be taken on a >> bottom-up basis by >> concerned stakeholders. We recommend to create working groups to deal >> with the various proposed issues, in the framework of an on-going >> process. [or any better formulation of this]. >> >> =========== >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.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 marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Apr 3 08:36:48 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 14:36:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] What a mess! In-Reply-To: <200604031211.k33CBeMm053444@trout.cpsr.org> References: <200604031211.k33CBeMm053444@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <17B5FC70-535D-4777-9D45-7F184B528DC5@ras.eu.org> Le 3 avr. 06 à 14:15, Parminder a écrit : > Sorry to add to the confusion, Not at all, you're not adding to the confusion, simply behaving like any organization should normally behave! I would simply advise that you make sure this proposal, with its list of supporters, duly replace, on IGF website, the one already sent in the name of your organization and your name. Meryem _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Apr 3 08:37:52 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 18:07:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT - Proposal: guidelines to send IGCsubmissions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200604031233.k33CXuRO053932@trout.cpsr.org> >> Another simple approach would be to include in each proposal a standardized caption like "Theme Proposal for the IGF Submitted by the IGC" and a disclaimer paragraph so that readers see this came from the caucus space but there's no prioritization or specific endorsement of each, why they're all in Bertrand's standardized format, etc...It wouldn't be hard to write this, but there's no point if there's not much interest here in preserving the brand etc...>> I am for preserving the brand and doing as Bill suggests. And of course we needed to have done many of these things earlier which we didn't - and of course it is a shared responsibility that we didn't. It will be somewhat pointless, at least weak, to suggest MAG members, when no substantive agenda will be seen as having come out of IGC.... This goes back to the old problem of coordinators, and something of a 'status quo plus' for IGC.... Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 4:39 PM To: Meryem Marzouki; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT - Proposal: guidelines to send IGCsubmissions Hi Meryem, Thanks for moving this along. A couple of quick questions: Unless I'm missing something, as described, this seems like sort of path of least resistance, status quo proposal, essentially a 'do again' without any substantive changes other than that we make sure all are included and are in finalized form. Am I correct that you do not envision that each of the proposals would be labeled as coming from 'members of the IGC' or from 'the IGC'? Similarly, that they would not each include a standardized disclaimer/explanation---it sounds like this would only be done in an email to the secretariat? In that case, the only people who would see it are the IGF staff; when visitors download the proposals from the IGF website, they'd not see anything telling them the contents of your point 4/and related issues. Another simple approach would be to include in each proposal a standardized caption like "Theme Proposal for the IGF Submitted by the IGC" and a disclaimer paragraph so that readers see this came from the caucus space but there's no prioritization or specific endorsement of each, why they're all in Bertrand's standardized format, etc...It wouldn't be hard to write this, but there's no point if there's not much interest here in preserving the brand etc... Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Meryem Marzouki > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 11:29 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] URGENT - Proposal: guidelines to send IGC > submissions > > > Hi all, > > Please find below very quick guidelines that could be followed to > send finalized submissions on Tuesday (tomorrow) from the governance > caucus to IGF. I think they are workable. > Best, > Meryem > > - Guidelines for proponents: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 1/ Any individual or group who want its submission(s) to be sent > through the IGF caucus should post a message before Tuesday, 1pm CET, > with: > - the name(s) of the proponent(s) > - the clear mention that this is/are the final version(s) of the > proposal(s) > - its finalized proposal(s) as attached files > > 2/ This should be done whether or not the proposal has already been > sent by Robert > > - Guidelines for the caucus: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 1/ The caucus only submit to IGF proposal(s) made by either > individuals or groups (groups of individuals, NGOs, institutions, > projects, etc.). > > 2/ The caucus will NOT send proposals originating from any other WSIS > CS coalition with a "status" comparable to the governance caucus > (i.e. proposals from Privacy and Security Working Group, from the > Education, Academia and Research Taskforce, from regional caucuses, > from the Human Rights caucus will NOT be sent through the governance > caucus. In any case, those which have been posted to this mailing > list have already been sent by their own to the IGF). > > 3/ I will keep track of the proposals sent to this list, before > Tuesday 1pm CET according to the guidelines for proponents and to the > guidelines for the caucus (item 1 and 2 of this section). > I will send a compilation of them to the list before Tuesday 2pm CET. > If there is no opposition from proponents, the list of these > proposals will be sent to IGF secretariat by Tuesday 4pm CET. > > 4/ The final list of proposals will be sent to IGF by Robert, with > the governance caucus list in Cc. > The accompanying message should state that: > - This submission replaces the former submission made by Robert > - The proposals contained in the submission is made by individuals > and/or groups members of the governance caucus. > - The governance caucus has decided NOT to make any priority list, > and NOT to keep within the limits of the three themes. > - The governance caucus reminds the position expressed by many of its > members at the IGF consultation meeting in Geneva: the IGF is seen as > an umbrella under which various initiatives could be taken on a > bottom-up basis by > concerned stakeholders. We recommend to create working groups to deal > with the various proposed issues, in the framework of an on-going > process. [or any better formulation of this]. > > =========== > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.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 Mon Apr 3 09:17:12 2006 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 09:17:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] URGENT - Proposal: guidelines to send IGCsubmissions Message-ID: Hi, Leaving aside for the moment the 'themes' issue, which is urgent and embarrassing but we'll get over that, I'm wondering why people are jumping to the conclusion that Avri's process which is working fine now needs to be stopped. Sort the submissions issue as best we can, but let IGC's brand new nomcom do its thing. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> "Parminder" 4/3/2006 8:37 AM >>> >> Another simple approach would be to include in each proposal a standardized caption like "Theme Proposal for the IGF Submitted by the IGC" and a disclaimer paragraph so that readers see this came from the caucus space but there's no prioritization or specific endorsement of each, why they're all in Bertrand's standardized format, etc...It wouldn't be hard to write this, but there's no point if there's not much interest here in preserving the brand etc...>> I am for preserving the brand and doing as Bill suggests. And of course we needed to have done many of these things earlier which we didn't - and of course it is a shared responsibility that we didn't. It will be somewhat pointless, at least weak, to suggest MAG members, when no substantive agenda will be seen as having come out of IGC.... This goes back to the old problem of coordinators, and something of a 'status quo plus' for IGC.... Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 4:39 PM To: Meryem Marzouki; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT - Proposal: guidelines to send IGCsubmissions Hi Meryem, Thanks for moving this along. A couple of quick questions: Unless I'm missing something, as described, this seems like sort of path of least resistance, status quo proposal, essentially a 'do again' without any substantive changes other than that we make sure all are included and are in finalized form. Am I correct that you do not envision that each of the proposals would be labeled as coming from 'members of the IGC' or from 'the IGC'? Similarly, that they would not each include a standardized disclaimer/explanation---it sounds like this would only be done in an email to the secretariat? In that case, the only people who would see it are the IGF staff; when visitors download the proposals from the IGF website, they'd not see anything telling them the contents of your point 4/and related issues. Another simple approach would be to include in each proposal a standardized caption like "Theme Proposal for the IGF Submitted by the IGC" and a disclaimer paragraph so that readers see this came from the caucus space but there's no prioritization or specific endorsement of each, why they're all in Bertrand's standardized format, etc...It wouldn't be hard to write this, but there's no point if there's not much interest here in preserving the brand etc... Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Meryem Marzouki > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 11:29 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] URGENT - Proposal: guidelines to send IGC > submissions > > > Hi all, > > Please find below very quick guidelines that could be followed to > send finalized submissions on Tuesday (tomorrow) from the governance > caucus to IGF. I think they are workable. > Best, > Meryem > > - Guidelines for proponents: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 1/ Any individual or group who want its submission(s) to be sent > through the IGF caucus should post a message before Tuesday, 1pm CET, > with: > - the name(s) of the proponent(s) > - the clear mention that this is/are the final version(s) of the > proposal(s) > - its finalized proposal(s) as attached files > > 2/ This should be done whether or not the proposal has already been > sent by Robert > > - Guidelines for the caucus: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 1/ The caucus only submit to IGF proposal(s) made by either > individuals or groups (groups of individuals, NGOs, institutions, > projects, etc.). > > 2/ The caucus will NOT send proposals originating from any other WSIS > CS coalition with a "status" comparable to the governance caucus > (i.e. proposals from Privacy and Security Working Group, from the > Education, Academia and Research Taskforce, from regional caucuses, > from the Human Rights caucus will NOT be sent through the governance > caucus. In any case, those which have been posted to this mailing > list have already been sent by their own to the IGF). > > 3/ I will keep track of the proposals sent to this list, before > Tuesday 1pm CET according to the guidelines for proponents and to the > guidelines for the caucus (item 1 and 2 of this section). > I will send a compilation of them to the list before Tuesday 2pm CET. > If there is no opposition from proponents, the list of these > proposals will be sent to IGF secretariat by Tuesday 4pm CET. > > 4/ The final list of proposals will be sent to IGF by Robert, with > the governance caucus list in Cc. > The accompanying message should state that: > - This submission replaces the former submission made by Robert > - The proposals contained in the submission is made by individuals > and/or groups members of the governance caucus. > - The governance caucus has decided NOT to make any priority list, > and NOT to keep within the limits of the three themes. > - The governance caucus reminds the position expressed by many of its > members at the IGF consultation meeting in Geneva: the IGF is seen as > an umbrella under which various initiatives could be taken on a > bottom-up basis by > concerned stakeholders. We recommend to create working groups to deal > with the various proposed issues, in the framework of an on-going > process. [or any better formulation of this]. > > =========== > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Apr 3 09:31:24 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:01:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] URGENT - Proposal: guidelines to sendIGCsubmissions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200604031328.k33DS9JS054800@trout.cpsr.org> Hi Lee, Of course, no one is suggesting that we do not go ahead with 'Avri's process'. People have only expressed disappointment that something like that should also have been done with the process of submission of themes (though that is decidedly more complicated). And in the process only saying that 'Avri's process' kind of organized and coordinated thing is important for the caucus. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 6:47 PM To: drake at hei.unige.ch; parminder at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org; marzouki at ras.eu.org Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT - Proposal: guidelines to sendIGCsubmissions Hi, Leaving aside for the moment the 'themes' issue, which is urgent and embarrassing but we'll get over that, I'm wondering why people are jumping to the conclusion that Avri's process which is working fine now needs to be stopped. Sort the submissions issue as best we can, but let IGC's brand new nomcom do its thing. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> "Parminder" 4/3/2006 8:37 AM >>> >> Another simple approach would be to include in each proposal a standardized caption like "Theme Proposal for the IGF Submitted by the IGC" and a disclaimer paragraph so that readers see this came from the caucus space but there's no prioritization or specific endorsement of each, why they're all in Bertrand's standardized format, etc...It wouldn't be hard to write this, but there's no point if there's not much interest here in preserving the brand etc...>> I am for preserving the brand and doing as Bill suggests. And of course we needed to have done many of these things earlier which we didn't - and of course it is a shared responsibility that we didn't. It will be somewhat pointless, at least weak, to suggest MAG members, when no substantive agenda will be seen as having come out of IGC.... This goes back to the old problem of coordinators, and something of a 'status quo plus' for IGC.... Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 4:39 PM To: Meryem Marzouki; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT - Proposal: guidelines to send IGCsubmissions Hi Meryem, Thanks for moving this along. A couple of quick questions: Unless I'm missing something, as described, this seems like sort of path of least resistance, status quo proposal, essentially a 'do again' without any substantive changes other than that we make sure all are included and are in finalized form. Am I correct that you do not envision that each of the proposals would be labeled as coming from 'members of the IGC' or from 'the IGC'? Similarly, that they would not each include a standardized disclaimer/explanation---it sounds like this would only be done in an email to the secretariat? In that case, the only people who would see it are the IGF staff; when visitors download the proposals from the IGF website, they'd not see anything telling them the contents of your point 4/and related issues. Another simple approach would be to include in each proposal a standardized caption like "Theme Proposal for the IGF Submitted by the IGC" and a disclaimer paragraph so that readers see this came from the caucus space but there's no prioritization or specific endorsement of each, why they're all in Bertrand's standardized format, etc...It wouldn't be hard to write this, but there's no point if there's not much interest here in preserving the brand etc... Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Meryem Marzouki > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 11:29 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] URGENT - Proposal: guidelines to send IGC > submissions > > > Hi all, > > Please find below very quick guidelines that could be followed to > send finalized submissions on Tuesday (tomorrow) from the governance > caucus to IGF. I think they are workable. > Best, > Meryem > > - Guidelines for proponents: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 1/ Any individual or group who want its submission(s) to be sent > through the IGF caucus should post a message before Tuesday, 1pm CET, > with: > - the name(s) of the proponent(s) > - the clear mention that this is/are the final version(s) of the > proposal(s) > - its finalized proposal(s) as attached files > > 2/ This should be done whether or not the proposal has already been > sent by Robert > > - Guidelines for the caucus: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 1/ The caucus only submit to IGF proposal(s) made by either > individuals or groups (groups of individuals, NGOs, institutions, > projects, etc.). > > 2/ The caucus will NOT send proposals originating from any other WSIS > CS coalition with a "status" comparable to the governance caucus > (i.e. proposals from Privacy and Security Working Group, from the > Education, Academia and Research Taskforce, from regional caucuses, > from the Human Rights caucus will NOT be sent through the governance > caucus. In any case, those which have been posted to this mailing > list have already been sent by their own to the IGF). > > 3/ I will keep track of the proposals sent to this list, before > Tuesday 1pm CET according to the guidelines for proponents and to the > guidelines for the caucus (item 1 and 2 of this section). > I will send a compilation of them to the list before Tuesday 2pm CET. > If there is no opposition from proponents, the list of these > proposals will be sent to IGF secretariat by Tuesday 4pm CET. > > 4/ The final list of proposals will be sent to IGF by Robert, with > the governance caucus list in Cc. > The accompanying message should state that: > - This submission replaces the former submission made by Robert > - The proposals contained in the submission is made by individuals > and/or groups members of the governance caucus. > - The governance caucus has decided NOT to make any priority list, > and NOT to keep within the limits of the three themes. > - The governance caucus reminds the position expressed by many of its > members at the IGF consultation meeting in Geneva: the IGF is seen as > an umbrella under which various initiatives could be taken on a > bottom-up basis by > concerned stakeholders. We recommend to create working groups to deal > with the various proposed issues, in the framework of an on-going > process. [or any better formulation of this]. > > =========== > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.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 drake at hei.unige.ch Mon Apr 3 09:39:56 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 15:39:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] A minimalist solution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Meryem, Snipping.. > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Meryem Marzouki > However, now we are even beyond this approach (see my other message > with subject "what a mess"). The governance caucus shouldn't even > talk off submissions made by other constituencies, this meaning > dropping off Mawaki's and Ken's proposal (3 proposals all in all) > from any IGC "claim". While I understand your concern, I don't know that we could reach consensus to drop proposals by caucus members just because of their other affiliations. > Remaining proposals are: Parminder's, Bill's, Garth's, Ginger's. > Maybe other to come (APC? others?). > The status of Milton's proposal (under IGP) is unclear w.r.t. to any > IGC "claim". Yes, since they use the caucus format but make no mention of the caucus. > This situation is really a pity. This shows where we are, not only in > the governance caucus, but in CS as a whole. No priority, not even > coordination, only weakness. Not even a status quo, but steps > backwards. And be sure governments and the IGF secretariat will take > due note of this. Yes > I would rather propose that a letter be sent to the IGF, asking them > to kindly publish it on its website, when all proposals will be > received, saying that the IGC has made no proposal under its name on > purpose, so as to let all CS component to freely express its > priorities and to demonstrate the need for a large number of working > groups. The IGC acting here as a facilitator forsome CS components > w.r.t. IGF issues. I can't help thinking that anyone outside the caucus who read this letter would wonder why they're reading it. It's an internal process point of no interest to anyone else. > I'm also wondering how members of this caucus may dare think of > nominating people to the MAG, when it's not even possible to gather > proposals and send them in a consistent and responsible way. It's > really disappointing. Here we disagree. While the proposal submission process was a mess, the nomcom process worked and should go forward. I see no advantage to abandoning it now, and doubt that all the people who agreed to participate would accept doing so. Back to the proposals: Since rather few people have participated in the dialogue on this matter, I don't think we can achieve consensus by tomorrow on any kind of standardized framing or disclaimer text that goes beyond the one thing we agreed on, which was to employ Bertrand's six point framework for justifying the proposals. So why don't we simply leverage that to the end of establishing some caucus branding? A centralized process of collection and resubmission would be nice, but if that's too ambitious, I'd suggest that people simply send directly to the secretariat revised proposals that begin with the following statement: [NB: The below is in the standardized format agreed by the civil society Internet Governance Caucus for IGF theme submissions from its members] This would give us an element of caucus branding, making it clear that the proposals are from caucus members, and anyone looking at them would infer that they were probably discussed in the caucus. As to anything else, like does this mean each proposal is actually endorsed by the caucus collectively or does the caucus view some issues as priorities relative to others, well, we creatively fudge the questions and let them draw their own conclusions. Attached by way of example is what I will be sending the secretariat, unless someone has a better idea soon. Best, Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF Proposal-- WSIS Principles on Internet Governance.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 37362 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Mon Apr 3 09:50:15 2006 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 13:50:15 -0000 Subject: [governance] What a mess! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Meryem (and all) : In the mail sent on 25 March - in which I was seeking advise on the need of a formal proposal on capacity building - I said, I was thinking about developing one, on behalf notably of the African Civil Society. And the proposal was also commented by some ACS people. I didn't have a clear idea of what would happen. Probably that the absence of formal coordinators here doesn't facilitate matters. It was the same spirit for Mawaki's proposals. I think/hope problems regarding the submission of themes are not really damageable. The nomination of people in the MAG seems more critical and I think we are already discussing about it. Have a good day Ken L -----Message d'origine----- De : governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]De la part de Meryem Marzouki Envoye : lundi 3 avril 2006 11:36 A : governance at lists.cpsr.org Objet : [governance] What a mess! Sorry to bother you again but I've now found that proposals sent by Robert are now included (for those which weren't already sent by their proponents, as submissions from their authors (or, in the case of Mawaki and Ken, by the African CS). The 8 proposals sent by Robert are presented on IGF website as described below. Questions and comments: 1/ this means that the governance caucus appears NOWHERE, and has NOT A SINGLE proposal 2/ How it comes that Mawaki's two proposals have been sent (before Robert sends them) by the African CS proposal, Mawaki being not named? Mawaki has never told us this, which could have been a helpful information: his proposals were to be sent by another WSIS CS constituency, and not by the governance caucus 3/ Same applies for Ken's proposal (sent later on, and presented as the second submission by the African CS constituency, Ken being not named. Here is what one can found on the IGF website, regarding the 8 proposals sent by Robert: > (Mawaki's proposal) ==> "The African Civil Society For The Information Society (ACSIS), 29 March 2006" > (Mawaki's proposal) ==>"The African Civil Society For The Information Society (ACSIS), 29 March 2006" > (Ginger's proposal) ==> "United Nations Association of Venezuela, 29 March 2006" > (Garth's proposal) ==> "Telecommunities Canada 31 March 2006" >> (Bill's proposal) ==> "Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, 31 March 2006" >> (Parminder's proposal) > ==> "IT for Change, 31 March 2006" >> > ==> already directly sent by the WSIS Education, Academia and > Research Taskforce, kept as is >> (Ken's proposal) ==> "The African Civil Society For The Information Society (ACSIS), 30 March 2006" _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Apr 3 10:19:59 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:19:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] A minimalist solution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3A9D1027-8FB1-41B5-9CED-F91F5CA5249C@ras.eu.org> Bill, First, let me make some of my points clearer: - I never meant that nominating people to the MAG (and the process to reach this goal) was bad or should be stopped. Just expressing disappointment on the submission process, in comparison. - I don't necessarily want to drop proposal by any caucus members. Just pointing out how strange it could now appear that the IGC makes a proposal already made by another caucus. Other caucuses also want their "brand" appearing in the process, that's normal. An what does that mean to have same submissions from different caucuses (this is different from a _common_ submission) ? What it means with regards to CS (lack of) coordination? For this reason, wouldn't it be preferable to leave these proposals made by African CS ? Now on your comment and suggestions: - I understand your comment on the letter I proposed. In any case, it would have had a meaning only if accompanyied by a set of priority on all submissions. Let's forget about this - Your minimal suggestion... is really minimal! Why not including something along your previous suggestion, at least: > Another simple approach would be to include in each proposal a > standardized > caption like "Theme Proposal for the IGF Submitted by the IGC" and a > disclaimer paragraph so that readers see this came from the caucus > space but > there's no prioritization or specific endorsement of each, why > they're all > in Bertrand's standardized format, etc...It wouldn't be hard to > write this, > but there's no point if there's not much interest here in > preserving the > brand etc... Meryem Le 3 avr. 06 à 15:39, William Drake a écrit : >> >> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Meryem >> Marzouki > >> However, now we are even beyond this approach (see my other message >> with subject "what a mess"). The governance caucus shouldn't even >> talk off submissions made by other constituencies, this meaning >> dropping off Mawaki's and Ken's proposal (3 proposals all in all) >> from any IGC "claim". > > While I understand your concern, I don't know that we could reach > consensus > to drop proposals by caucus members just because of their other > affiliations. > >> Remaining proposals are: Parminder's, Bill's, Garth's, Ginger's. >> Maybe other to come (APC? others?). >> The status of Milton's proposal (under IGP) is unclear w.r.t. to any >> IGC "claim". > > Yes, since they use the caucus format but make no mention of the > caucus. > >> This situation is really a pity. This shows where we are, not only in >> the governance caucus, but in CS as a whole. No priority, not even >> coordination, only weakness. Not even a status quo, but steps >> backwards. And be sure governments and the IGF secretariat will take >> due note of this. > > Yes > >> I would rather propose that a letter be sent to the IGF, asking them >> to kindly publish it on its website, when all proposals will be >> received, saying that the IGC has made no proposal under its name on >> purpose, so as to let all CS component to freely express its >> priorities and to demonstrate the need for a large number of working >> groups. The IGC acting here as a facilitator forsome CS components >> w.r.t. IGF issues. > > I can't help thinking that anyone outside the caucus who read this > letter > would wonder why they're reading it. It's an internal process > point of no > interest to anyone else. > >> I'm also wondering how members of this caucus may dare think of >> nominating people to the MAG, when it's not even possible to gather >> proposals and send them in a consistent and responsible way. It's >> really disappointing. > > Here we disagree. While the proposal submission process was a > mess, the > nomcom process worked and should go forward. I see no advantage to > abandoning it now, and doubt that all the people who agreed to > participate > would accept doing so. > > Back to the proposals: Since rather few people have participated in > the > dialogue on this matter, I don't think we can achieve consensus by > tomorrow > on any kind of standardized framing or disclaimer text that goes > beyond the > one thing we agreed on, which was to employ Bertrand's six point > framework > for justifying the proposals. So why don't we simply leverage that > to the > end of establishing some caucus branding? A centralized process of > collection and resubmission would be nice, but if that's too > ambitious, I'd > suggest that people simply send directly to the secretariat revised > proposals that begin with the following statement: > > [NB: The below is in the standardized format agreed by the civil > society > Internet Governance Caucus for IGF theme submissions from its members] > > This would give us an element of caucus branding, making it clear > that the > proposals are from caucus members, and anyone looking at them would > infer > that they were probably discussed in the caucus. As to anything > else, like > does this mean each proposal is actually endorsed by the caucus > collectively > or does the caucus view some issues as priorities relative to > others, well, > we creatively fudge the questions and let them draw their own > conclusions. > > Attached by way of example is what I will be sending the > secretariat, unless > someone has a better idea soon. > > Best, > > Bill > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Apr 3 10:55:21 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:55:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] a masochistic try - 3 IGC priorities Message-ID: <47134064-4993-468F-9E3B-94F5FFF600BE@ras.eu.org> Let me make a masochistic try, given the expected replies, and specially after having bothered you with so many messages today:) What are the priorities of the IGC, if not the issues that are most discussed on this list since its creation ? Starting from this, I would list (without any order, my masochism has limits...): - DNS management/ICANN - Multistakeholderism/process - Affordability/Standards/Access (in one form or another) In addition, this caucus has constantly shown its commitment to the respect for freedom of expression and privacy. In one word, governance, governance, and governance. In addition, not only governance, but good governance. Who would then be against the following plain IGC proposal with three priorities (while making clear that this doesn't mean other proposals are not important, and don't deserve working groups, side workshops, etc.): - Milton's proposal entitled "Enhanced cooperation for coordination and management of critical Internet resources" - Bill's proposal entitled "The WSIS Principles on Internet Governance: Follow-up and Implementation" - Parminder's proposal entitled "Defining and fostering the ‘public- ness’ of the Internet – issues of public interest, public domain, public infrastructure and public good in the context of the Internet" With, in addition, a support to the task force on "Human Rights and Internet Governance" suggested by the HR caucus, making clear, like we did, that it's at the same time substantive and operational, i.e. not simply a discussion theme. There is some overlap between the three proposals (Milton's, Bill's and Parminder's), but no contradiction among them. So one could reinforce the others. Moreover, while other caucuses proposals are also making their way with their own brand, discussion on these IGC proposals would inevitably lead to discussions on many other submissions made, or at least on many of their aspects (Mawaki's two proposal, Ken's proposal, Milton's other proposal on "affordable access", HR caucus two proposals on "Interconnection costs" and "Access to knowledge and Technical standards"). No doubt that they would intersect with parts of APC proposal. This would allow IGC proposal greater chances to get through. What do you think ? Meryem [bullet-proff jacket worn] _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon Apr 3 10:57:41 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:57:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] A minimalist solution In-Reply-To: <3A9D1027-8FB1-41B5-9CED-F91F5CA5249C@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: Hi Meryem, Ok on other points. On, > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Meryem Marzouki > - Your minimal suggestion... is really minimal! Why not including > something along your previous suggestion, at least: > > > Another simple approach would be to include in each proposal a > > standardized > > caption like "Theme Proposal for the IGF Submitted by the IGC" and a > > disclaimer paragraph so that readers see this came from the caucus > > space but > > there's no prioritization or specific endorsement of each, why > > they're all > > in Bertrand's standardized format, etc...It wouldn't be hard to > > write this, > > but there's no point if there's not much interest here in > > preserving the > > brand etc... Any disclaimer paragraph would have to have broad buy, and I don't see that there's enough interest and participation in this discussion to make that happen by tomorrow. In contrast, nobody could disagree with [NB: The below is in the standardized format agreed by the civil society Internet Governance Caucus for IGF theme submissions from its members] Because it's patently true and doesn't go beyond the one point of agreement to characterize the caucus, its process, the standing of the proposals, or anything else. We ran out the clock with a disorganized process, let's learn from the mistake, do what we can actually do under the circumstances, and move on, no? Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Mon Apr 3 11:17:02 2006 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 15:17:02 -0000 Subject: [governance] A minimalist solution In-Reply-To: <3A9D1027-8FB1-41B5-9CED-F91F5CA5249C@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: Dear Meryem I think, first, that there are some misunderstandings, second that it's going as if the African CS is the responsible or the only "group" that did not mention the IG caucus in its contributions. Sorry if I didn't well understand you. I'm saying this because you wonder "wouldn't it be preferable to leave these proposals made by African CS ?". There can not be a competition between the African CS or ACSIS (which sent my proposals and Mawaki's - if we can speak in that way) and the IG Caucus because ACSIS is not a WSIS caucus. So there is no problem of branding - you said "Other caucuses also want their "brand" appearing in the process". ACSIS is a network like any other civil society entity having "members" in the IG Caucus (like the other entities that didn't mention the IG Caucus name in submitting their proposal - this was not intentional I think). ACSIS is formally different from the African Civil Society WSIS Caucus but I understand you may thought it was a WSIS caucus. Moreover, there are proposals discussed here and written in the format adopted here that have been submitted by other formal WSIS caucuses or groups. Maybe there is a problem of branding there but I don't think people behave to compete with the IG Caucus. I think things were not clear and we didn't well coordinate this, and maybe because we had a deadline, people thought the main issue was that the proposals are sent. And I think it possible we should correct and at least add that the contributions have been used according to the IGC format, to give tribute to the Caucus. Regards Ken L -----Message d'origine----- De : governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]De la part de Meryem Marzouki Envoyé : lundi 3 avril 2006 14:20 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org Objet : Re: [governance] A minimalist solution Bill, First, let me make some of my points clearer: - I never meant that nominating people to the MAG (and the process to reach this goal) was bad or should be stopped. Just expressing disappointment on the submission process, in comparison. - I don't necessarily want to drop proposal by any caucus members. Just pointing out how strange it could now appear that the IGC makes a proposal already made by another caucus. Other caucuses also want their "brand" appearing in the process, that's normal. An what does that mean to have same submissions from different caucuses (this is different from a _common_ submission) ? What it means with regards to CS (lack of) coordination? For this reason, wouldn't it be preferable to leave these proposals made by African CS ? Now on your comment and suggestions: - I understand your comment on the letter I proposed. In any case, it would have had a meaning only if accompanyied by a set of priority on all submissions. Let's forget about this - Your minimal suggestion... is really minimal! Why not including something along your previous suggestion, at least: > Another simple approach would be to include in each proposal a > standardized > caption like "Theme Proposal for the IGF Submitted by the IGC" and a > disclaimer paragraph so that readers see this came from the caucus > space but > there's no prioritization or specific endorsement of each, why > they're all > in Bertrand's standardized format, etc...It wouldn't be hard to > write this, > but there's no point if there's not much interest here in > preserving the > brand etc... Meryem _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Apr 3 11:27:37 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 17:27:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Clarifying misunderstandings - Re: A minimalist solution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A4BA8FF-622D-445C-967B-72C769EDDFE4@ras.eu.org> Dear Ken No problem at all with ACSIS making its own proposal wthout mentioning the IG caucus. After all, it's not because a message has been posted on this list that it's the "property" of the list. Many of us are cross-posting and looking from comments from different groups. Other caucuses have made their own proposals, without mentioning IGC, why would ACSIS didn't ? Again, this is a _normal_ process. The "branding" issue is normal, and apply to all caucuses and coalitions (thematic or regional), and CS in general. This is our way of showing that we are stakeholder in the process. The only problem would be to have the same proposal made by different caucus/ coalitions, showing the IGC and everyone how CS lacks coordination. The only problem comes from the lack of coordination of the IGC - of which we all are responsible -, and of CS as awhole. I hope this may clarify things. Best, Meryem Le 3 avr. 06 à 17:17, Ken Lohento a écrit : > Dear Meryem > > I think, first, that there are some misunderstandings, second that > it's > going as if the African CS is the responsible or the only "group" > that did > not mention the IG caucus in its contributions. Sorry if I didn't well > understand you. I'm saying this because you wonder "wouldn't it be > preferable to leave these proposals made by African CS ?". > > There can not be a competition between the African CS or ACSIS > (which sent > my proposals and Mawaki's - if we can speak in that way) and the > IG Caucus > because ACSIS is not a WSIS caucus. So there is no problem of > branding - you > said "Other caucuses also want their "brand" appearing in the > process". > ACSIS is a network like any other civil society entity having > "members" in > the IG Caucus (like the other entities that didn't mention the IG > Caucus > name in submitting their proposal - this was not intentional I > think). ACSIS > is formally different from the African Civil Society WSIS Caucus but I > understand you may thought it was a WSIS caucus. Moreover, there are > proposals discussed here and written in the format adopted here > that have > been submitted by other formal WSIS caucuses or groups. Maybe there > is a > problem of branding there but I don't think people behave to > compete with > the IG Caucus. I think things were not clear and we didn't well > coordinate > this, and maybe because we had a deadline, people thought the main > issue was > that the proposals are sent. And I think it possible we should > correct and > at least add that the contributions have been used according to the > IGC > format, to give tribute to the Caucus. > > Regards > > Ken L > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]De la part de Meryem > Marzouki > Envoyé : lundi 3 avril 2006 14:20 > À : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Objet : Re: [governance] A minimalist solution > > Bill, > > First, let me make some of my points clearer: > > - I never meant that nominating people to the MAG (and the process to > reach this goal) was bad or should be stopped. Just expressing > disappointment on the submission process, in comparison. > > - I don't necessarily want to drop proposal by any caucus members. > Just pointing out how strange it could now appear that the IGC makes > a proposal already made by another caucus. Other caucuses also want > their "brand" appearing in the process, that's normal. An what does > that mean to have same submissions from different caucuses (this is > different from a _common_ submission) ? What it means with regards to > CS (lack of) coordination? For this reason, wouldn't it be preferable > to leave these proposals made by African CS ? > > Now on your comment and suggestions: > > - I understand your comment on the letter I proposed. In any case, it > would have had a meaning only if accompanyied by a set of priority on > all submissions. Let's forget about this > > - Your minimal suggestion... is really minimal! Why not including > something along your previous suggestion, at least: > >> Another simple approach would be to include in each proposal a >> standardized >> caption like "Theme Proposal for the IGF Submitted by the IGC" and a >> disclaimer paragraph so that readers see this came from the caucus >> space but >> there's no prioritization or specific endorsement of each, why >> they're all >> in Bertrand's standardized format, etc...It wouldn't be hard to >> write this, >> but there's no point if there's not much interest here in >> preserving the >> brand etc... > > Meryem > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Mon Apr 3 11:29:04 2006 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 08:29:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality & IG In-Reply-To: <200604021943.k32Jhipc044529@squirrel.dmpriest.net.uk> Message-ID: <000f01c65733$58772630$341fa8c0@CCKLLP.local> When I think about "net neutrality" I think about a bundle of U.S.-centric issues regarding the way ISPs service the last mile connection to the Internet. Perhaps this is just my view as a U.S. citizen. Is "net neutrality" a global issue? Bret -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3981 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Mon Apr 3 11:55:41 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 08:55:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] What a mess! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060403155541.32667.qmail@web54706.mail.yahoo.com> [the last message I read on the list is the second posting with the subject line "what a mess" by Meryem - don't have time right now to read all the day postings] Dear Meryem et al. A mess, indeed, and as I read your last emails, I even feel like the whole situation is more than a mess! I know we have more important to do right now, but I do need to address something that bothers me in your presentation of the situation. 1/ To anyone who has been reading the postings on this list, it is not a mystery that both Ken and I are also participants in ACSIS/the African civil society caucus. In that space, we are of the very few engaged with information policy and IG issues. 2/ ACSIS as any other constituency wanted to submit themes that could address its concerns, so I made proposals there and submit them here, too, hoping that there would be some discussion that might improve them. As you probably know, no caucus questions the unraveled credentials of the IGC in the Internet governance issue area. And please be reminded that at the time, we were left with no clear guidelines to organize this submission process (and don’t read the past with the principles that you Meryem are putting forward only now). So for me, no one really knew the fate of those proposals we were making, as far as IGC was concerned. 3/ Meanwhile ACSIS felt comfortable with my proposals and went forward with the submission (I didn’t, but the ACSIS President did with the group's consent, including mine, of course), while Ken was discussing with Parminder (on this list) whether it was (strategically) appropriate or not to submit a capacity-building related theme to the IGF agenda. Eventually they agreed it would be better not to submit it as an IGF plenary agenda item, but Ken still wanted to draw attention of the IGF to support capacity-building activities (as I understood it). So those 2 proposals are in fact of a different nature (as to whether or not they are proposals for IGF plenary agenda), and they are in different languages so some first felt it was good/better to submit them in different files, still as ACSIS proposals. 3/ In ACSIS, when we send out contribution, we don’t mind any ego-entertainment issues (which we may have inside, sometimes, as any human grouping); when we agree to endorse and contribute any idea, it is sent out as ACSIS’s, period. So, from all the above, it is normal that you find on the IGF website those two separate contributions as ACSIS's and with no individual names. This is not the result of Ken or Mawaki posting anonymously their proposals, and trying again to have it posted by this Caucus. Nobody attempts to deceive anyone here. In addition, your very personal view being proposed now as a principle/guideline for submission was certainly not obvious to everyone of us, that is, the "principle of non multi-caucus endorsement." I understand that a submission by one caucus (i.e. the entire and exact list of proposals) should not be resubmitted as such by another caucus, but I don’t see why individual proposal from one caucus list of proposals cannot be endorsed and resubmitted by another caucus, if it pleases and if it wants to support it. And again, at the time we were trying to put these together, nobody knew for sure whether we were going to discuss and try to agree on a limited number (even if higher than 3) of proposals. And you know more than everyone else that the caucus didn't give the green light (so neither did I) for the Friday submission. I hope this clarifies, and certainly, if the caucus decides to go with your guidelines, I don’t see any problem withdrawing those problematic proposals from the IGC submission. Mawaki --- Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Sorry to bother you again but I've now found that proposals sent by > > Robert are now included (for those which weren't already sent by > their proponents, as submissions from their authors (or, in the > case > of Mawaki and Ken, by the African CS). > The 8 proposals sent by Robert are presented on IGF website as > described below. > > Questions and comments: > 1/ this means that the governance caucus appears NOWHERE, and has > NOT > A SINGLE proposal > 2/ How it comes that Mawaki's two proposals have been sent (before > > Robert sends them) by the African CS proposal, Mawaki being not > named? Mawaki has never told us this, which could have been a > helpful > information: his proposals were to be sent by another WSIS CS > constituency, and not by the governance caucus > 3/ Same applies for Ken's proposal (sent later on, and presented as > > the second submission by the African CS constituency, Ken being not > > named. > > Here is what one can found on the IGF website, regarding the 8 > proposals sent by Robert: > > > (Mawaki's proposal) > ==> "The African Civil Society For The Information Society (ACSIS), > > 29 March 2006" > > > (Mawaki's proposal) > ==>"The African Civil Society For The Information Society (ACSIS), > 29 > March 2006" > > > (Ginger's proposal) > ==> "United Nations Association of Venezuela, 29 March 2006" > > > (Garth's proposal) > ==> "Telecommunities Canada 31 March 2006" > > >> (Bill's > proposal) > ==> "Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance > Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, and Computer > Professionals for Social Responsibility, 31 March 2006" > > >> (Parminder's proposal) > > ==> "IT for Change, 31 March 2006" > > >> > > ==> already directly sent by the WSIS Education, Academia and > > Research Taskforce, kept as is > > > >> (Ken's proposal) > ==> "The African Civil Society For The Information Society (ACSIS), > > 30 March 2006" > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon Apr 3 12:08:48 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 18:08:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] What a mess! In-Reply-To: <20060403155541.32667.qmail@web54706.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Mawaki, > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango > them. As you probably know, no caucus questions the unraveled > credentials of the IGC in the Internet governance issue area. And Was this a Freudian slip? Unrivaled, perhaps? ;-) BD _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Mon Apr 3 12:36:14 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 09:36:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] What a mess! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060403163614.15026.qmail@web54712.mail.yahoo.com> Yes of course Bill, "...unrival(l)ed..." according to the dictionary:) thanks --- William Drake wrote: > Hi Mawaki, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Mawaki > Chango > > > them. As you probably know, no caucus questions the unraveled > > credentials of the IGC in the Internet governance issue area. And > > Was this a Freudian slip? Unrivaled, perhaps? ;-) > > BD > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Apr 3 13:57:12 2006 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:57:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] a caveat on theme submissions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <954259bd0604031057r6fb4a32ds35263357f21f06e6@mail.gmail.com> Dear Milton, There is a slight difference here : the theme submissions will not only be reviewed by the secretariat, but by the MAG (which will be a multi-stakeholder body) and discussed in the open consultations (no precisions on which comes first in terms of timing). On how to transmit them : my preference is to send them in batch, trough the caucus,but under the name of the submitters at that stage. Further individual or caucus endorsement can come in the comments / review process later on. Best Bertrand On 4/1/06, Milton Mueller wrote: > > By the way, if the comments on the structure of the MAG are any guide, it > won't make a lot of difference how we frame our submissions. The IGF > Secertariat obviously did not pay a lot of attention to the public comments > last time. If one reads ALL the published comments, nearly all of them call > for a small, 12-15 person MAG. Not a single one calls for a larger, 40 > person MAG. And yet, what did we get? A 40-person MAG. > > I hope the IGF secretariat understands the long term consequences of > ignoring public comment on the record to favor private, behind-the-scenes > negotiations with favored stakeholders. ICANN provides a precedent: after a > while, no one will take the process seriously and there will be no quality > comments. > > Dr. Milton Mueller > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://www.digital-convergence.org > http://www.internetgovernance.org > > >>> "William Drake" 03/31/06 9:08 AM >>> > Hi, > > As it's 4pm in Geneva and it didn't appear that there'd be movement to > consolidate and submit all the theme proposals today, I called the IGF > office. Markus is away but Chengetai was there. There's no rush, they are > zen and would be happy to receive proposals at the beginning of next week. > > Over the weekend it might be good to clarify the framing of the > submissions. Should they be presented as individual submissions, > submissions 'by members of the caucus,' (suitably ambiguous), submissions of > the caucus...? In one file, or many, in standardized format or why bother, > etc? In any event I think they'd prefer PDFs to emails... > > Bye, > > BD > > ******************************************************* > William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch > Director, Project on the Information > Revolution and Global Governance > Graduate Institute for International Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > President, Computer Professionals for > Social Responsibility > http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake > > ******************************************************* > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Apr 3 15:40:15 2006 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 05:40:15 +1000 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality & IG In-Reply-To: <000f01c65733$58772630$341fa8c0@CCKLLP.local> Message-ID: <200604031940.k33Je9iU035308@squirrel.dmpriest.net.uk> Bret, I certainly see it as a global issue - the nature of the threat takes different form in different countries, but includes actions such as * attempts to regulate and charge VOIP as some sort of different case to other Internet traffic in order to defend telco monopoly spaces * attempts to regulate and promote broadcast style channels of advertiser supported Internet content on free to air or cable (or in some cases mobile) to provide a limited access to a subset of Internet content - and to make that so widely available that the wider (non advertiser supported) Internet by default becomes some sort of second class network * I would probably extend the definition to attempts (even one Australian political party has done this) to regulate ISPs to provide a default set of "safe" Internet content, with subscribers having to "opt in" to the "non-safe" content if they want the rest of the Internet. That sort of action takes several forms in a number of countries. China usually gets a mention here but I am sure there are many others. This latter might be stretching the definition a little, but if the principles of net neutrality were better understood and the phenomenal media growth and innovation which have sprung from this unique aspect of the Internet were better appreciated, regulators might think differently about this range of issues. Ian Peter _____ From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: Tuesday, 4 April 2006 1:29 AM To: 'Governance' Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality & IG When I think about "net neutrality" I think about a bundle of U.S.-centric issues regarding the way ISPs service the last mile connection to the Internet. Perhaps this is just my view as a U.S. citizen. Is "net neutrality" a global issue? Bret -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.4/299 - Release Date: 31/03/2006 -------------- 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 robin at ipjustice.org Mon Apr 3 19:16:00 2006 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:16:00 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top Policy Issues for Athens In-Reply-To: References: <442C6EC6.4090802@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <4431ACB0.3020506@ipjustice.org> Richard Stallman wrote: >I would support any of these specific recommendations in another >context. But this document takes a point of view that accepts DRM, >per se, as legitimate. It opposes the prohibition of P2P software, >but doesn't call for the legalization of P2P sharing; it says nothing >to oppose laws such as the new German law, which would imprison all >people for sharing movies. > >For that reason, I have to urge people not to endorse the document. > > > I wonder why no effort was made to bring your own concerns to the attention of the IGF. Its easy to sit around and pick apart those who actually participate for not mentioning yet another issue or another bad law. Perhaps instead of considering whether to "endorse" others, you could participate yourself. Robin _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From db at dannybutt.net Mon Apr 3 20:28:33 2006 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 12:28:33 +1200 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality & IG In-Reply-To: <000f01c65733$58772630$341fa8c0@CCKLLP.local> References: <000f01c65733$58772630$341fa8c0@CCKLLP.local> Message-ID: <469E1C3F-1443-4351-9559-EAE7CA795D74@dannybutt.net> >> Is "net neutrality" a global issue? Good question Bret It is a "global issue", but from my POV, like many of the issues most loudly raised in the US (e.g. FoE), the term frames in a way that takes a simplistic or formalist view of a situation which is much more complex in real life. If we think of the decline of neutrality (wide-spread de-peering, walled gardens, DRM) as being co-extensive with the linguistic and socio-economic diversification of Internet use, then the "good old days of neutrality" weren't really as neutral as we might hope. Or at least we might need to do some serious investigations on the limits of the scope of the internet at that time that allowed neutrality to seem a viable principle. More to the point re: IGF, the economic drivers for retaining control of the customer's content experience (and not providing a free ride for competitors) are strong, and the potential policy remedies seem weak and dispersed, or at least more interventionist than the neo- classical ideology of US internet community would care for. I see it as more of a "worthy utopian principle", like transparency, than an "issue". Regards, Danny -- Danny Butt db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200 On 04/04/2006, at 3:29 AM, Bret Fausett wrote: > When I think about "net neutrality" I think about a bundle of U.S.- > centric > issues regarding the way ISPs service the last mile connection to the > Internet. Perhaps this is just my view as a U.S. citizen. Is "net > neutrality" a global issue? > > Bret > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From db at dannybutt.net Mon Apr 3 22:17:21 2006 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 14:17:21 +1200 Subject: [governance] A minimalist solution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6D41F210-958A-4410-9B35-379D79BD1805@dannybutt.net> Coordination discussions another time - in the interim I support Bill's suggestion. Regards, Danny On 04/04/2006, at 2:57 AM, William Drake wrote: > Any disclaimer paragraph would have to have broad buy, and I don't > see that > there's enough interest and participation in this discussion to > make that > happen by tomorrow. In contrast, nobody could disagree with > > [NB: The below is in the standardized format agreed by the civil > society > Internet Governance Caucus for IGF theme submissions from its members] > > Because it's patently true and doesn't go beyond the one point of > agreement > to characterize the caucus, its process, the standing of the > proposals, or > anything else. We ran out the clock with a disorganized process, > let's > learn from the mistake, do what we can actually do under the > circumstances, > and move on, no? -- Danny Butt db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Apr 4 02:42:30 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 12:12:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] A minimalist solution In-Reply-To: <6D41F210-958A-4410-9B35-379D79BD1805@dannybutt.net> Message-ID: <200604040638.k346ce7P071176@trout.cpsr.org> If it is now to be that a bunch will go from IGC with the tag line as suggested, I am enclosing the 'publicness' proposal with the tag line. Would like it to go as pdf, but am also submitting the word doc if some last minute changes are found in order. Thanks to whichever good soul volunteers to do this task. parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Danny Butt Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 7:47 AM To: Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] A minimalist solution Coordination discussions another time - in the interim I support Bill's suggestion. Regards, Danny On 04/04/2006, at 2:57 AM, William Drake wrote: > Any disclaimer paragraph would have to have broad buy, and I don't > see that > there's enough interest and participation in this discussion to > make that > happen by tomorrow. In contrast, nobody could disagree with > > [NB: The below is in the standardized format agreed by the civil > society > Internet Governance Caucus for IGF theme submissions from its members] > > Because it's patently true and doesn't go beyond the one point of > agreement > to characterize the caucus, its process, the standing of the > proposals, or > anything else. We ran out the clock with a disorganized process, > let's > learn from the mistake, do what we can actually do under the > circumstances, > and move on, no? -- Danny Butt db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ITfC and other NGOs - submission to IGF.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 25417 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ITfC and other NGOs - submission to IGF.doc Type: application/msword Size: 46592 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From nb at bollow.ch Tue Apr 4 05:13:30 2006 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 11:13:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Net neutrality & IG In-Reply-To: <000f01c65733$58772630$341fa8c0@CCKLLP.local> (bfausett@internet.law.pro) References: <000f01c65733$58772630$341fa8c0@CCKLLP.local> Message-ID: <20060404091330.A0BC91FD49B@quill.bollow.ch> Bret Fausett wrote: > When I think about "net neutrality" I think about a bundle of U.S.-centric > issues regarding the way ISPs service the last mile connection to the > Internet. Perhaps this is just my view as a U.S. citizen. Is "net > neutrality" a global issue? Yes. The principle of "net neutrality" is of fundamental importance for the internet as a whole. Of course it needs to be defined and articulated in a general way, and not just in reference to current U.S. policy discussions related to what the telcos call the "last mile". Greetings, Norbert. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Tue Apr 4 05:32:24 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 11:32:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] A minimalist solution In-Reply-To: <6D41F210-958A-4410-9B35-379D79BD1805@dannybutt.net> Message-ID: Hi, I have sent my revised proposal to the secretariat with the sentence, > > [NB: The below is in the standardized format agreed by the civil > > society > > Internet Governance Caucus for IGF theme submissions from its members] inserted and would suggest that anyone who wants to revise similarly resubmit directly to the secretariat. Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Danny Butt > Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 4:17 AM > To: Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] A minimalist solution > > > Coordination discussions another time - in the interim I support > Bill's suggestion. > > Regards, > > Danny > > On 04/04/2006, at 2:57 AM, William Drake wrote: > > > Any disclaimer paragraph would have to have broad buy, and I don't > > see that > > there's enough interest and participation in this discussion to > > make that > > happen by tomorrow. In contrast, nobody could disagree with > > > > [NB: The below is in the standardized format agreed by the civil > > society > > Internet Governance Caucus for IGF theme submissions from its members] > > > > Because it's patently true and doesn't go beyond the one point of > > agreement > > to characterize the caucus, its process, the standing of the > > proposals, or > > anything else. We ran out the clock with a disorganized process, > > let's > > learn from the mistake, do what we can actually do under the > > circumstances, > > and move on, no? > > > -- > Danny Butt > db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net > Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com > Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand > Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200 > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.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 Apr 4 09:29:00 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 09:29:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top Policy Issues forAthens Message-ID: This seems to me to be the correct approach. I think Norbert has it right here. --MM >>> Norbert Bollow 04/03/06 3:36 AM >>> Those who like DRM are still free to use it, but I am able to prevent them from _redistributing_ _my_ work, or a derivative work thereof, as part of a DRM scheme to which try to subject third parties. When I release a program that I have written as Free Software, I want this activity to increase the amount of freedom which exists in the world, and I want to take precautions against my work having unintended effects of actually decreasing the freedom which exists in the world. In other words, because the GPLv3 draft has been created, I have gained the ability to do what I want (thank you, FSF), while pro-DRM people retain the ability to do what they want. Of course I hope that over time, a social consensus will emerge that DRM (in the sense of allowing anyone to impose restrictions on what someone else's computer may be programmed to do) is not acceptable in any form or shape. In the meantime, those who are in favor of DRM vote with their actions for their opinion, by using some kind of DRM system for those creative works concerning which they control copyright-related rights. It's only fair when we who are opposed to DRM can also vote with our actions for our opinion, by using DRM-incompatible licensensing for our creative works. Greetings, Norbert _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Apr 4 09:55:44 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 15:55:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC nominating committee for IGF MAG candidates Message-ID: <24D04E12-7D44-42F9-A2D6-10FFB3D01646@psg.com> Hi, As mentioned in an earlier note, the IGC was setting up a nomcom to develop a list of candidates for the IGF-MAG. As planned, a random procedure was used, and the members of this nomcom have been selected: Voting members Magaly Pazello Rainer Kuhlen Bret Faucett Karen Banks Richard Draves Non voting chair: Avri Doria We had 34 volunteers in the drawing. One of the rules we are operating under is that none of the members of the nomcom can be selected by the nomcom as IGC candidates for the IGF-MAG. We will be working over the next 2 weeks to produce a list of candidates. The basic criteria we are using are: - All candidates must be CS participants in the WSIS and post-WSIS activities - 2 candidates from each of the 5 regions with gender balance - 5 additional to balance for skill/knowledge set, age, disability, ... - Additionally - anyone can nominate, including members of the nomcom. - self nominations are invited At a minimum, all nominations and self nominations should consist of the following: - Name - Nationality - Country of Residence - Gender - Short Bio relevant to IG - Why the (self)nominee is a good choice for the MAG All nominations statements should be sent to : IGC-nomcom at wsis-cs.org thanks a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Tue Apr 4 10:02:05 2006 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 16:02:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC nominating committee for IGF MAG candidates In-Reply-To: <24D04E12-7D44-42F9-A2D6-10FFB3D01646@psg.com> References: <24D04E12-7D44-42F9-A2D6-10FFB3D01646@psg.com> Message-ID: <44327C5D.4030203@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Avri Doria wrote: > comment.> Thanks, Avri. Looks good. Maybe someone could add a sentence or two on the expected workload? Just to make sure people know damn sure what they are running for. (I have been approached myself to be nominated for the MAG, but declined because I don't have time for meetings in Geneva and stuff like that at the moment.) Ralf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Tue Apr 4 10:13:07 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 16:13:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC nominating committee for IGF MAG candidates In-Reply-To: <24D04E12-7D44-42F9-A2D6-10FFB3D01646@psg.com> References: <24D04E12-7D44-42F9-A2D6-10FFB3D01646@psg.com> Message-ID: <44327EF3.6090308@wz-berlin.de> Just for clarification: If I understand correctly, nominating someone means to suggest a person and to explain why this person would be good for the MAG. If that person accepts the nomination, she sends the requested bio to the NomCom? If not, could you please explain who is expected to do what? thanks. jeanette > The basic criteria we are using are: > > - All candidates must be CS participants in the WSIS and post-WSIS > activities > - 2 candidates from each of the 5 regions with gender balance > - 5 additional to balance for skill/knowledge set, age, disability, ... > > - Additionally > - anyone can nominate, including members of the nomcom. > - self nominations are invited > > At a minimum, all nominations and self nominations should consist of > the following: > > - Name > - Nationality > - Country of Residence > - Gender > - Short Bio relevant to IG > - Why the (self)nominee is a good choice for the MAG > > All nominations statements should be sent to : IGC-nomcom at wsis-cs.org > > 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 james.love at cptech.org Tue Apr 4 10:44:24 2006 From: james.love at cptech.org (James Love) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 10:44:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top Policy Issues forAthens In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <564EB393-C184-4C1E-B522-E2CB150A9245@cptech.org> I am wondering if the emphasis on the term DRM is the wrong one. I believe the objections are partly about technical protection measures (TPMs), which make it impossible to access works. The various versions of the GPL are themselves types of DRMs, as are the creative commons, Apache or Berkley licenses. The problems I think people are most concerned about are the technical enforcement of DRM licenses, particularly if these are driven into the hardware of computers and other devices. Also, within the DRM area, the problem are what might be considered "unfair" or "anticompetitive" terms in licenses, and the efforts by some to make non-negotiated instruments enforceable as contracts. Jamie On Apr 4, 2006, at 9:29 AM, Milton Mueller wrote: > This seems to me to be the correct approach. I think Norbert has it > right here. > --MM > >>>> Norbert Bollow 04/03/06 3:36 AM >>> > Those who like DRM are still free to use it, but I am able to > prevent them from _redistributing_ _my_ work, or a derivative > work thereof, as part of a DRM scheme to which try to subject > third parties. > > When I release a program that I have written as Free Software, > I want this activity to increase the amount of freedom which > exists in the world, and I want to take precautions against > my work having unintended effects of actually decreasing the > freedom which exists in the world. > > In other words, because the GPLv3 draft has been created, I > have gained the ability to do what I want (thank you, FSF), > while pro-DRM people retain the ability to do what they want. > > Of course I hope that over time, a social consensus will > emerge that DRM (in the sense of allowing anyone to impose > restrictions on what someone else's computer may be programmed > to do) is not acceptable in any form or shape. > > In the meantime, those who are in favor of DRM vote with > their actions for their opinion, by using some kind of DRM > system for those creative works concerning which they control > copyright-related rights. It's only fair when we who are > opposed to DRM can also vote with our actions for our opinion, > by using DRM-incompatible licensensing for our creative works. > > Greetings, > Norbert > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > --------------------------------- James Love, CPTech / www.cptech.org / mailto:james.love at cptech.org / tel. +1.202.332.2670 / mobile +1.202.361.3040 "If everyone thinks the same: No one thinks." Bill Walton _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Apr 4 10:54:46 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 16:54:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC nominating committee for IGF MAG candidates In-Reply-To: <44327EF3.6090308@wz-berlin.de> References: <24D04E12-7D44-42F9-A2D6-10FFB3D01646@psg.com> <44327EF3.6090308@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: Hi, On 4 apr 2006, at 16.13, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Just for clarification: If I understand correctly, nominating > someone means to suggest a person and to explain why this person > would be good for the MAG. yes. although it can also be a self nomination. > If that person accepts the nomination, she sends the requested bio > to the NomCom? If not, could you please explain who is expected to > do what? well, i wasn't thinking of anything strict. i think that the nominee could do it. or the nominated could do it. i think that the most important thing is to have the information. and if it comes collated in one package, no matter who sends it, then it is easier for me. but if you think it should be more formal, i would welcome a suggestion on a process we could use. thanks a. > thanks. jeanette > >> The basic criteria we are using are: >> - All candidates must be CS participants in the WSIS and post- >> WSIS activities >> - 2 candidates from each of the 5 regions with gender balance >> - 5 additional to balance for skill/knowledge set, age, >> disability, ... >> - Additionally >> - anyone can nominate, including members of the nomcom. >> - self nominations are invited >> At a minimum, all nominations and self nominations should consist >> of the following: >> - Name >> - Nationality >> - Country of Residence >> - Gender >> - Short Bio relevant to IG >> - Why the (self)nominee is a good choice for the MAG >> All nominations statements should be sent to : IGC-nomcom at wsis-cs.org >> 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Tue Apr 4 11:00:50 2006 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 11:00:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC nominating committee for IGF MAG candidates In-Reply-To: References: <24D04E12-7D44-42F9-A2D6-10FFB3D01646@psg.com> <44327EF3.6090308@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <131293a20604040800v560e8896l4991b4cd24c5942b@mail.gmail.com> Easiest way I would think is if: With the nomination, the information comes. If it is a self-nomination, cool. If the nomination comes from someone else, then the NomCom needs to contact that person to ensure that they are willing to serve. So - the nomination isn't complete until all the info is in, preferably in one package. Then the NomCom starts its job - checking to make sure that everyone is willing to serve if nominated, getting more info where needed to make a decision, etc. Jacqueline On 4/4/06, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > On 4 apr 2006, at 16.13, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > > > > Just for clarification: If I understand correctly, nominating > > someone means to suggest a person and to explain why this person > > would be good for the MAG. > > yes. although it can also be a self nomination. > > > If that person accepts the nomination, she sends the requested bio > > to the NomCom? If not, could you please explain who is expected to > > do what? > > well, i wasn't thinking of anything strict. i think that the nominee > could do it. or the nominated could do it. i think that the most > important thing is to have the information. and if it comes collated > in one package, no matter who sends it, then it is easier for me. > > but if you think it should be more formal, i would welcome a > suggestion on a process we could use. > > thanks > a. > > > > thanks. jeanette > > > >> The basic criteria we are using are: > >> - All candidates must be CS participants in the WSIS and post- > >> WSIS activities > >> - 2 candidates from each of the 5 regions with gender balance > >> - 5 additional to balance for skill/knowledge set, age, > >> disability, ... > >> - Additionally > >> - anyone can nominate, including members of the nomcom. > >> - self nominations are invited > >> At a minimum, all nominations and self nominations should consist > >> of the following: > >> - Name > >> - Nationality > >> - Country of Residence > >> - Gender > >> - Short Bio relevant to IG > >> - Why the (self)nominee is a good choice for the MAG > >> All nominations statements should be sent to : IGC-nomcom at wsis-cs.org > >> 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 > -- 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 bfausett at internet.law.pro Tue Apr 4 11:12:10 2006 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 08:12:10 -0700 Subject: [governance] IGC nominating committee for IGF MAG candidates In-Reply-To: <131293a20604040800v560e8896l4991b4cd24c5942b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002a01c657fa$272d0460$341fa8c0@CCKLLP.local> How about this instead: if the nomination is not a self-nomination, then the nominator checks with the nominated to ensure that she or he is willing to serve. This distributes the burden of checking and takes it off the nominating committee's shoulders. -- Bret -----Original Message----- Easiest way I would think is if: With the nomination, the information comes. If it is a self-nomination, cool. If the nomination comes from someone else, then the NomCom needs to contact that person to ensure that they are willing to serve. -----Original Message----- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3981 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 Tue Apr 4 11:12:50 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 17:12:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC nominating committee for IGF MAG candidates In-Reply-To: References: <24D04E12-7D44-42F9-A2D6-10FFB3D01646@psg.com> <44327EF3.6090308@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <44328CF2.1060004@wz-berlin.de> My concern was that a new chaos could emerge caused by nominations without the requested information regarding the nominees. So, one way to handle the process would be to say the following: If you want to (self) nominate (someone), please explain why this person is a good choice for the MAG. In the context of the WGIG nominations, not all nominees had been asked before they were suggested. Perhaps its worth mentioning that the nominee's consent is necessary for a nomination. jeanette Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > On 4 apr 2006, at 16.13, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> >> >> Just for clarification: If I understand correctly, nominating someone >> means to suggest a person and to explain why this person would be good >> for the MAG. > > yes. although it can also be a self nomination. > >> If that person accepts the nomination, she sends the requested bio to >> the NomCom? If not, could you please explain who is expected to do what? > > well, i wasn't thinking of anything strict. i think that the nominee > could do it. or the nominated could do it. i think that the most > important thing is to have the information. and if it comes collated in > one package, no matter who sends it, then it is easier for me. > > but if you think it should be more formal, i would welcome a suggestion > on a process we could use. > > thanks > a. > > >> thanks. jeanette >> >>> The basic criteria we are using are: >>> - All candidates must be CS participants in the WSIS and post-WSIS >>> activities >>> - 2 candidates from each of the 5 regions with gender balance >>> - 5 additional to balance for skill/knowledge set, age, disability, ... >>> - Additionally >>> - anyone can nominate, including members of the nomcom. >>> - self nominations are invited >>> At a minimum, all nominations and self nominations should consist of >>> the following: >>> - Name >>> - Nationality >>> - Country of Residence >>> - Gender >>> - Short Bio relevant to IG >>> - Why the (self)nominee is a good choice for the MAG >>> All nominations statements should be sent to : IGC-nomcom at wsis-cs.org >>> 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 muguet at mdpi.net Tue Apr 4 13:36:12 2006 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 19:36:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top Policy Issues forAthens In-Reply-To: <20060404153621.GA10701@mundula.cs.mu.OZ.AU> References: <564EB393-C184-4C1E-B522-E2CB150A9245@cptech.org> <20060404153621.GA10701@mundula.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Message-ID: <4432AE8C.1020402@mdpi.net> Hello >On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 10:44:24AM -0400, James Love wrote: > > >>I am wondering if the emphasis on the term DRM is the wrong one. I >>believe the objections are partly about technical protection measures >>(TPMs), which make it impossible to access works. The various >>versions of the GPL are themselves types of DRMs >> >> > >I think there would be far less confusion if we could all agree that DRM and >TPM are 3-letter words that mean the same thing. > It seems that much of the heat of the debate relates to a semantic misunderstanding. DRM includes TPMs but it is more than just TPMs. TPMs are DRMs but not the reverse, although many people are making the assimilation. You may also use DRMs technologies for illegal uses ( defiance of local laws by monopolies for example ) . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management *Digital rights management* (*DRM*) is the umbrella term referring to any of several technologies used to enforce pre-defined policies controlling access to software, music, movies, or other digital data and hardware. In more technical terms, DRM handles the description, layering, analysis, valuation, trading and monitoring of the rights held over a digital work. In the widest possible sense, the term refers to any such management. The term is often confused with copy protection and technical protection measures (TPM). These two terms refer to technologies that control and/or restrict the use and access of digital media content on electronic devices with such technologies installed. DRM critics argue that the phrase "digital rights management" is a misnomer and the term *digital restrictions management* is a more accurate characterization of the functionality of DRM systems. http://www.answers.com/topic/digital-rights-management (*D*igital *R*ights *M*anagement) A system for authorizing the viewing or playback of copyrighted material on a user's computer or digital music player. DRM has centered around copyrighted music, with Apple's FairPlay and Microsoft's Windows Digital Rights Manager being the two predominant DRM systems. Video DRM is on the horizon as broadband Internet and more highly compressed video formats take hold. See FairPlay , Windows Digital Rights Manager and copy protection . http://www.marketresearch.com/product/display.asp?productid=1163922&g=1 DRM (Digital Right Management) DRM concerns the management of copies of virtual goods. It goes far beyond simple anti-copying protection, but can notably make it possible to identify a work, rights holders and authorised uses, as well as making it possible to describe related rights such as simple and multiple playing, recording, simple and multiple copying, copying limited to selected pieces of equipment etc. It enables rights distribution and the collection of corresponding data (a function that it shares with access control). DRM can also be linked to access control. It can also be combined with a technical protection measure. > The acronym DRM was invented >to describe technical systems for controlling access to and preventing copying >of copyrightable files. > It is more general than that, DRMs can control network traffic for example, can control the rights that you may have the possibility to transfer to somebody else, make use of RFIDs, etc... > Including the GPL and other free software licenses in >the same term, just because they involve the management of digital rights, is >in completely contradiction to the widespread usage of that acronym. > > > Yes, of course, DRM is a technology, not a legal instrument like a license, this confusion ( FUD ) is propagated by proponents of DRMs, who presents DRMs are an unescaple consequence of "rights protections" that needs to be "managed". In practise, DRMs are much than just zipping a file with a password as Milton, seemingly an advocate of DRMs, gave as an example. while it is just a primitive TMP. DRMs are taking control over your computer, leaving no freedom to a user to decide what he/she believes it is legal or not to do. In other words, it is like a robocop that is taking control over your free will, and may impose by force, something you may find illegitimate, unethical or illegal. Laws are just reflecting a state of historical fluxes, whenever there is enough people disobeying a law, the law becomes ineffective, and sooner or latter the law is changed, what was illegal one day, becomes legal after. ( eg the use of strong encryption over the internet ). Citizens must have a right to make their own judgment, to make laws evolve... Remenber that, at some point of history, slavery was legal, and most people were finding this status as "normal", it took some severe disobediance and wars to change this law.... Here, we are talking as enslaving our computers, some people are finding it as "normal"... some don't.... guess who is right ? As Nietzche once said : The future belongs to those who have the longest memory.... Best regards Francis PS : In the US, some security employees already got "voluntarily" a RFID implanted in their bodies.... Welcome to the Brave DRM new world ! DRM ...that would be a fitting title for a dark SF movie... ;-( >I think I came to off-list agreement with Taran about this, too. > > > -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Francis F. Muguet Ph.D MDPI Open Access Journals - Associate Publisher http://www.mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net Knowledge Networks & Information Society Lab. (KNIS) http://www.knis.org http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet E.N.S.T.A 32 Boulevard Victor muguet at ensta.fr 75739 PARIS CEDEX FRANCE (33) 01.45.52.60.19 -- Fax: (33) 01.45.52.52.82 WSIS World Summit on the Information Society Chair Scientific Information WG http://www.wsis-si.org Co-chair Patents & Copyrights WG htt://www.wsis-pct.org Multi-Stakeholders UN agency proposal http://www.unmsp.org WTIS World Tour of the Information Society http://www.wtis.org muguet at wtis;org ----------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From cnd at knowprose.com Tue Apr 4 14:08:02 2006 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 14:08:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top Policy Issues for Athens In-Reply-To: <48851A6D-B415-4D31-801C-6E768C309B6B@gmail.com> References: <442C6EC6.4090802@ipjustice.org> <442DA65C.5070704@knowprose.com> <48851A6D-B415-4D31-801C-6E768C309B6B@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4432B602.6040406@knowprose.com> *sigh* Litigation is the original mechanism of 'Digital Rights Management', and it's what got us here in the first place - designing licenses so we wouldn't have to litigate as much. Litigation costs money. I'm surprised how many people are stuck on one implementation of Digital Rights Management. If freedom is a right, which we should all agree, then what needs to be discussed is the balance of Digital Rights Management. This may all be semantic for some of you, but I believe that it is important if there is to be a firm basis for forming equitable laws and licenses that can apply around the world. At the core is the definition of 'property'. Oddly, I find that most of this discussion dances around what others have defined as property instead of what we think property is. The core to the issue is who owns what and who doesn't own what. That transcends software, content, patenting life and all manner of issues. And then we have to consider how creators can make money. I find it disturbing that so many people who are upset with the issue of who owns what don't want to dig into the meat of the problem itself. It's a systemic issue, and thinking that we can solve the world's problems by beating a software license to death seems... silly in a broader context to me. Software licenses should be about software, not the manner in which the software is used. Content licenses should be about content, and so on. And at the very core, at the center, we have to deal with the human issue because without the human issue none of this is relevant. I've heard that there are no 'digital rights' from someone, when they probably meant that there are no digital rights to digital works - which may or may not be true; it's uncharted territory (or what has been charted was charted on a flat map instead of a round globe - an interesting mathematical analog which could explain deviations along 'straight lines'). Nobody here has the monopoly on 'being right'. What we should be doing is 'finding right', and I'm not certain that we're taking the time to do this right. My concerns have been made public, and a few people understand what I've meant and have helped point out the weak points and strengths. That is what discussion is for. Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote: >> DRM could have valid implementations - for example, to assure that the >> rights of Free Software are maintained. Rights are rights, but >> licenses >> vary - and so do implementations of objects. > > There already is a very efficient way to assure that the rights of > Free Software are maintained. It is called "litigation", and it comes > with a handy set of tools that will ensure that the debate will be > reasonnably fair and democratic : due process of law, rules of > evidence, etc. > > Replacing the democratic rules of litigation with automated computer > programs is not only illusory with regards to its efficiency, it is > also highly immoral and dangerous for democracy. > > Jean-Baptiste Soufron > cersa-cnrs paris 2 > +33 (0)6 17 96 24 57 > http://soufron.typhon.net > > > _______________________________________________ > A2k mailing list > A2k at lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k > > > -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago cnd at knowprose.com Looking for contracts/work! http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786 New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From cnd at knowprose.com Tue Apr 4 17:09:37 2006 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 17:09:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top Policy Issues for Athens In-Reply-To: <4432CEAE.5020603@cs.ucl.ac.uk> References: <442C6EC6.4090802@ipjustice.org> <442DA65C.5070704@knowprose.com> <48851A6D-B415-4D31-801C-6E768C309B6B@gmail.com> <4432B602.6040406@knowprose.com> <4432CEAE.5020603@cs.ucl.ac.uk> Message-ID: <4432E091.10505@knowprose.com> Ian Brown wrote: > Taran Rampersad wrote: >> Litigation is the original mechanism of 'Digital Rights Management', and >> it's what got us here in the first place - designing licenses so we >> wouldn't have to litigate as much. Litigation costs money. I'm surprised >> how many people are stuck on one implementation of Digital Rights >> Management. > > I do not think that the common usage of "DRM" includes the legal > enforcement of restrictions on the use of digital content. It's about > attempts at digital enforcement of restrictions on content use. I agree. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a usage of 'DRM' that isn't what is being implemented. 'Moot' is another commonly misused word, and there's no such word as 'irrelevant'. 'Hacking' means solving problems, but it's commonly misused as well. And 'intellectual property' bands together all sorts of law where there is not much commonality - then there's 'piracy'... I'm still wondering when 'Open Source Politics' will allow me to legally to exploratory surgery on a politician, but I digress... The common usage of 'DRM' doesn't. In fact, the common usage of 'DRM' is a manner of bypassing the costs of litigation. It's a simple matter of cost, not a bunch of people saying "Let's screw people over". Well, maybe there are a few out there saying the latter, but I wouldn't say that they are the norm of 'DRM' support as a technological implementation. If litigation on an international level were cheaper, there probably would be less interest in a DRM mechanism. As it is, it's a sinkhole for large corporations (in my opinion) to toss money into in the hope that 'piracy' will stop. 'DRM' is largely self limiting in a broader sense, in my opinion. It takes people getting angry sometimes for there to be a change, but becoming angry itself is not change of anything but a change in emotional state. Where that anger is directed is important. Cutting off the head of a dragon is sensible, but after all these years I would hope that the leaders of consumer rights would realize that they are dealing with a hydra. > > Technology is unlikely in most of our lifetimes to have the subtlety > of understanding of (most) courts of the validity of the copyright and > contract provisions expressed in these restrictions. Future generations do depend on us to at least approach things properly, though. That something may not change in my lifetime is not something I would consider as something worth changing. > This has led to the problems of which we are all aware with > anti-competitive, invasive, fair-use-destroying DRM systems. The origin of copyright itself is similar. It was about people producing things, and people with more money than them selling the same things to the detriment of the original creator. So they gave the creator rights to protect themselves financially. But then the people with the money and networks merged with the creators; paying the creators to own the *copyright* itself. So the *copyright* became 'property' in a legal sense, when it was only originally a matter of rights to use what one created and to assure that others could not use it to the financial detriment of the creator. But it created a new commodity. I've wondered openly what would happen if legal entities could not own copyrights or patents. We might have less people being dismissed just before they retire, for one... Anyway, the original idea behind copyright has been subverted, I think, and the imperfection is what we're dwelling on because people before our lifetime might have said that it won't change in their lifetime. Yet now, the internet has leveled the playing field, and the law, in it's infinite wisdom, allows both an individual and a large legal entity to have the same costs associated with litigating against people who infringe upon the creator - where the creator, of course, has rights that haven't really been defined very well. So in a lot of ways, the magic phrase 'DRM' can mean good things for people with small and medium enterprises because it allows them to compete with large corporations for the same markets without a high cost of litigation. That certainly doesn't make the implementation just. But it means that until we figure out what we're going to do with this old problem we've been playing with for generations, creators themselves *feel* that they can compete a bit better in the market as it exists today. They may *feel* that it mitigates their risk. They may even have to use something along those lines to get a loan from a bank simply to give the bank a warm fuzzy feeling. TANSTAAFL. -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago cnd at knowprose.com Looking for contracts/work! http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786 New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Apr 5 04:56:12 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 10:56:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC nominating committee for IGF MAG candidates Message-ID: <51587709-AC76-45E9-A34F-463817A376FF@psg.com> Hi, As mentioned in an earlier note, the IGC was setting up a nomcom to develop a list of candidates for the IGF-MAG. As planned, a random procedure was used, and the members of this nomcom have been selected: Voting members Magaly Pazello Rainer Kuhlen Bret Faucett Karen Banks Richard Draves Non voting chair: Avri Doria We had 34 volunteers in the drawing. One of the rules we are operating under is that none of the members of the nomcom can be selected by the nomcom as IGC candidates for the IGF-MAG. We will be working over the next 2 weeks to produce a list of candidates. The basic criteria we are using are: - All candidates must be CS participants in the WSIS and post-WSIS activities - 2 candidates from each of the 5 regions with gender balance - 5 additional to balance for skill/knowledge set, age, disability, ... - Additionally - anyone can nominate, including members of the nomcom. - self nominations are invited At a minimum, all nominations and self nominations should consist of the following: - Name - Name of nominator (or self) - Nationality - Country of Residence - Gender - Short Bio relevant to IG - Why the (self)nominee is a good choice for the MAG It would also be useful to indicate that the (self) nominee has the ability to handle the additional workload. While the work load is uncertain, it will probably involve 1-2 several day meetings in Geneva (one os already scheduled in May) and a fair amount of email traffic. If the WGIG workload is any indication, there may be times, especially as the Athens meeting approaches where this could consume at least a day a week. All nominations statements should be sent to : IGC-nomcom at wsis-cs.org before 10 April. We request that either nominator or the nominee, collect all the info into a single email. Also, if the nomination is not a self-nomination, then the nominator should check with the nominated to ensure that she or he is willing to serve. Note: the statements don't need to be long. The list of candidates must be sent to the IGF secretariat by the 18th of April and will be announced on this list at that time. thanks a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Apr 5 04:56:54 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 10:56:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] nomcom announcement Message-ID: hi, i took the comments into account and sent the announcement to the plenary list. please suggest other lists i should send it too. thanks a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Apr 5 05:33:23 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 11:33:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] nomcom announcement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I've forwarded your call, with a companion message explaining what is all this about, to the HR caucus list. Le 5 avr. 06 à 10:56, Avri Doria a écrit : > hi, > > i took the comments into account and sent the announcement to the > plenary list. > > please suggest other lists i should send it too. > > 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 avri at psg.com Wed Apr 5 08:22:10 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 14:22:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [arin-announce] Remote Participation at ARIN XVII References: <4411CA9C.7080609@arin.net> Message-ID: <3EE793D7-2568-4211-B761-5F4EFBA589CC@psg.com> Hi, Remote participation is rather painless in ARIN (the American Registry for Internet Numbers), and it is possible to make comments remotely. Someone reads them and they are taken seriously. I have done it. I also spoke to Raymond Pizak, President of ARIN, recently and he is rather keen to get more civil society input. So, if you are interested, but all means signup and participate. a. Begin forwarded message: > From: Member Services > Date: 10 mars 2006 19.51.08 GMT+01:00 > To: arin-announce at arin.net > Subject: [arin-announce] Remote Participation at ARIN XVII > > In its continuing effort to supply the community with an open forum, > ARIN is inviting individuals who cannot attend the meeting in > person to > participate remotely. Remote participants may post questions and > comments to be addressed in normal question and answer periods > throughout the agenda. Remote participation in the ARIN XVII Public > Policy and Members Meetings via e-mail is available to all members of > the community that cannot attend the meeting in person. The entire > ARIN > XVII Public Policy Meeting and ARIN Members Meeting will be webcast. > > For this meeting, registration for remote participation is available > through our online meeting registration system. To register, please > visit the ARIN XVII home page at http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XVII/ and > choose "ARIN XVII Remote Participant" from the drop-down box and > complete the subsequent form. Registration for remote participation > will > close at 11:59 PM (EDT) on April 8, 2006. > > Comments received during the meeting from remote participants will be > moderated and presented during normal question and answer periods. > ARIN > will use e-mail to provide the interactive portion of the remote > participation effort. All remote participants are subject to the > Remote > Participation Acceptable Use Policy (AUP). > > Additional information about remote participation, including the > Remote > Participation AUP, is available at: > > http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XVII/webcast.html > > Detailed information on how to access the meeting webcast will be > posted > on this page before the meeting. The webcast will be using > RealNetworks > Streaming Media, and the broadcast will begin Monday, April 10, at > 9 AM > EDT. To view the live or archived feeds, you can use RealPlayer 5.0 > and > above. > > Regards, > > Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-announce mailing list > ARIN-announce at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-announce > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Apr 5 12:57:29 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 18:57:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] FoE rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5D545297-0E15-4BED-9C04-279C53BD61DA@ras.eu.org> Hi Milton and all, Back to subtantive issues ! Late, as usual, but in any case I'm afraid editorial changes (even major) wouldn't be enough to entirely agree... I understand your point about 'ethics', though I think it would be clearer to talk about 'corporate social responibility' (or 'societal' responsibility, if you prefer, but I personnally this social/societal distinction rather artificial. I understand however where it comes from). At least, it would be helpful to specify 'ethical obligation for companies' to comply with FoE rights. The text of your proposal refers to "ethical interactions with the governments of countries that heavily regulate and censor content". -> This point would indeed be easily addressed by minor editorial changes. But, while we agree on the intentions and the objectives, there are more contentious points with this proposal. The text starts with the following question: "Are the Internet filtering and censorship practices of states compatible with Article XIX of the UN Declaration on Human Rights?". I'm afraid the answer is likely to be, when asking in such an arena, another question: "Is unfiltered and uncensored Internet compatible with Article XXIX of the UN Declaration on Human Rights? Article 29 says: "(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." I think I don't need to remind anyone that Article 29 provisions are reaffirmed in the Geneva Declaration fo Principles (para 5). In addition, in case you haven't noticed, among the 11 post-WSIS action lines, there is no "human rights" action line, but rather "Ethical dimensions of the Information Society" (C10), and among the more than 15 UN commissions or agencies respectively in charge of their implementation and follow-up, almost only one is strangely missing: the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Righst (OHCHR)! Even the ICAO is referred, but not the OHCHR. All this to explain how weak FoE supporters may be in an arena like IGF. As we were in WSIS as a whole. This is not something new to discover: the UN Human Rights Commission has witnessed for years the consequences of this situation. And it's not guaranteed that the new UN HR Council would avoid such a situation. On FoE, the balance of powers is simply not in our favor, and this issue is only a question of balance of powers, not of exploring new ways of doing/managing/"enhancing" something. You would tell me that all issues in IGF are subject to a balance of powers. That's not exactly true or, more exactly, for all other issues, the balance of powers in not so severely unequal. For most of them, one may find allies because there are many different things at stake, not so obvious to be on one side or another. If you're not convinced, simply look at the 'diversity' of opinions, if only within CS, on any other issue. -> This second point makes it really dangerous to address this issue in the IGF framework/arena. It's likely to backfire, and severely. Under section "Why it is important", the text of the proposal states: "Content regulation, filtering and censorship are issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing international body, but cut across many of them; e.g., UNESCO, ICANN, ITU and WIPO." That's not true, not at all. What is true is that many international bodies make decisions that may lead to content regulation, filtering and censorship (you wrote yourself on ICANN's UDRP rules and their impact on FoE. No need to mention WIPO, etc.). It is also true that regional institutions like, for Europe, the EU, the CoE, have made or still try to make decisions directly recommending content regulation and filtering leading to censorship, and sometimes even provided by law (e.g. by the EC Directive on e-commerce with the notice and take down procedure). But what the proposal states is not true, in that content regulation, filtering and censorship are not issues dealt with at international level, specially not as governance issues. They are issues relevant to civil and penal law, fundamentally as a matter national legislations - or, in the EU case, at supra-national level but still, the EU is a regional entity with its institutions and its legislation in many sectors. Even the CoE cybercrime Convention - which has been adopted in a regional intergovernmental entity more or less consistent, mostly because of the European Convention on HR _and_ the existence of the European Court of HR enforcing the ECHR - doesn't deal with content regulation and filtering. It rather criminalize some very specific infractions (child porn, intellectual property infractions, and racism and xenophobia through an additional protocol), the rest of the cybercrime Convention mostly addressing procedural cooperation. The need to deal with these issues at national level (or in a very coherent regional entity) comes from the difference in cultures and contexts. What is illegal - or simply 'harmful' - in a given country is not in another country. This has been for long an argument against filters for e.g. parental control. Even people that favors the use of filters, e.g. in France, find them inadequate because they are mainly designed by US companies, with US culture criteria. -> In summary, my third point is thus that the issues of content regulation, filtering and censorship are not a matter of governance, but a matter of national legislation/regulation. And it is at this level that FoE rights, which are universal, should be raised as main argument against this censorship. If you open any way to address the content regulation, filtering and censorship at international level, then this would lead to the definition of a set of 'content seen as inappropriate by all', i.e. FoE would be reduced to the least common denominator. Again, the initial good intentions carry a risk of backfire. My final remark deals with the workability of the proposal. The objective is, in the end, that companies would agree to act against the willing of national governements of countries which are a market they want to enter. Given on the one hand that commercial companies are only driven by their profits (I don't know if anyone really trust 'civic behaviors of companies' here, in any case I don't, by no mean) and, when this may have a serious impact on their profits, by their image; and given on the other hand that these companies are, in this case de facto monopolies, so they afford a bad image (which in addition they may sometimes balance with some charity actions); incentives to have them stop selling filtering and censorship tools - or doing themselves filtering and censorship - can hardly be identified. What remains is constraint by law. And this constraint can only come from the law of their country of origin/establishment, the law they have to respect. For most if not all of them, its the US legislation. RSF has recently made a lot of noise on this issue in the US. There have been some back-up from some Congress members. I'm not sure things are advancing in the US (you can probably brief me on that), but I really doubt that, with the huge China market at stake (to only talk about China), this noise will go further than that. In my first comment on your proposal, I've mentioned that I've had myself recommended this kind of corporate social responsibility guidelines in order to fight racism and xenophobia (I haven't said holocaust denial, because I think that, unlike racism and xenophobia, it's not a matter of court, but of history). But the situation is rather different, and more workable, provided that political will exists, of course. In the case of racism, concerned companies - ISPs, portals, etc. - are US, and they want to operate, directly or through affiliates, in countries where racist and xenophobic speech is forbidden by law. And here the governments of these countries can play with both incentives and constraints, coming from their side. -> This fourth point shows, I hope, that the proposal is not only dangerous since it may backfire, but also rather useless in that it is rather unworkable. I hope this message - rather long, I'm sorry - has helped to clarify my comments on your proposal. I remain interested in further arguments. Best, Meryem Le 2 avr. 06 à 19:39, Milton Mueller a écrit : >>>> Meryem Marzouki 4/1/2006 4:45:22 PM >>> > >> I do apologize. It's not that easy to have a full time job, and >> run (many) volunteer activities besides that. > > I fully understand. I am in the same condition! No need to > apologize, just expressing my disappointment that we didn't benefit > from your wisdom sooner. > > Based on your argument below, I am not convinced we are raising the > dangers you claim, but it is not too late to modify the theme > proposal in the next two days if you have specific changes to propose. > > Let me explain why I am not convinced. You say that we base our > claim on "ethics" and not "rights." This constitutes a > misunderstanding of what we are doing, I think. Or maybe we didn't > formulate it clearly. > > We assume that individuals have rights to FoE, and wish to assert > those globally by confronting the problem of multinational ISPs who > cooperate with states who violate those rights. Recognizing that > neither IGF nor probably anyone else can overcome national > sovereignty of the local law, we ask: how can we define principles > for interaction with these states that a) put pressure on the > repressive states to recognize rights to FoE, and b) encourage ISPs > to minimize the damage to FoE; c) encourage ISPs to recognize an > ethical obligation to do so. > > So it is the ethical obligation to recognize FoE rights, not ethics > in a broad sense that would encompass any kind of claim to regulate > content regardless of rights, that we are interested in. > > Let me know if that addresses any of your concerns. And I welcome > simple editorial changes that might clarify things or avoid > problems. Even major editorial changes, if you are willing to do that. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From cnd at knowprose.com Wed Apr 5 21:33:04 2006 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 21:33:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] [A2k] Re: [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top Policy Issues for Athens In-Reply-To: References: <442C6EC6.4090802@ipjustice.org> <442DA65C.5070704@knowprose.com> <48851A6D-B415-4D31-801C-6E768C309B6B@gmail.com> <4432B602.6040406@knowprose.com> Message-ID: <44346FD0.8000906@knowprose.com> Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote: >> >> Litigation is the original mechanism of 'Digital Rights Management', >> and it's what got us here in the first place - designing licenses so >> we wouldn't have to litigate as much. Litigation costs money. I'm >> surprised how many people are stuck on one implementation of Digital >> Rights Management. If freedom is a right, which we should all agree, >> then what needs to be discussed is the balance of Digital Rights >> Management. This may all be semantic for some of you, but I believe >> that it is important if there is to be a firm basis for forming >> equitable laws and licenses that can apply around the world. > > I don't understand a word of what you say. I apologize. Perhaps English is not your first language, and if you were to respond in French, I would not understand you at all. > > Litigation is democratic and respectful of civil liberties, DRM are > not... point. No, not a point (and thus I have snipped everything else). The words 'digital', 'rights' and 'management' existed prior to what has been marketed as 'DRM'. In fact, 'digital' and 'rights' were put together to form 'digital rights', which the EFF and other groups have used. Litigation is democratic and respectful of civil liberties if you can afford a lawyer. The basis for litigation is democratic, and to be respectful of civil liberties. The implementation is not, and it is widely recognized in that regard. Litigation is a system for protecting rights. It's a manner of managing the rights for a government. It deals with digital media. It could be called digital rights management as well. So again, there's an implementation and there's a concept. If people stop focusing on the *words* and instead focus on what the technology that they are upset about actually *does*, and address *balance* and issues of *property*, then it's less likely we'll see *copy protection* with newer names as time continues. You can deny it all you wish, but at the end of the day I'm pretty sure that people who support the technology of copy protection which they call DRM are happy that the marketing has worked so well that people can't think beyond what they have marketed. That's quite a hack with a bunch of smart people. -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago cnd at knowprose.com Looking for contracts/work! http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786 New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 6 09:40:36 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 09:40:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] FoE rights Message-ID: you are making me work too hard....and you pay so little... ;-( I will respond when I have time. but thanks for this very good analysis --MM >>> Meryem Marzouki 04/05/06 12:57 PM >>> I understand your point about 'ethics', though I think it would be clearer to talk about 'corporate social responibility' (or 'societal' responsibility, if you prefer, but I personnally this social/societal _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Thu Apr 6 14:15:24 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 11:15:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Fwd: [arin-announce] Remote Participation at ARIN XVII In-Reply-To: <3EE793D7-2568-4211-B761-5F4EFBA589CC@psg.com> Message-ID: <20060406181524.86223.qmail@web30803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Avri, Please note: [Excerpt] "CAIDA's analysis of IPv4 consumption rates makes use of an exponential model that predicts that, if current IPv4 address allocation rates prevail, IANA will allocate all unused IPv4 space by 2008, with exhaustion of the additional multicast and special-use space following in late 2008 and early 2009." http://www.caida.org/research/id-consumption/ Could you perhaps prevail upon Raymond to provide us with a general summary of current addressing policy with respect to IPv4 conservation and reclamation? Best wishes, Danny --- Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Remote participation is rather painless in ARIN (the > American > Registry for Internet Numbers), and it is possible > to make comments > remotely. Someone reads them and they are taken > seriously. I have > done it. > > I also spoke to Raymond Pizak, President of ARIN, > recently and he is > rather keen to get more civil society input. > > So, if you are interested, but all means signup and > participate. > > a. > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Member Services > > Date: 10 mars 2006 19.51.08 GMT+01:00 > > To: arin-announce at arin.net > > Subject: [arin-announce] Remote Participation at > ARIN XVII > > > > In its continuing effort to supply the community > with an open forum, > > ARIN is inviting individuals who cannot attend the > meeting in > > person to > > participate remotely. Remote participants may post > questions and > > comments to be addressed in normal question and > answer periods > > throughout the agenda. Remote participation in the > ARIN XVII Public > > Policy and Members Meetings via e-mail is > available to all members of > > the community that cannot attend the meeting in > person. The entire > > ARIN > > XVII Public Policy Meeting and ARIN Members > Meeting will be webcast. > > > > For this meeting, registration for remote > participation is available > > through our online meeting registration system. To > register, please > > visit the ARIN XVII home page at > http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XVII/ and > > choose "ARIN XVII Remote Participant" from the > drop-down box and > > complete the subsequent form. Registration for > remote participation > > will > > close at 11:59 PM (EDT) on April 8, 2006. > > > > Comments received during the meeting from remote > participants will be > > moderated and presented during normal question and > answer periods. > > ARIN > > will use e-mail to provide the interactive portion > of the remote > > participation effort. All remote participants are > subject to the > > Remote > > Participation Acceptable Use Policy (AUP). > > > > Additional information about remote participation, > including the > > Remote > > Participation AUP, is available at: > > > > http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XVII/webcast.html > > > > Detailed information on how to access the meeting > webcast will be > > posted > > on this page before the meeting. The webcast will > be using > > RealNetworks > > Streaming Media, and the broadcast will begin > Monday, April 10, at > > 9 AM > > EDT. To view the live or archived feeds, you can > use RealPlayer 5.0 > > and > > above. > > > > Regards, > > > > Member Services > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-announce mailing list > > ARIN-announce at arin.net > > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-announce > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Apr 6 14:57:25 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 21:57:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [arin-announce] Remote Participation at ARIN XVII In-Reply-To: <20060406181524.86223.qmail@web30803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <3EE793D7-2568-4211-B761-5F4EFBA589CC@psg.com> <20060406181524.86223.qmail@web30803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 4/6/06, Danny Younger wrote: > > Could you perhaps prevail upon Raymond to provide us > with a general summary of current addressing policy > with respect to IPv4 conservation and reclamation? The beauty of ARIN (and all other RIR) policies are that they are all available online. ARIN's are here: http://arin.net/policy/nrpm.html Having said that there are competing views of how soon we will consume as yet unallocated v4 addresses. Google is your friend here. CircleID might be a good place to start as well. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From garth.graham at telus.net Thu Apr 6 15:10:28 2006 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 12:10:28 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [AFCN Members] The New Network Neutrality: Criteria for Internet Freedom. References: <443556FA.40306@ucimc.org> Message-ID: May be of interest here... Garth Graham Telecommunities Canada Begin forwarded message: > From: Sascha Meinrath > Date: April 6, 2006 10:59:22 AM PDT > To: Members at afcn.org > Subject: [AFCN Members] The New Network Neutrality: Criteria for > Internet Freedom. > > Hi all, > > Michael Maranda suggested I should send this along to folks. I > just posted this > on my own blog (saschameinrath.com) and on MuniWireless.com -- > thought I would > send it out to the list for feedback. > > --Sascha > > With the San Francisco and Philadelphia wireless debates heating > up, it's become > clear that there's been a lack of attention paid to the undermining > of many of > the freedoms we've grown to expect (and perhaps take for granted) > on the > Internet. With this in mind, my colleague, Victor Pickard, and I > have been > thinking more and more about the interconnections between Internet > Freedom and > Network Neutrality, and the inadequateness of current > conceptualizations. Here's > an overview: > > An extraordinary debate has unfolded in recent months. > Heated discussions > concerning “Net Neutrality” have spilled outside the policy power- > centers of > congress and the eighth floor of the FCC. These debates have > transcended their > normal boundaries of inside-the-beltway public interest circles to > rage across > the Internet as well as the business and editorial pages of major > media outlets. > Generally referring to nondiscriminatory interconnectedness between > communication networks allowing users’ to access and run the > content, services, > applications and devices of their choice; net neutrality principles > are the > critical foundation of the Internet’s relative openness. > Increasingly, however, > telecommunications companies are motioning that within a newly > “deregulated,” > post-Brand X climate, they are eager to create tiered Internet > services more in > line with a cable television model. As congress debates whether net > neutrality > protections should be written into current legislation, the battle > lines have > been drawn between the big telecommunications companies who own the > pipes, on > one side, and Internet content companies and public interest > groups, on the other. > > The fact that people are paying attention to these crucial > Internet > principles––and the policies that may undermine the public’s > freedom of access > to information on the Internet––is something to be applauded. > However, it is the > authors' contention that the ways in which net neutrality have been > defined in > normative discourse thus far, with an emphasis on non- > discriminating wires and > common carriage, are too limiting in their scope. We propose a far > more > encompassing program for net neutrality provisions, one that we > believe will > better enable the Internet to reach its democratic and > participatory potentials. > Our new formulation of net neutrality goes beyond questions of open > access to > consider the broader contours of Internet architecture, including > software, > hardware, wireless infrastructure, economics, and open protocols > and standards. > > Drawing from the research of Yochai Benkler, Mark Cooper, > Lawrence > Lessig, Tim Wu, and others, we envision a more open and > participatory Internet. > Frequently referred to as a commons-based approach to the > management of > communications systems, this model emphasizes cooperation and > innovation as > opposed to privatization and enclosure. Much of the recent > discussions on net > neutrality implicitly relate to these precepts. However, we > demonstrate that the > linkages among net neutrality and the more encompassing provisions > of “open > architecture” need to be made more explicit. Understanding that all > technology > is inscribed with social values that foreclose certain > possibilities while > encouraging others, this project is necessary to better clarify > what we mean > when we talk about “net neutrality” and, with eyes to the future, > to situate > this debate within a larger vision of Internet openness and freedom. > > To summarize, our contribution will synthesize existing > commons-based > models to create a more expansive standard of net neutrality that > is conducive > to Internet openness. We propose a model that runs counter to U.S. > phone and > cable companies’ plans, but also challenges the overly narrow > constraints of > current public interest arguments. Using a theoretical framework > based on > critical approaches to Internet technology and close analysis of > news coverage > and policy briefs, our paper illuminates the current debate around net > neutrality, explicates limitations of this discourse, and proposes > a set of > policy guidelines for a more open and participatory Internet. > > Originally posted at: http://www.saschameinrath.com/node/363 > > -- > Sascha Meinrath > Policy Analyst * Project Coordinator * President > Free Press *** CUWiN *** Acorn Active Media > www.freepress.net * www.cuwireless.net * www.acornactivemedia.com > > _______________________________________________ > Members mailing list > Members at afcn.org > http://afcn.org/mailman/listinfo/members_afcn.org _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Apr 7 02:42:13 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 12:12:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality & IG - a proposal to the IGC In-Reply-To: <469E1C3F-1443-4351-9559-EAE7CA795D74@dannybutt.net> Message-ID: <200604070638.k376cUXS049446@trout.cpsr.org> Hi Danny, (and others) Your comments on IG neutrality are profound, but do leave the issue of 'what then' or 'what next' un-answered. And I will like to take these comments as the point of departure for some points I want to make in terms of the 'public-ness of Internet' theme which we submitted. I agree with you on, >>the term (network neutrality) frames in a way that >>takes a simplistic or formalist view of a situation which is much >more complex in real life. If we think of the decline of neutrality >>(wide-spread de-peering, walled gardens, DRM) as being co-extensive >>with the linguistic and socio-economic diversification of Internet >>use, then the "good old days of neutrality" weren't really as neutral >>as we might hope. Or at least we might need to do some serious >>investigations on the limits of the scope of the internet at that >>time that allowed neutrality to seem a viable principle. I agree that we cannot for long hide concerns that are expressly public interest/policy concerns under technical jargon. And this particular instance (network neutrality debates) of trying to do so is symptomatic of a broader process of technology debates trying to masquerade as public policy debates and vice versa. Internet technologies are so powerful, expansive etc that some kind of progressive differentiation of the Internet is given and unavoidable, and I can cite many situations (as you have) in which it may be desirable as well. So, to fight for a sterile and ideologically meaningless technical term - network neutrality- has its limits, unless it is infused and linked with the public interest issues that underpin our real concerns, and which have justifications that we can independently hold forth on (coming from our ideological orientations). (I am of the opinion that seeing network neutrality as merely an extension of the common carriage principle is not sufficient, because Internet is essentially a much more 'specialized' and 'dominating' space than earlier telecom spaces that mostly carried un-differentiated voice services.) This is the reason that, though the network neutrality concerns were the trigger of our 'public-ness' proposal, we did not frame the theme in terms of the technical principle of 'network neutrality' but in socio-political terms of public-ness, public interest, public domain etc. These terms were somewhat hastily applied/cooked-up (in this context), and I am sure the debate and its conceptual terms need a lot of refining. I would think that IGC's substantial contribution to IG should be in this direction. A recent posting on IGC list by Garth Graham of Sascha Meinrath's blog speaks of 'commons-based models' for Internet. Vittorio's theme proposal for IGF speaks of drafting 'a high-level document of principles, stating rights and duties of the users of the Internet'. Our public-ness proposal also essentially asks for stating such defining principles for IG which comes from essential characterization of what we collectively see the 'Internet' to be..... I think there is enough CS sentiment around these issues, which in my opinion has important commonalities but, as is true of the general information society discourse, these views come from very different backgrounds, and there are some linguistic distinctions and some real ideological gaps that can be worked around. For example, I think our framing of the issue as claiming the 'public-ness' of Internet can be a red herring for some as connoting too much of public institutions (as in governmental) framework, which is not at all the intention. Whether it is a public-ness framework or commons-based model for Internet, or Vittorio's rights based approach to Internet - all of them point to the same direction and purpose. Though we needed to have done these substantive discussion before the 31st to see if some well-worked and well-supported theme submission could be submitted from the IGC - which had the moral and the political force of IGC behind it - I still think that if we can do these discussions now, and develop a good position that takes on from the above discussion/ proposals for laying our the basic principles of IG and of Internet, we would have contributed the best to IGF process. And in the bargain made enough ground for laying the basis of status quo plus for IGC which, as Jeannette, Bill and others have noted, requires some basic agreed positions within which the debate largely takes place (without of course stifling intellectual dissent and freedom). Regards Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Danny Butt Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 5:59 AM To: Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality & IG >> Is "net neutrality" a global issue? Good question Bret It is a "global issue", but from my POV, like many of the issues most loudly raised in the US (e.g. FoE), the term frames in a way that takes a simplistic or formalist view of a situation which is much more complex in real life. If we think of the decline of neutrality (wide-spread de-peering, walled gardens, DRM) as being co-extensive with the linguistic and socio-economic diversification of Internet use, then the "good old days of neutrality" weren't really as neutral as we might hope. Or at least we might need to do some serious investigations on the limits of the scope of the internet at that time that allowed neutrality to seem a viable principle. More to the point re: IGF, the economic drivers for retaining control of the customer's content experience (and not providing a free ride for competitors) are strong, and the potential policy remedies seem weak and dispersed, or at least more interventionist than the neo- classical ideology of US internet community would care for. I see it as more of a "worthy utopian principle", like transparency, than an "issue". Regards, Danny -- Danny Butt db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200 On 04/04/2006, at 3:29 AM, Bret Fausett wrote: > When I think about "net neutrality" I think about a bundle of U.S.- > centric > issues regarding the way ISPs service the last mile connection to the > Internet. Perhaps this is just my view as a U.S. citizen. Is "net > neutrality" a global issue? > > Bret > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From db at dannybutt.net Fri Apr 7 06:56:56 2006 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 22:56:56 +1200 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality & IG - a proposal to the IGC In-Reply-To: <20060407064238.1D93717511A@deathwish.dreamhost.com> References: <20060407064238.1D93717511A@deathwish.dreamhost.com> Message-ID: Hi Parminder Thanks for the insightful comments. Yes, I'm a curmudgeon when it comes to formalism, and probably not in a way that's helpful :). Like all of us here (I think) I work toward an Internet where every person in the world has equal opportunity to interact with the others that they choose. This is of course impossible, at least partially due to the very institutions which facilitated a level of neutrality amongst a much smaller and less complex network. I would draw analogies to the terms "transparency" and "democracy", which are considered unfailingly positive in Euro-US discourses that share those terms in their cultural heritage, suppressing the ways to which those terms are *also* deployed by MNCs and transnational capital to e.g. set the playing field for foreign direct investment. As you note, the ideological nature of these kinds of terms does not have to a barrier to agreed principles being advanced (e.g., I am positive toward democracy and transparency in principle). But I am suspicious of the way that civil society can become a home for business- and government-friendly rhetoric that may ultimately be in the interests of those in power. As Bret suggested, perhaps the US has the most to gain from the "neutrality" discussion - which is fine but it's not my priority. This is a practical point: if you push for "neutrality" without losing some of the sheen of the "good old days of net neutrality" then you will not motivate support from those for whom those days were not so good. For this reason, at a strategic level, I prefer verbs to nouns, and to focus on where things are going than "how things are". So I prefer the idea of "commoning" to the "commons", "democratising" to "democracies", being committed to "diversifying" rather than "diversity", and, I guess, "resisting privatisation" rather than being "neutral". All the best Danny On 07/04/2006, at 6:42 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > Hi Danny, (and others) > > > > Your comments on IG neutrality are profound, but do leave the issue > of 'what then' or ‘what next’ un-answered. And I will like to take > these comments as the point of departure for some points I want to > make in terms of the 'public-ness of Internet' theme which we > submitted. > > > > I agree with you on, > > > > >>the term (network neutrality) frames in a way that > > >>takes a simplistic or formalist view of a situation which is much > > >more complex in real life. If we think of the decline of neutrality > > >>(wide-spread de-peering, walled gardens, DRM) as being co-extensive > > >>with the linguistic and socio-economic diversification of Internet > > >>use, then the "good old days of neutrality" weren't really as > neutral > > >>as we might hope. Or at least we might need to do some serious > > >>investigations on the limits of the scope of the internet at that > > >>time that allowed neutrality to seem a viable principle. > > > > I agree that we cannot for long hide concerns that are expressly > public interest/policy concerns under technical jargon. And this > particular instance (network neutrality debates) of trying to do so > is symptomatic of a broader process of technology debates trying to > masquerade as public policy debates and vice versa. > > > > Internet technologies are so powerful, expansive etc that some kind > of progressive differentiation of the Internet is given and > unavoidable, and I can cite many situations (as you have) in which > it may be desirable as well. So, to fight for a sterile and > ideologically meaningless technical term - network neutrality- has > its limits, unless it is infused and linked with the public > interest issues that underpin our real concerns, and which have > justifications that we can independently hold forth on (coming from > our ideological orientations). > > > > (I am of the opinion that seeing network neutrality as merely an > extension of the common carriage principle is not sufficient, > because Internet is essentially a much more 'specialized' and > 'dominating' space than earlier telecom spaces that mostly carried > un-differentiated voice services.) > > > > This is the reason that, though the network neutrality concerns > were the trigger of our 'public-ness' proposal, we did not frame > the theme in terms of the technical principle of 'network > neutrality' but in socio-political terms of public-ness, public > interest, public domain etc. > > > > These terms were somewhat hastily applied/cooked-up (in this > context), and I am sure the debate and its conceptual terms need a > lot of refining. I would think that IGC's substantial contribution > to IG should be in this direction. A recent posting on IGC list by > Garth Graham of Sascha Meinrath's blog speaks of 'commons-based > models' for Internet. > > > > Vittorio's theme proposal for IGF speaks of drafting 'a high-level > document of principles, stating rights and duties of the users of > the Internet'. Our public-ness proposal also essentially asks for > stating such defining principles for IG which comes from essential > characterization of what we collectively see the 'Internet' to be..... > > > > I think there is enough CS sentiment around these issues, which in > my opinion has important commonalities but, as is true of the > general information society discourse, these views come from very > different backgrounds, and there are some linguistic distinctions > and some real ideological gaps that can be worked around. For > example, I think our framing of the issue as claiming the ‘public- > ness’ of Internet can be a red herring for some as connoting too > much of public institutions (as in governmental) framework, which > is not at all the intention. > > > > Whether it is a public-ness framework or commons-based model for > Internet, or Vittorio’s rights based approach to Internet – all of > them point to the same direction and purpose. > > > > Though we needed to have done these substantive discussion before > the 31st to see if some well-worked and well-supported theme > submission could be submitted from the IGC – which had the moral > and the political force of IGC behind it – I still think that if we > can do these discussions now, and develop a good position that > takes on from the above discussion/ proposals for laying our the > basic principles of IG and of Internet, we would have contributed > the best to IGF process. And in the bargain made enough ground for > laying the basis of status quo plus for IGC which, as Jeannette, > Bill and others have noted, requires some basic agreed positions > within which the debate largely takes place (without of course > stifling intellectual dissent and freedom). > > > > Regards > > > > Parminder > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > 91-80-26654134 > > www.ITforChange.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance- > bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Danny Butt > Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 5:59 AM > To: Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality & IG > > > > >> Is "net neutrality" a global issue? > > > > Good question Bret > > > > It is a "global issue", but from my POV, like many of the issues most > > loudly raised in the US (e.g. FoE), the term frames in a way that > > takes a simplistic or formalist view of a situation which is much > > more complex in real life. If we think of the decline of neutrality > > (wide-spread de-peering, walled gardens, DRM) as being co-extensive > > with the linguistic and socio-economic diversification of Internet > > use, then the "good old days of neutrality" weren't really as neutral > > as we might hope. Or at least we might need to do some serious > > investigations on the limits of the scope of the internet at that > > time that allowed neutrality to seem a viable principle. > > > > More to the point re: IGF, the economic drivers for retaining control > > of the customer's content experience (and not providing a free ride > > for competitors) are strong, and the potential policy remedies seem > > weak and dispersed, or at least more interventionist than the neo- > > classical ideology of US internet community would care for. I see it > > as more of a "worthy utopian principle", like transparency, than an > > "issue". > > > > Regards, > > > > Danny > > > > > > > > -- > > Danny Butt > > db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net > > Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com > > Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand > > Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200 > > > > > > On 04/04/2006, at 3:29 AM, Bret Fausett wrote: > > > > > When I think about "net neutrality" I think about a bundle of U.S.- > > > centric > > > issues regarding the way ISPs service the last mile connection to > the > > > Internet. Perhaps this is just my view as a U.S. citizen. Is "net > > > neutrality" a global issue? > > > > > > Bret > > > _______________________________________________ > > > governance mailing list > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Fri Apr 7 15:33:26 2006 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 15:33:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] Corporate Responsibility Message-ID: P erhaps of interest in this context as well... MG -----Original Message----- From: Strategic Forecasting, Inc. [mailto:noreply at stratfor.com] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 8:01 PM To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM Subject: Stratfor Public Policy Intelligence Report Strategic Forecasting Stratfor.com Services Subscriptions Reports Partners Press Room Contact Us PUBLIC POLICY INTELLIGENCE REPORT 04.06.2006 READ MORE... Analyses Country Profiles - Archive Forecasts Geopolitical Diary Global Market Brief - Archive Intelligence Guidance Net Assessment Situation Reports Special Reports Strategic Markets - Archive Stratfor Weekly Terrorism Brief Terrorism Intelligence Report Travel Security - Archive US - IRAQ War Coverage Ending the CSR Debate By Bart Mongoven The debate over the moral responsibilities of corporations to society has taken on a more solid form with the release of the first draft of the standard known as ISO-26000. When finished, the standard -- drafted by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) -- can be used by corporations to determine (and prove) that they are acting in a socially responsible manner. The standard will not be published until 2008, and the current draft reportedly is in a highly unfinished form, with many significant questions still to be answered. Nonetheless, the release of the draft marks a turning point in the long-running debate. The need for a standard on corporate social responsibility (CSR) is clear. Nongovernmental organizations, labor unions and international organizations like the United Nations not only are calling for multinational corporations based in the West to bring their global operations into line with the norms of advanced Western countries, but -- going a step further -- are coming to view these companies as instruments of cultural change. They see corporations as mechanisms through which to advance certain values in countries lacking the West's approach to civil rights and liberties. With the completion even of this early ISO draft, the field of debate begins to change. Growing criticisms and the potential for litigation about corporate complicity in human rights abuses -- as well as ongoing debates over where corporations' responsibilities begin and end -- likely will cause corporations to flock to ISO-26000. After years of trying to find ways to show the public that they understand the concept of social responsibility -- but lacking both a guide and a way to measure progress -- multinationals will be able to use the standard as a set of ground rules to follow, and the public will have a benchmark against which to measure the companies' performance. Over time, once the standard comes into effect, the debate over corporate social responsibility can be expected to grow more moderate; with a guiding standard in place, there will be far less drama in the debates, and activists who use questions about CSR as a strategy to effect social change will have an uphill struggle. Instead, corporations will face a new set of issues, relating to the root of their rights in society, that will usher in a more thoroughgoing debate about the power of corporations and how they are viewed by the public. Explaining the Standard ISO-26000 is designed as a guide to help businesses understand where their responsibilities to various stakeholders begin and end. The standard, long in demand by Western businesses, will provide a company with a system to ensure it is properly monitoring its social responsibility performance and that it has in place the relevant mechanisms to achieve its goals in this realm. Following the standard will not necessarily mean that a company is acting in a socially responsible manner, but it will make it easier to achieve these goals and for management and observers to know if the company is, or is not, meeting its social responsibility objectives. Like the larger CSR debate to which it is a response, ISO-26000 will focus primarily on corporate operations. It will address the human rights, labor, environmental and community relations-related effects of corporate operations. It also will examine methods of ensuring social-responsibility goals associated with products, which is a relatively newer and less-established field of study (and one where significant work will have to be done in the next two years). The standards ISO-26000 will introduce will help to clarify lines of responsibility on all of these topics. Few corporations would deny that they have a responsibility to live up to higher standards than those of certain countries in which they do business. Every multinational oil major, for example, maintains strong prohibitions against bribery; large manufacturers refuse to use child labor or to do business with suppliers that do. At the same time, even those companies recognized as the most socially responsible chafe at an open-ended approach that places the burden on companies to change the culture where they operate. Google, which is dedicated to the motto "Don't Be Evil," nonetheless finds it sometimes cannot avoid being placed, for instance, between human rights campaigners and the Chinese government. Advocates of an international standard hope such a measure will present corporations with a globally accepted and recognized alpha and omega for corporate social responsibility. Beyond these outcomes, corporations expect the push for standards to yield even more concrete benefits. Those supporting the ISO process perceive the standards as providing companies with the basis of a legal defense in the face of litigious critics. To cite perhaps the most obvious example, the growing use of the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) in the United States -- which allows foreign nationals to sue corporations in U.S. courts for human rights violations committed in other countries -- unnerves corporate counsels, who cannot predict where ATCA will be used or how it will be interpreted in the future. By following the systems laid out in ISO-26000, a company will be better able to determine that it is not doing things that put it at risk of ATCA litigation, and also gives it the ability to show in court, if need be, the steps the company took to avoid committing human rights violations. After CSR When ISO-26000 is completed in 2008, the business world likely will flock to it. The document will be flexible. It will leave a place, for instance, for the emerging human rights standards being developed by the International Finance Committee (IFC) and for the conclusions that the U.N. special representative on business and human rights, John Ruggie, draws in his assessment of the human rights obligations of businesses -- whether that means the U.N. Norms for Business or (more likely) some new human rights code of conduct. ISO will give companies a guide for monitoring their adherence to these codes of conduct and other emerging codes and treaties. Ultimately, the publication of the draft standard tells the world that the day is coming when CSR will be well understood and normalized. With that, the vagaries will be gone and the debates over what can reasonably be expected of a company will fade. This is not to say that the responsibilities of corporations to society no longer will be subject to debate, but for the most part, the issue will be discussed within the context of a series of established authorities -- ISO, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and perhaps the United Nations. The publication of the ISO-26000 draft particularly tells the players at the extreme edges of the debate -- the most strident NGOs and the most recalcitrant corporations -- that, like it or not, CSR will be debated in a fairly staid, narrow band with terms defined by ISO and arbitrated by lawyers who are experts at splitting hairs. Corporate Power and Rights The long-term goals of the activists who have been most diligent in pushing corporations to act in a more socially responsibility manner echo those of the anti-globalization movement. These goals can be summarized as trying to reduce the effect of major corporations on the societies in which they operate, and to carve out space for communities to define themselves and their culture without the influence of financial interests (or companies, primarily). With the current CSR debate drawing to a close, it is important to identify what is left: questions about corporate power and the cultural impact of corporations on society. From this, it seems likely that the outstanding business not addressed by CSR campaigning thus far concerns the social implications of corporations' products (and thus, the corporations' responsibilities) and the legal structure that gives corporations the power to change culture, domestically and globally. At the core of this new debate will be -- not the question of the role or responsibilities of multinational corporations -- but rather a re-examination of the limitations society places on large corporations. Central to this discussion will be the question of corporations' influence on political systems. These questions have persisted to some degree or another since the 1950s, but they have also been refined by changes in the economy and culture. In the United States, the central questions today revolve around the power of corporations to lobby government and to advertise. At a fundamental level, the American public tends to view the right to speak and to lobby government as having been guaranteed to corporations by the First Amendment, but activists increasingly are inverting the question and asking whether the First Amendment -- or other parts of the Bill of Rights -- applies to corporations. The activists claim that only a series of Supreme Court decisions during America's so-called Gilded Age extended constitutional rights to corporations, and argue that the Bill of Rights applies only to people, not organizations. Thus, it follows that free speech (advertising) or addressing grievances with government (lobbying) are not inalienable rights for corporations. Out of this line of discussion rises a clamor for a "true democracy," "real democracy" or "participatory democracy" in which the public clearly and intentionally defines what rights corporations have and do not have. Though the argument is based on tenuous historical reasoning -- and the mechanisms by which the public would define the rights of corporations are almost impossible to imagine -- the question of whether corporations have inalienable rights (or whether the people have the right to rescind or otherwise limit those rights) will resound soon after ISO's standard comes into effect in 2008. The debate will take different forms in different countries. At the core, however, will remain the question of what power society gives to corporations, and what corporations owe to society in return. Send questions or comments on this article to analysis at stratfor.com. Stratfor's Q2 Forecast - Now Available! >From the tri-lateral relationship between the United States, Iran and Iraq, to tension between governments and social groups in Europe and inflection points in the global economy, the Q2 Forecast covers it all to help you decipher trends and understand what you can expect for the coming months. Available FREE to current Stratfor Premium subscribers! Just log in at www.stratfor.com to read the report today. New to Stratfor? There are 2 simple ways to access the Q2 forecast and read it today. Click here to find out more! Distribution and Reprints This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com. For media requests, partnership opportunities, or commercial distribution or republication, please contact pr at stratfor.com. Do you have a friend or acquaintance that would benefit from the consistent actionable intelligence of the FREE STRATFOR Weekly Public Policy Intelligence Report? Send them to www.stratfor.com/subscriptions/free-weekly-intelligence-reports.php to sign up and begin receiving the Stratfor Weekly every Thursday for FREE! Newsletter Subscription The STRATFOR Weekly is e-mailed to you on an opt-in basis with STRATFOR. If you no longer wish to receive regular e-mails from STRATFOR, please send a message to service at stratfor.com with the subject line: UNSUBSCRIBE - PPI. For more information on STRATFOR's services, please visit www.stratfor.com or e-mail info at stratfor.com today! (c) Copyright 2006 Strategic Forecasting Inc. All rights reserved. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Apr 8 00:50:20 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 10:20:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality & IG - a proposal to the IGC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200604080446.k384kL7m072208@trout.cpsr.org> Danny, >>"resisting privatisation" rather than being "neutral">> Exactly, that's why we framed the debate in terms of 'public-ness' (private and public as essentially opposites) and not of just network neutrality (NN). And to address the issues you raise about diversity, and the concerns of those who were left out in the "good old days", we must note that 'public-ness' is not necessarily about the global public, there are local publics and diversified publics. However, we also need to understand that the complexities of their inter-relationship are going through some significant changes, all of which are not necessarily bad. And there have to governance components corresponding to these changes. About NN being basically a US concern, I have grave doubts on this (as Bill also mentioned in his April fool mail) ..... While we need to encourage diversity, this cannot be done by denying reality. By denying the extent of today's globalization, and the US centricity of it, it doesn't go away. But by denying we may not address issues which could reduce the detrimental effects of this kind of neo-liberal globalization. Bret has also earlier raised the issue about network neutrality (NN) being a US issue, and I wonder why so many people should think so..... It is so obvious that it is not, and to give only a few arguments 1. The manner in which the economic and social issues around Internet take shape in different countries have so many commonalities, it is untenable to believe that NN is today an issue in US and it wont be a issue in other places. It most certainly will be. And as I explained NN is much more complex that the one-dimensional common carriage issue, and the socio-economics pulls around it are going to much more intensive. 2. US continues to be the main exporter of economic models - and even social models - to the world, and this, though being a decades old phenomenon, has only intensifies in recent years. 3. Linked to 2 above, as pointed out by Bill in the referred mail, a lot of work is being done by US centred MNC groups to develop technology standards that can set limits to possibilities in the future - for everyone. 4. Also linked to 2 above, and also mentioned in Bill's email, once dominant models are set in the US and the North, the logic of globalization leaves little public policy freedom to other countries to determine their polices, and the same is also true of Internet related polices. So for the CS, even in countries outside the US it will be better to lead the debates in these areas than react to them. India is actively debating switching to next generation networks. The ICTD models imported from the North that prioritized revenue models over development objectives have done enough harm in the South, now we better remain vigilant against overly commercial models of Internet development being imported - the balance of public interest must be maintained. >> Like all of us here (I think) I work toward an Internet where every person in the world has equal opportunity to interact with the others that they choose.>> Yes, it is on the basis of these clearly agreed (among us), but not codified principles (in regard to the Internet) that I propose to the IGC to move forward in trying to develop the basic principles of Internet and IG, and propose them to the world community for adoption. It has been typically the role of civil society to trigger such activity. Even if it is not something that may get immediate acceptability at present, the process still needs to be taken up. I am still interested in the 'what next' issue - how can we in the IGC influence the development of global and sub-global public policy on IG towards the directions that we want it to go in. Best Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Danny Butt Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 4:27 PM To: Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality & IG - a proposal to the IGC Hi Parminder Thanks for the insightful comments. Yes, I'm a curmudgeon when it comes to formalism, and probably not in a way that's helpful :). Like all of us here (I think) I work toward an Internet where every person in the world has equal opportunity to interact with the others that they choose. This is of course impossible, at least partially due to the very institutions which facilitated a level of neutrality amongst a much smaller and less complex network. I would draw analogies to the terms "transparency" and "democracy", which are considered unfailingly positive in Euro-US discourses that share those terms in their cultural heritage, suppressing the ways to which those terms are *also* deployed by MNCs and transnational capital to e.g. set the playing field for foreign direct investment. As you note, the ideological nature of these kinds of terms does not have to a barrier to agreed principles being advanced (e.g., I am positive toward democracy and transparency in principle). But I am suspicious of the way that civil society can become a home for business- and government-friendly rhetoric that may ultimately be in the interests of those in power. As Bret suggested, perhaps the US has the most to gain from the "neutrality" discussion - which is fine but it's not my priority. This is a practical point: if you push for "neutrality" without losing some of the sheen of the "good old days of net neutrality" then you will not motivate support from those for whom those days were not so good. For this reason, at a strategic level, I prefer verbs to nouns, and to focus on where things are going than "how things are". So I prefer the idea of "commoning" to the "commons", "democratising" to "democracies", being committed to "diversifying" rather than "diversity", and, I guess, "resisting privatisation" rather than being "neutral". All the best Danny On 07/04/2006, at 6:42 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > Hi Danny, (and others) > > > > Your comments on IG neutrality are profound, but do leave the issue > of 'what then' or 'what next' un-answered. And I will like to take > these comments as the point of departure for some points I want to > make in terms of the 'public-ness of Internet' theme which we > submitted. > > > > I agree with you on, > > > > >>the term (network neutrality) frames in a way that > > >>takes a simplistic or formalist view of a situation which is much > > >more complex in real life. If we think of the decline of neutrality > > >>(wide-spread de-peering, walled gardens, DRM) as being co-extensive > > >>with the linguistic and socio-economic diversification of Internet > > >>use, then the "good old days of neutrality" weren't really as > neutral > > >>as we might hope. Or at least we might need to do some serious > > >>investigations on the limits of the scope of the internet at that > > >>time that allowed neutrality to seem a viable principle. > > > > I agree that we cannot for long hide concerns that are expressly > public interest/policy concerns under technical jargon. And this > particular instance (network neutrality debates) of trying to do so > is symptomatic of a broader process of technology debates trying to > masquerade as public policy debates and vice versa. > > > > Internet technologies are so powerful, expansive etc that some kind > of progressive differentiation of the Internet is given and > unavoidable, and I can cite many situations (as you have) in which > it may be desirable as well. So, to fight for a sterile and > ideologically meaningless technical term - network neutrality- has > its limits, unless it is infused and linked with the public > interest issues that underpin our real concerns, and which have > justifications that we can independently hold forth on (coming from > our ideological orientations). > > > > (I am of the opinion that seeing network neutrality as merely an > extension of the common carriage principle is not sufficient, > because Internet is essentially a much more 'specialized' and > 'dominating' space than earlier telecom spaces that mostly carried > un-differentiated voice services.) > > > > This is the reason that, though the network neutrality concerns > were the trigger of our 'public-ness' proposal, we did not frame > the theme in terms of the technical principle of 'network > neutrality' but in socio-political terms of public-ness, public > interest, public domain etc. > > > > These terms were somewhat hastily applied/cooked-up (in this > context), and I am sure the debate and its conceptual terms need a > lot of refining. I would think that IGC's substantial contribution > to IG should be in this direction. A recent posting on IGC list by > Garth Graham of Sascha Meinrath's blog speaks of 'commons-based > models' for Internet. > > > > Vittorio's theme proposal for IGF speaks of drafting 'a high-level > document of principles, stating rights and duties of the users of > the Internet'. Our public-ness proposal also essentially asks for > stating such defining principles for IG which comes from essential > characterization of what we collectively see the 'Internet' to be..... > > > > I think there is enough CS sentiment around these issues, which in > my opinion has important commonalities but, as is true of the > general information society discourse, these views come from very > different backgrounds, and there are some linguistic distinctions > and some real ideological gaps that can be worked around. For > example, I think our framing of the issue as claiming the 'public- > ness' of Internet can be a red herring for some as connoting too > much of public institutions (as in governmental) framework, which > is not at all the intention. > > > > Whether it is a public-ness framework or commons-based model for > Internet, or Vittorio's rights based approach to Internet - all of > them point to the same direction and purpose. > > > > Though we needed to have done these substantive discussion before > the 31st to see if some well-worked and well-supported theme > submission could be submitted from the IGC - which had the moral > and the political force of IGC behind it - I still think that if we > can do these discussions now, and develop a good position that > takes on from the above discussion/ proposals for laying our the > basic principles of IG and of Internet, we would have contributed > the best to IGF process. And in the bargain made enough ground for > laying the basis of status quo plus for IGC which, as Jeannette, > Bill and others have noted, requires some basic agreed positions > within which the debate largely takes place (without of course > stifling intellectual dissent and freedom). > > > > Regards > > > > Parminder > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > 91-80-26654134 > > www.ITforChange.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance- > bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Danny Butt > Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 5:59 AM > To: Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality & IG > > > > >> Is "net neutrality" a global issue? > > > > Good question Bret > > > > It is a "global issue", but from my POV, like many of the issues most > > loudly raised in the US (e.g. FoE), the term frames in a way that > > takes a simplistic or formalist view of a situation which is much > > more complex in real life. If we think of the decline of neutrality > > (wide-spread de-peering, walled gardens, DRM) as being co-extensive > > with the linguistic and socio-economic diversification of Internet > > use, then the "good old days of neutrality" weren't really as neutral > > as we might hope. Or at least we might need to do some serious > > investigations on the limits of the scope of the internet at that > > time that allowed neutrality to seem a viable principle. > > > > More to the point re: IGF, the economic drivers for retaining control > > of the customer's content experience (and not providing a free ride > > for competitors) are strong, and the potential policy remedies seem > > weak and dispersed, or at least more interventionist than the neo- > > classical ideology of US internet community would care for. I see it > > as more of a "worthy utopian principle", like transparency, than an > > "issue". > > > > Regards, > > > > Danny > > > > > > > > -- > > Danny Butt > > db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net > > Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com > > Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand > > Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200 > > > > > > On 04/04/2006, at 3:29 AM, Bret Fausett wrote: > > > > > When I think about "net neutrality" I think about a bundle of U.S.- > > > centric > > > issues regarding the way ISPs service the last mile connection to > the > > > Internet. Perhaps this is just my view as a U.S. citizen. Is "net > > > neutrality" a global issue? > > > > > > Bret > > > _______________________________________________ > > > governance mailing list > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Sun Apr 9 01:07:36 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 07:07:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] NomCom nomination statments - To publish or not to Publish Message-ID: <401BA02B-3911-49BC-B7E6-E5C6A6C72B57@psg.com> Hi, Looking for a sense of the caucus on this issue. to explain: In putting this nomcom thing together one hole i left in the procedural definition was whether the nominations statement that were sent in to the nomcom should be published on not. The two alternatives are pretty obvious: (1) do as we did in the WGIG process, and publish them on a website (ref. http://www.net-gov.org/wgig/nominees.php) (2) do as other nomcoms do and keep them private to the nomcom I thought option (1) was obvious as we have based this process on what was done in WGIG with the exception that we added a method for selecting members of nomcom. But since I had neglected to mention that the nomination statements would be published, I felt I had to confirm with each of the few (very few incidentally) nominations that had come in on whether they were willing for their nominations to be published on the web site being set up for this purpose. In this dialogue the question was posed. This caused me to start consulting both with the members of the nomcom and with some members of the caucus and I have gotten a mixed message. Some of the reasons I am hearing (very much in my own words): - transparency (1) - might limit nominations due to fear of loss of face (2) - allows nomcom to reject a famous person who would seem unrejectable if her name was published (2) - subjects people's nomination statements to a giggle test (1) - might be easier for people from one culture to do then those from another (2) - demonstrates the thick skin necessary for someone in such a role (1) I am about to send out another reminder for the nomination process. In this I will ask the nominees to indicate if they are willing to have their statement published on a web site. But I will wait to do so until i have seen which way he consensus in this groups tends. thanks a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Apr 9 07:05:06 2006 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 21:05:06 +1000 Subject: [governance] NomCom nomination statments - To publish or not toPublish In-Reply-To: <401BA02B-3911-49BC-B7E6-E5C6A6C72B57@psg.com> Message-ID: <200604091105.k39B52cX054113@squirrel.dmpriest.net.uk> The arguments for (2) are pretty strong for me - and from memory the wgig process was a rushed one. but happy to go with a strong feeling either way. Ian Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Sunday, 9 April 2006 3:08 PM > To: Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: [governance] NomCom nomination statments - To > publish or not toPublish > > Hi, > > Looking for a sense of the caucus on this issue. > > to explain: In putting this nomcom thing together one hole i > left in the procedural definition was whether the nominations > statement that were sent in to the nomcom should be published on not. > > The two alternatives are pretty obvious: > > (1) do as we did in the WGIG process, and publish them on a website > (ref. http://www.net-gov.org/wgig/nominees.php) > > (2) do as other nomcoms do and keep them private to the nomcom > > I thought option (1) was obvious as we have based this > process on what was done in WGIG with the exception that we > added a method for selecting members of nomcom. > > But since I had neglected to mention that the nomination > statements would be published, I felt I had to confirm with > each of the few (very few incidentally) nominations that had > come in on whether they were willing for their nominations to > be published on the web site being set up for this purpose. > In this dialogue the question was posed. This caused me to > start consulting both with the members of the nomcom and with > some members of the caucus and I have gotten a mixed message. > > > Some of the reasons I am hearing (very much in my own words): > > - transparency (1) > - might limit nominations due to fear of loss of face (2) > - allows nomcom to reject a famous person who would seem > unrejectable if her name was published (2) > - subjects people's nomination statements to a giggle test (1) > - might be easier for people from one culture to do then > those from another (2) > - demonstrates the thick skin necessary for someone in such a role (1) > > I am about to send out another reminder for the nomination process. > In this I will ask the nominees to indicate if they are > willing to have their statement published on a web site. But > I will wait to do so until i have seen which way he consensus > in this groups tends. > > thanks > > a. > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/305 - Release > Date: 8/04/2006 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 8/04/2006 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Sun Apr 9 22:04:13 2006 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 22:04:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] NomCom nomination statments - To publish or not toPublish In-Reply-To: <200604091105.k39B52cX054113@squirrel.dmpriest.net.uk> References: <401BA02B-3911-49BC-B7E6-E5C6A6C72B57@psg.com> <200604091105.k39B52cX054113@squirrel.dmpriest.net.uk> Message-ID: <131293a20604091904s1455df71v431b9ce6c349b645@mail.gmail.com> I think that the statements shold be published as the members of the IGC, even though we have delegated a NomCom to choose for us, should be able to see who has been nominated. BTW - can we send in additional info on a nominee? Jacqueline On 4/9/06, Ian Peter wrote: > The arguments for (2) are pretty strong for me - and from memory the wgig > process was a rushed one. but happy to go with a strong feeling either way. > > Ian Peter > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > > Sent: Sunday, 9 April 2006 3:08 PM > > To: Internet Governance Caucus > > Subject: [governance] NomCom nomination statments - To > > publish or not toPublish > > > > Hi, > > > > Looking for a sense of the caucus on this issue. > > > > to explain: In putting this nomcom thing together one hole i > > left in the procedural definition was whether the nominations > > statement that were sent in to the nomcom should be published on not. > > > > The two alternatives are pretty obvious: > > > > (1) do as we did in the WGIG process, and publish them on a website > > (ref. http://www.net-gov.org/wgig/nominees.php) > > > > (2) do as other nomcoms do and keep them private to the nomcom > > > > I thought option (1) was obvious as we have based this > > process on what was done in WGIG with the exception that we > > added a method for selecting members of nomcom. > > > > But since I had neglected to mention that the nomination > > statements would be published, I felt I had to confirm with > > each of the few (very few incidentally) nominations that had > > come in on whether they were willing for their nominations to > > be published on the web site being set up for this purpose. > > In this dialogue the question was posed. This caused me to > > start consulting both with the members of the nomcom and with > > some members of the caucus and I have gotten a mixed message. > > > > > > Some of the reasons I am hearing (very much in my own words): > > > > - transparency (1) > > - might limit nominations due to fear of loss of face (2) > > - allows nomcom to reject a famous person who would seem > > unrejectable if her name was published (2) > > - subjects people's nomination statements to a giggle test (1) > > - might be easier for people from one culture to do then > > those from another (2) > > - demonstrates the thick skin necessary for someone in such a role (1) > > > > I am about to send out another reminder for the nomination process. > > In this I will ask the nominees to indicate if they are > > willing to have their statement published on a web site. But > > I will wait to do so until i have seen which way he consensus > > in this groups tends. > > > > thanks > > > > a. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/305 - Release > > Date: 8/04/2006 > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 8/04/2006 > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com T&T Music and videos online _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Mon Apr 10 03:57:54 2006 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 08:57:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] NomCom nomination statments - To publish or not toPublish In-Reply-To: <131293a20604091904s1455df71v431b9ce6c349b645@mail.gmail.co m> References: <401BA02B-3911-49BC-B7E6-E5C6A6C72B57@psg.com> <200604091105.k39B52cX054113@squirrel.dmpriest.net.uk> <131293a20604091904s1455df71v431b9ce6c349b645@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060410085705.01f0dd18@gn.apc.org> hi jac >I think that the statements shold be published as the members of the >IGC, even though we have delegated a NomCom to choose for us, should >be able to see who has been nominated. >BTW - can we send in additional info on a nominee? i asked a similar question about endorsements.. ie, if a self-nominee is also nominated by groups, caucuses etc, i'd like to be able to see the info i'm also in favour of making all info public, unless otherwise stated karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Apr 10 04:34:11 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:34:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] NomCom nomination statments - To publish or not to Publish In-Reply-To: <401BA02B-3911-49BC-B7E6-E5C6A6C72B57@psg.com> References: <401BA02B-3911-49BC-B7E6-E5C6A6C72B57@psg.com> Message-ID: <37DC8DA8-C7BC-420B-B699-98F1F2D7EF1D@ras.eu.org> Hi all, I think all the information sent to the nomcom should be made public, or at least known to IGC members. i.e.: "- Name - Name of nominator (or self) - Nationality - Country of Residence - Gender - Short Bio relevant to IG - Why the (self)nominee is a good choice for the MAG" And any additional information if received. I cannot even imagine that strong and necessary arguments like transparency of the process may be balanced by things like "fear of loss of face" (if so, then just decline any nomination!) or "allows nomcom to reject a famous person who would seem unrejectable if her name was published" (so, there are "unrejectable" persons? Who however would be rejected, if only nomcom members can make sure they wont be killed for doing this?). Also, I may have missed some explanation, but what would be the result of the nominating process ? A consensus on the 15 final names, an ordered list of all nominated people, classified by the number of "votes" rceived from individual members of the nomcom ? i.e. How the nomcom would proceed? If there is an ordered list of nominated people, then it must be published too. This is important since this process will only produce people recommended by the IGC, while other groups/coalitions/orgs will provide their own recommendations. Best, Meryem Le 9 avr. 06 à 07:07, Avri Doria a écrit : > Hi, > > Looking for a sense of the caucus on this issue. > > to explain: In putting this nomcom thing together one hole i left in > the procedural definition was whether the nominations statement that > were sent in to the nomcom should be published on not. > > The two alternatives are pretty obvious: > > (1) do as we did in the WGIG process, and publish them on a website > (ref. http://www.net-gov.org/wgig/nominees.php) > > (2) do as other nomcoms do and keep them private to the nomcom > > I thought option (1) was obvious as we have based this process on > what was done in WGIG with the exception that we added a method for > selecting members of nomcom. > > But since I had neglected to mention that the nomination statements > would be published, I felt I had to confirm with each of the few > (very few incidentally) nominations that had come in on whether they > were willing for their nominations to be published on the web site > being set up for this purpose. In this dialogue the question was > posed. This caused me to start consulting both with the members of > the nomcom and with some members of the caucus and I have gotten a > mixed message. > > > Some of the reasons I am hearing (very much in my own words): > > - transparency (1) > - might limit nominations due to fear of loss of face (2) > - allows nomcom to reject a famous person who would seem unrejectable > if her name was published (2) > - subjects people's nomination statements to a giggle test (1) > - might be easier for people from one culture to do then those from > another (2) > - demonstrates the thick skin necessary for someone in such a role (1) > > I am about to send out another reminder for the nomination process. > In this I will ask the nominees to indicate if they are willing to > have their statement published on a web site. But I will wait to do > so until i have seen which way he consensus in this groups tends. > > 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 Mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 10 09:57:45 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 09:57:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] NomCom nomination statments - To publish or not to Publish Message-ID: Avri: After giving it careful thought, I support transparency of all nominations, and believe that groups involved in the caucus should supply lists of who they recommend. IGP will follow this recommendation. >>> Avri Doria 4/9/2006 1:07 AM >>> Looking for a sense of the caucus on this issue. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 10 10:22:11 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:22:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality & IG - a proposal to the IGC Message-ID: >>> "Parminder" 4/8/2006 12:50 AM >>> >Exactly, that's why we framed the debate in terms of 'public-ness' (private >and public as essentially opposites) and not of just network neutrality >(NN). On the contrary, the beauty of the Internet is that it makes private and public complementary -- i.e., mutually reinforcing -- not "opposites". The Internet is composed overwhelmingly of privately owned physical networks that use the public, open, nonproprietary standards and protocols to interoperate. Additionally, the internet is configured in a way that permits developers of private services, applications and content the freedom to innovate and to reach anyone via universal connectivity. To pose a dichotomy between "public" ( = good) and "private" ( = bad) is to fundamentally misapprehend what the Internet is and what will continue to make it a success. To assert only one of these principles to the exclusion of the other is destructive of its potential. The meaning of NN in this context is not entirely clear. At its best, Net Neutrality is about maintaining that complementary relationship and protecting it against certain (real or imagined) threats. At its worst, it is a rather unproductive replay of the US model of regulated unbundling of networks, which devolved into microregulation and court battles. I prefer discussions to revolve around concepts of "nondiscrimination", but admit that NN is a better PR term. Given the rootedness of these issues in domestic telecom policy laws, regulations and institutions, however, I am confused as to how a nonbinding global discussion forum would be able to make a contribution in this area. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Mon Apr 10 10:44:07 2006 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:44:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: IGP Nominees to the MAG Message-ID: FYI, In the spirit of openness being encouraged on the list, information on the Internet Governance Project's nominees to the MAG are below. Further support is of course welcome. best, Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Lee McKnight 4/10/2006 9:58 AM >>> Hi Avri, On behalf of the the Internet Governance Project, www.internetgovernance.org, I am pleased to nominate Jeanette Hoffman, John Mathiason, and Milton Mueller (listed alphabetically), to be considered as Civil Society candidates for the MAG, to be recommended by the Internet Governance Caucus nominating committe which you are chairing. The extensive records and diverse but complementary achievements and abilities of all 3 are well-known by civil society. Their commtment to the successful conclusion of the first Internet Governance Forum is also unquestionable. The documents below follow the suggested format and provide you and the other nomcom members with the requested information; should further questions arise please do not hesitate to contact me, or the nominees themselves directly. best regards, and thanks again for your personal commitment and contributions, Lee McKnight Name: Jeanette Hofmann Name of Nominator: Lee McKnight Nationality of Nominee: German Nationality and Country of Residence of Nominee: Germany Gender of Nominee: Female Short Bio relevant to IG Jeanette Hofmann is a researcher at the Social Science Research Center Berlin with a focus on the interface of politics and technology. She came across Internet Governance at a time when the term didn't yet exist and the Net was still run by engineers. A case study on the IETF and the development of IPv6 in the mid 1990s constituted her first practical experience with decision-making procedures on the Net. A few years later ICANN was founded, and she became involved both as a researcher and as an "At Large Membership" activist. In 2000, she was a European candidate in ICANN's first and only online election. In the following year, she participated in an NGO and Academic Study Group (NAIS) which produced a number of proposals regarding the structure of ICANN's "At Large Membership". In 2004 and 2005 she served on ICANN's nomcom. In Fall 2003 Jeanette Hofmann joined the WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. Throughout 2004 and 2005 she served, together with Adam Peake, as co-coordinator of the IG caucus. During the same period, she was a member of the German delegation to the World Summit representing the German WSIS civil society coordination group (WKK). Jeanette Hofmann publishes articles on Internet Governance, and gives talks on this subject. Why the nominee is a good choice for the MAG Jeanette Hofmann is an expert on Internet Governance, and she has been a committed civil society participant throughout the WSIS process. She has a great interest in the emergence of legitimate structures of transnational decision-making, and she can make substantial contributions towards their establishment and success. Name: John Mathiason Name of Nominator: Lee McKnight Nationality of Nominee: USA Country of Residence of Nominee: USA Gender of Nominee: Male Short Bio relevant to IG John Mathiason, Ph.D. (M.I.T, 1968), is Adjunct Professor of International Relations at the Syracuse University Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, where he teaches in the area of international public and NGO management and is program manager for distance learning in the School's Executive Education Program. Dr. Mathiason has been concerned with Internet governance since 1998, when he argued for the internationalization of Internet governance in the context of the US green paper on domain names from which ICANN emerged. Since WSIS I, he has been involved in policy analysis of Internet governance and has participated in meetings of the UN-ICT Task Force as well as WSIS preparatory meetings. Heundertook an evaluation of the UN-ICT Task Force experience. He has published on management of the international public sector, including a co-authored book on Eliminating Weapons of Mass Destruction: Prospects for Effective International Verification and the forthcomin! g Invisible Governance: International Secretariats in World Politics as well as in journals like Public Administration and Development. He was an official of the United Nations Secretariat between 1971 and 1997, where he worked on community development, rural development, program planning and support to international negotiations, including managing substantive support to the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, the largest United Nations conference to date. Why the nominee is a good choice for the MAG John Mathiason has extensive experience in the management of international negotiations, with knowledge of both possibilities and limitations. He has been an advocate for the use of innovative approaches to policy development at the international level and in the involvement of different stakeholders. He has a long-term concern with the issues with which the IGF will deal. Name Milton Mueller Name of Nominator: Lee McKnight Nationality of Nominee: USA Country of Residence of Nominee: USA Gender of Nominee: Male Short Bio relevant to IG Milton Mueller, Ph.D. (U. Pennsylvania, 1989), is Professor at the Syracuse University School of Information Studies, where he directs its Graduate Program in Telecommunications and Network Management. Dr. Mueller has experience in both the analysis of Internet policy/politics/economics and in its practical governance. His book "Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace" (MIT Press, 2002) was a favorably reviewed and prescient overview of the key political issues of IG. He is one of the founding members of ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency and has been elected by its members to serve as Chair and on various Councils and Task Forces making ICANN policy. He served on the U.S. National Academy of Sciences study of "Internet Navigation and the Domain Name System." He has spoken before the ITU on IPv6 and other Internet governance issues, and published scholarly articles on DNS economics, ENUM, domain name trademark disputes, WSIS civil socie! ty and international institutions in ICT. Why the nominee is a good choice for the MAG Milton Mueller is an experienced participant in the process, having participated in ICANN-civil society since 1997 and the WSIS Summits and Prepcoms since 2003. He would be a strong voice for noncommercial interests and maintain a stance of independence relative to the various economic and institutional interests involved in IGF. He understands well how the politics and personalities of the Forum relate to those of other international institutions in the ICT domain. His research and teaching have provided him with in-depth knowledge of the critical policy issues, how the technology works, and how civil society organizations are contributing. He believes that as a civil society nominee he should be accountable to the people who nominated him and report frequently on what is going on (subject to any externally-imposed confidentiality requirements). Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Apr 10 11:12:08 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:12:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Question - Re: Fwd: IGP Nominees to the MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <18A0B172-80AE-4919-BAF2-E5C54E076F80@ras.eu.org> Hi all, I've a question: will the IGP (or any other group) also send its recommendations directly to the MAG ? We're currently asking ourselves in the HR caucus what should be (1) appropriate and (2) best: - We have a candidate that would be proposed to the IGC nomcom by one organization - We would also give this person the support of the HR caucus What should we do with HR caucus recommendation: 1/ Only send it directly to the MAG 2/ Only add it to the list of nominators to the IGC nomcom 3/ Follow both approaches We know that following both approaches would give more chance, but would this be appropriate w.r.t. IGC and its nomcom process ? Thanks for any help, which I'm comfortably looking for since I've myself declined any nomination:))) Meryem Le 10 avr. 06 à 16:44, Lee McKnight a écrit : > FYI, > > In the spirit of openness being encouraged on the list, > information on the Internet Governance Project's nominees to the > MAG are below. Further support is of course welcome. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Apr 10 11:02:30 2006 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:02:30 -0300 Subject: [governance] NomCom nomination statments - To publish or not to Publish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <443A7386.8060508@rits.org.br> I also support this. --c.a. Milton Mueller wrote: >Avri: >After giving it careful thought, I support transparency of all nominations, and believe that groups involved in the caucus should supply lists of who they recommend. IGP will follow this recommendation. > > > >>>>Avri Doria 4/9/2006 1:07 AM >>> >>>> >>>> >Looking for a sense of the caucus on this issue. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > >. > > > -- Carlos A. Afonso Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br ******************************************** * Sacix -- distribuição Debian CDD Linux * * orientada a projetos de inclusão digital * * com software livre e de código aberto, * * mantida pela Rits em colaboração com o * * Coletivo Digital. * * Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br * ******************************************** _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 10 11:45:08 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 11:45:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Question - Re: Fwd: IGP Nominees to the MAG Message-ID: >>> Meryem Marzouki 4/10/2006 11:12 AM >>> >I've a question: will the IGP (or any other group) also send its >recommendations directly to the MAG ? That's the plan. >We're currently asking ourselves in the HR caucus what >should be (1) appropriate and (2) best: Since we 1) don't know the criteria that will be used by the UN-SG and/or the IGF Secretariat to make these selections, and 2) don't know the status of the IG Caucus's recommendations in those selections, we believe it is justified to follow both paths. In your case, since HR caucus is independent of IG caucus the tilt toward independent submission is even stronger. Everything we know about the process suggests that many names are coming in to Kummer's office independently. Whoever is making the final selections will be grateful for any aggregation of preferences they can get. Thus, submitting names in both places (imho) does not undermine the IGC process but it does ensure equal status with those who submitted names outside of it. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Mon Apr 10 13:56:20 2006 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:56:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] WSIS Implementation and Follow-up Meetings in Geneva - 10-19 May 2006 Message-ID: <200604101755.k3AHtqSK007900@mta-gw3.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, As the heavy series of meetings to be held around the 9th session on the Commission on Science and Technology is getting closer, I would like to consult you on how civil society should better strategize to follow-up and continue to better impact the outcome of these meetings. In addition to the 9th session of the CSTD (15-19 May 2006), 9 facilitation meetings for international implementation will take place between 12 May and 19 May (cf. CONGO website ), the celebration of the World Day for the Information Society (17 May), an information meeting on the up-coming launch of the Global Alliance for ICT and Development (probably 15 May, to be confirmed, cf. CONGO website ), a new consultation on the future role of the CSTD convened by ECOSOC (16 May) and a consultation on the IGF (19 May). The full list of events is available on the website of the former CSB: http://www.csbureau.org/posttunis.htm. You can also find a provisional timetable attached. In the perspective of this week of IS related meeting, it would be useful to know: 1) Attendance: Who will participate in this series of meetings? 2) Orientation session: CONGO is ready to organise an orientation session for this week, with the view to discuss the WSIS process so far and help non WSIS participants to fit into the on-going implementation and follow-up process. Do you support that there is a need for such an orientation session? Friday 12 and Monday 15 are already packed, but would you agree that a lunchtime 2-hour session would be convenient? 3) Daily coordination or information exchange meetings: Charles Geiger announced us that a Room at ITU (100 seats) would be available full time to answer the various needs of CS meetings. We are still discussing with UNCTAD / UN about the possibility to get a room one hour every day (9:00-10:00) for possible daily meeting among Civil Society. This timeslot could be used to perform the CS Plenary function during the WSIS preparatory process of information exchange. Please forward us your comments about this possibility. This also raises the question of how civil society must self-organise itself in the WSIS follow-up and implementation period. 4) Meeting facilities: It will be difficult to organize thematic side events during this week. However, we would like to know which caucuses / working groups will be involved and if they need us to ask for specific meeting facilities. Other information about the UN CSTD session: • An invitation letter was sent by post to all ECOSOC accredited NGOs. This could be used as support document for visa requests. • As previously announced, the CSTD Bureau is under the process of examining a proposed decision for interim participation of WSIS accredited civil society entities to the up-coming 9th session of the CSTD. We will keep you up-dated about the next developments, but the CSTD Secretariat serviced by UNCTAD is quite optimistic that the outcome of this decision would be in line with what CONGO proposed. • Information on badging issues during the up-coming series of meetings will be made available soon. We are still exploring possibilities to rationalize the badging process between the different sorts of meetings (CSTD / Implementation facilitation / other consultations). • In view of Action Line C2 facilitation, the ITU-BDT has created a "virtual group" for this Action Line. Any stakeholder (individual persons or NGO and other civil society entities) interested in the Action Line C2 can participate in this virtual group by clicking on http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/c2/index.html and announcing him/herself to the group leader, Pape Gorgui Touré. • Also note that UNESCO also developed a webpage for comments on action lines it is in charge: http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=21495 &URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html Please do not hesitate to contact us for any further question. Best regards, Philippe Philippe Dam CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Time table IS week.doc Type: application/msword Size: 77312 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Apr 10 14:14:45 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 23:44:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality & IG - a proposal to the IGC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200604101810.k3AIAa86037111@trout.cpsr.org> Milton wrote: >>To pose a dichotomy between "public" ( = good) and "private" ( = bad) is to fundamentally misapprehend what the Internet. Milton, I think you misunderstood my dichotomy here. I was comparing Danny's preference for the term "resisting privatisation" to mine - 'promoting public-ness' - so as to emphasize that we are saying very similar things. So the dichotomy I indicated was between the terms 'private' and 'public' - they certainly mean the opposite, and derive their meaning from that opposition. This certainly doesn't mean that the world has either to be public or to be private. These spheres are of course complimentary - how can one be without the other.... I don't know why should you read ideology in what is merely clarification of terms, in an attempt to make a point. >> To assert only one of these principles to the exclusion of the other is destructive of its potential.>> As to why our proposal of 'public-ness' asserts one point to the exclusion of other is that the context - in this case issues like network neutrality and shrinkage of public domain - may often require one to do so. For example, an expression of concern about erosion of privacy in the Internet age may legitimately asserts one point to the exclusion of other...... And complimentary relationships do not exist without struggles of power and encroachment of legitimate spheres. We (IT for Change) did a study which served as an input to the deliberation of the Task Force on Financial Mechanism on 'ownership models for ICTD initiatives' (http://itforchange.net/mambo/content/view/38/40/ ) which studies the issue of control and power within the much celebrated MSPs in ICTD. >> At its best, Net Neutrality is about maintaining that complementary relationship and protecting it against certain (real or imagined) threats.>> And the threats to maintaining right public-private complementarity implicated in the Net Neutrality issue are very real. >>>At its worst, it is a rather unproductive replay of the US model of regulated unbundling of networks, which devolved into microregulation and court battles.>> I do not know if you know that many other counties have a similar 'model of regulated unbundling of networks' - one example is India, which has a population of 1 Billion, which is much more that of US. So if you still call it the US model I think you realize that US models are 'larger than life size' and get mercilessly exported - with or against wishes of people of other regions. And this domination is even more real in telecom and IT areas. I do not know why so many people still keep insisting NN to be a US issue, just because European telecom regulation of last mile is relatively more liberal. (Conflating NN with just the common- carriage or open access issue is a mistake which will not take long to become too obvious to ignore.) You actually assert the very basis of Internet in a manner which is already being eroded by compromising of the NN principle. >> Additionally, the internet is configured in a way that permits developers of private services, applications and content the freedom to innovate and to reach anyone via universal connectivity.>>> You surely know that in many countries VoIP services are not being allowed "to innovate and to reach anyone via universal connectivity". >> Given the rootedness of these issues in domestic telecom policy laws, regulations and institutions, however, I am confused as to how a nonbinding global discussion forum would be able to make a contribution in this area.>> I think this point gets partly addressed above, but I have something interesting to say here. Do you not also think that the kind of censorships that China or S Arabia applies can also be considered rooted in 'domestic telecom policy laws, regulations and institutions'. But your whole IGF proposal is on this issue - why, in this case, do YOU bother about what other countries do, and what happens to people in other countries??? (And how do you suppose "a nonbinding global discussion forum would be able to make a contribution in this area" of country based content control.) "Domestic" and "global" may not be that distant in the info society. So if some 'political' rights of 'other' people can be a global issue, why cant some socio - economic rights related issues (media rights, communication rights, richness of public domain) of 'other' people also be global issues. But then this brings us to the issue of hierarchy between rights, and even non-admissibility of some rights, which is something we have discussed before. Why should 'political' rights be managed 'globally' and global spaces be no-no for socio-economic rights?? This is a question many in the developing countries often ask? Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 7:52 PM To: db at dannybutt.net; parminder at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality & IG - a proposal to the IGC >>> "Parminder" 4/8/2006 12:50 AM >>> >Exactly, that's why we framed the debate in terms of 'public-ness' (private >and public as essentially opposites) and not of just network neutrality >(NN). On the contrary, the beauty of the Internet is that it makes private and public complementary -- i.e., mutually reinforcing -- not "opposites". The Internet is composed overwhelmingly of privately owned physical networks that use the public, open, nonproprietary standards and protocols to interoperate. Additionally, the internet is configured in a way that permits developers of private services, applications and content the freedom to innovate and to reach anyone via universal connectivity. To pose a dichotomy between "public" ( = good) and "private" ( = bad) is to fundamentally misapprehend what the Internet is and what will continue to make it a success. To assert only one of these principles to the exclusion of the other is destructive of its potential. The meaning of NN in this context is not entirely clear. At its best, Net Neutrality is about maintaining that complementary relationship and protecting it against certain (real or imagined) threats. At its worst, it is a rather unproductive replay of the US model of regulated unbundling of networks, which devolved into microregulation and court battles. I prefer discussions to revolve around concepts of "nondiscrimination", but admit that NN is a better PR term. Given the rootedness of these issues in domestic telecom policy laws, regulations and institutions, however, I am confused as to how a nonbinding global discussion forum would be able to make a contribution in this area. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 10 15:51:50 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:51:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality & IG - a proposal to the IGC Message-ID: >>> "Parminder" 4/10/2006 2:14 PM >>> Milton wrote: >>To pose a dichotomy between "public" ( = good) and "private" >>( = bad) is to fundamentally misapprehend what the Internet is. > >Milton, I think you misunderstood my dichotomy here. [snip] >So the dichotomy I indicated was between the terms 'private' and 'public' - >they certainly mean the opposite, and derive their meaning from that >opposition. This certainly doesn't mean that the world has either to be >public or to be private. These spheres are of course complimentary Here is the relevant language from your theme proposal: "[The Internet's] essential public and egalitarian nature must be asserted as basic principles through open discussions at the IGF." and... "The Internet, as understood by most of us, is what it is basically because of its egalitarian and public nature. It is important to articulate these fundamentals of the Internet strongly, and use them as the guiding principles to debate and develop global public policies on IG." Sounds to me like you are asserting all public, no private. As I said, I believe this is factually untrue, that is would be harmful to try to make it true, and it completely misses the "essential" nature of the Internet (if we are going to be Platonic about it). >As to why our proposal of 'public-ness' asserts one point >to the exclusion of other is that the context - in this case >issues like network neutrality and shrinkage of public domain > may often require one to do so. But your theme proposal did not assert that the public dimension to the Internet was threatneed, nor did it document specific ways in which it is becoming less public, nor did it show any concern about retaining the beneficial private aspects. It simply said that the Internet's "essential nature" is public and egalitarian and that ALL policies relating to content and infrastructure must be derived from that principle. >So if you still call it the US model I think you realize that US models >are 'larger than life size' and get mercilessly exported - with or >against wishes of people of other regions. This is true, of course, and it is one reason why I am uncomfortable with exporting the NN debate, which is largely driven by a conflict of economic interest between large US content/service providers (Google, Yahoo, VON) and large US bandwidth providers (AT&T, etc.) But by the same token if things could be worked out internationally outside the us context it might be better. >You surely know that in many countries VoIP services are not >being allowed "to innovate and to reach anyone via universal >connectivity". I sure do. And usually that happens through some kind of assertion of the "public" principle; i.e., the state telecom monopoly which "serves the public" cannot be undermined by greedy private service providers who don't subsidize their infrastructure or support universal service goals. you raise a good point about compariung the Freedom of Expression and NN debates but I have to run and will deal with that later. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Apr 12 06:03:02 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 12:03:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality & IG - a proposal to the IGC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <443CD056.2060500@bertola.eu.org> Milton Mueller ha scritto: > The meaning of NN in this context is not entirely clear. At its best, > Net Neutrality is about maintaining that complementary relationship > and protecting it against certain (real or imagined) threats. At its > worst, it is a rather unproductive replay of the US model of > regulated unbundling of networks, which devolved into microregulation > and court battles. I prefer discussions to revolve around concepts of > "nondiscrimination", but admit that NN is a better PR term. Given the > rootedness of these issues in domestic telecom policy laws, > regulations and institutions, however, I am confused as to how a > nonbinding global discussion forum would be able to make a > contribution in this area. I think that the best contribution would be a sort of principle recognition of what you say, i.e. the importance of keeping a balance between the freedom for private parties to communicate and to innovate, and the need for the network to be one, open, and publicly sharing its basic elements. Network neutrality should mean, for example, that private entities are encouraged to fight through their ingenuity to gain advantage positions in one of the spots of the value chain(s) of the network, but should not be allowed [too much] to use those positions to break the unity of the network or to reduce others' freedom to act or to alter competition in other spots. This then involves countless situations, not just last mile & provider control on content, but also the Apple / iTunes type of situations, and even Microsoft / WindowsMedia or Microsoft / IE - but also SiteFinder (eg Verisign using a monopoly position at the DNS protocol level to gain an advantage position at the application protocol level). -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Wed Apr 12 06:55:17 2006 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 06:55:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality & IG - a proposal to the IGC Message-ID: I think the issue might be clarified somewhat if we were somewhat clearer on what is being discussed. As I understand it the IGF is in fact to be the IG (P) F -- Internet Governance (Policy) Forum i.e. a place where broad issues of public policy with respect to the Internet in a global environment are discussed and presumably recommendations made with respect to appropriate responses including the appropriate vehicles or institutions for implementing those responses. In a "Policy" forum the fundamental questions, which underlie all others are what are the basic assumptions which are made concerning the framework or policy pre-conditions which underlie all others--ultimately this means what are one's fundamental "political" choices. In the context of Network Neutrality, what is being assumed as being "neutral" is the positioning of the various players with respect to the "market" i.e. there is no discrimination as to the various players/competitors in the Internet (or the underlying carriage of the Internet) as a "marketplace". My understanding of Parminder's position is that the underlying assumption should not be that the Internet (or its carriage) should be seen solely from the perspective of the (or "a") market, but rather as a place where the public interest (the achievement of public goods) can and should be realized. In that context the question of Network Neutrality is not fundamental but rather secondary to the realization of the public interest--if NN supports the public interest, well and good; if it doesn't then the public interest should prevail and NN should be structured so as to accommodate this. Seems fairly clear to me (as does the reason for introducing Parminder's "issue" concerning the public interest into the initial IGF discussions as well... MG -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: April 12, 2006 12:03 PM To: Milton Mueller Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality & IG - a proposal to the IGC Milton Mueller ha scritto: > The meaning of NN in this context is not entirely clear. At its best, > Net Neutrality is about maintaining that complementary relationship > and protecting it against certain (real or imagined) threats. At its > worst, it is a rather unproductive replay of the US model of regulated > unbundling of networks, which devolved into microregulation and court > battles. I prefer discussions to revolve around concepts of > "nondiscrimination", but admit that NN is a better PR term. Given the > rootedness of these issues in domestic telecom policy laws, > regulations and institutions, however, I am confused as to how a > nonbinding global discussion forum would be able to make a > contribution in this area. I think that the best contribution would be a sort of principle recognition of what you say, i.e. the importance of keeping a balance between the freedom for private parties to communicate and to innovate, and the need for the network to be one, open, and publicly sharing its basic elements. Network neutrality should mean, for example, that private entities are encouraged to fight through their ingenuity to gain advantage positions in one of the spots of the value chain(s) of the network, but should not be allowed [too much] to use those positions to break the unity of the network or to reduce others' freedom to act or to alter competition in other spots. This then involves countless situations, not just last mile & provider control on content, but also the Apple / iTunes type of situations, and even Microsoft / WindowsMedia or Microsoft / IE - but also SiteFinder (eg Verisign using a monopoly position at the DNS protocol level to gain an advantage position at the application protocol level). -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Apr 12 09:05:52 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 15:05:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: HR Caucus nominations for the MAG through IGC nomcom References: <42C0E46F-102B-44AC-8ECD-92534E6F8876@iris.sgdg.org> Message-ID: Hi all, Below is the recommendation sent by HR caucus to IGC nomcom. This will also be sent to the IGF. Début du message réexpédié : > De : Meryem Marzouki > Date : 12 avril 2006 15:03:21 HAEC > À : IGC-nomcom at wsis-cs.org > Cc : Meryem.Marzouki at iris.sgdg.org, Rikke Frank Joergensen > , Robin Gross > Objet : HR Caucus nominations for the MAG through IGC nomcom > > Dear IGC nomcom members, > > Please find below information on the two candidates the WSIS CS HR > Caucus would like to recommend for your consideration, in view of > the nomination of IGC list of candidates to the MAG. > These two candidates are: Rikke Frank Joergensen and Robin D. Gross > > Don't hesitate to contact me in case you need additional information. > Best regards, > Meryem Marzouki > WSIS CS HR Caucus Co-chair > > ======= > Name: Rikke Frank Joergensen > > Name of nominator (or self): WSIS Civil Society Human Rights Caucus > (contact: Meryem Marzouki, co-chair, Meryem.Marzouki at iris.sgdg.org) > > Nationality: Danish > > Country of Residence: Denmark > > Gender: Female > > Short Bio relevant to IG: > Rikke Frank Jørgensen is employed as Special Adviser at The Danish > Institute for Human Rights working with national human rights > protection. She was adviser to the Danish Delegation to the World > Summit on the Information Society (2003-2005) and is co-coordinator > of the WSIS civil society's human rights caucus. In 2000 she co- > founded the Danish NGO Digital Rights, and is currently on their > board. She also serves on the board of European Digital Rights, and > the Advisory Board of Privacy International. Rikke Frank Jørgensen > has authored a number of articles and presentations on human rights > implications of the information society, and is editor of the > forthcoming "Human Rights in the Global Information Society" (MIT > Press May 2006). > > Rikke Frank Jørgensen has previously been employed as a special > adviser in the Danish Ministry of Science and Technology, dealing > with the social impacts of information technology. Rikke holds a > Master in Information Science and a European Master in Human Rights > and Democratization, specializing in Internet and freedom of > expression. > > Why the (self) nominee is a good choice for the MAG: > The WSIS Civil Society Human Rights Caucus, which includes more > than 65 members, international and national civil society > organizations from all around the world, has been one of the most > active CS constituencies during WSIS both phases. It has decided to > remain involved, as a caucus, in post-WSIS developments, to ensure > that the WSIS commitment to an information society respecting and > protecting human rights and the rule of law will also be the > guiding principle for the governance of this information society. > The caucus contribution to IGF substantive agenda setting has been > proposed in this light. > As a caucus co-chair since its creation in 2002, and willing to > serve on the MAG, Rikke Frank Jørgensen will be able to help the > IGF put into practice, in the information society context, the > interrelation and interdependence of all human rights, civil and > political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights, > and the right to development. > > Willingness to serve on MAG: > Confirmed > > ======= > Name: Robin D. Gross > > Name of nominator (or self): WSIS Civil Society Human Rights Caucus > (contact: Meryem Marzouki, co-chair, Meryem.Marzouki at iris.sgdg.org) > > Nationality: US citizen > > Country of Residence: United States > > Gender: Female > > Short Bio relevant to IG: > Robin D. Gross is an attorney in San Francisco, California. She is > the Founder and Executive Directive of IP Justice an international > civil liberties organization that promotes balanced intellectual > property law and protects freedom of expression. Ms. Gross advises > policy makers throughout the world on the impact of intellectual > property rules in national legislatures, international treaties, > and trade agreements. Before founding IP Justice in 2002, Ms. Gross > was the first Staff Attorney for Intellectual Property with cyber- > liberties organization the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), > where she began the group’s campaign in intellectual property > issues in 1999. > > Ms. Gross teaches international copyright law at Santa Clara > University, where she also serves as a member of the Santa Clara > University School of Law High Technology Legal Advisory Board. > Ms. Gross is a Member of the ICANN GNSO Policy Council, > representing the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC). She sits > on the Board of Directors for the Union for the Public Domain, a > nonprofit organization in Washington, D.C. that is dedicated to > protecting the public domain. > > A graduate of Santa Clara University’s High Technology Law Program, > Ms. Gross is licensed to practice law in California. A Michigan > native, she graduated from Michigan State University’s James > Madison College in 1995 with degrees in political philosophy and > international relations. > > Why the (self) nominee is a good choice for the MAG: > Robin D. Gross has been working to protect digital rights since > 1999 and has developed a fundamental understanding of the key > policy and technical issues in the online world. > She has been an active participant of both phases of the World > Summit of the Information Society (WSIS). She is a participant of > the WSIS Civil Society Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks (PCT) > Working Group and the WSIS Human Rights Caucus. Her additional > experience at ICANN as representative of NCUC and at WIPO as a > civil society observer, makes her a particularly good candidate to > help deal with Internet governance issues towards the global public > interest, inclusion, and respect of civil rights, in line with the > WSIS Civil Society Human Rights caucus recommendations. > > Willingness to serve on MAG: > Confirmed > ======= > > -- > Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org > IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire > 294 rue de Charenton - 75012 Paris > Tel/Fax. +33(0)144749239 > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Wed Apr 12 09:21:12 2006 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 14:21:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] APC nominations to the IGC NomCom In-Reply-To: References: <42C0E46F-102B-44AC-8ECD-92534E6F8876@iris.sgdg.org> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060412141038.01ff5d18@gn.apc.org> dear all, APC submitted the following nominations to the IGC NomCom today, with a ninth to be confirmed by the proposed nominee. In addition, we have endorsed robin gross' self-nomination Nominations ------------------ Mawaki Chango Parminder Jeet Singh Rikke Frank Joergensen Ken Lohento William Drake Milton Mueller Adam Peake Paul Wilson Endorsements --------------------- Robin Gross once i have checked with all nominess re making their statements public, i will post them here.. we will be sending the full list with an overarching motivation statement to the IGF secretariat as well.. we will post a copy here at the time.. karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Apr 12 15:41:46 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 15:41:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] NomCom nomination statments - To publish or not to Publish In-Reply-To: <37DC8DA8-C7BC-420B-B699-98F1F2D7EF1D@ras.eu.org> References: <401BA02B-3911-49BC-B7E6-E5C6A6C72B57@psg.com> <37DC8DA8-C7BC-420B-B699-98F1F2D7EF1D@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <68FB5F33-C1EA-4B3F-BE82-E35B7BF1ABE3@psg.com> Hi, On 10 apr 2006, at 04.34, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Also, I may have missed some explanation, but what would be the > result of the nominating process ? A consensus on the 15 final names, > an ordered list of all nominated people, classified by the number of > "votes" rceived from individual members of the nomcom ? i.e. How the > nomcom would proceed? > If there is an ordered list of nominated people, then it must be > published too. I am not sure how the Nomcom will proceed process wise internally, but the idea that i believed was accepted by this caucus was that a list of names, in the area of 15, will be forwarded the the IGF secretariat as the IGC endorsed set of candidates for the MAG. I believe that this process has no effect, one way or anther, on other nomination processes that may be going on elsewhere in civil society. My assumption is the the IGF secretariat will receive all of the names, un-endorsed, singly endorsed and multiply endorsed and make its selections based on its own criteria. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Apr 12 15:53:06 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 15:53:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] NomCom nomination statments - To publish or not to Publish In-Reply-To: <401BA02B-3911-49BC-B7E6-E5C6A6C72B57@psg.com> References: <401BA02B-3911-49BC-B7E6-E5C6A6C72B57@psg.com> Message-ID: <7F0EB6C9-30DA-4928-ABD1-7ECC65666E47@psg.com> Hi, The few public comments sent to the list seem to indicate a preference for publishing names. Since this was not made clear to candidates before the process, I plan to respect individual privacy by asking each candidate whether they accept having their information published. The IGC nomcom will therefore publish the names, information and bios/ statements of nominees according to the following process: Assuming that they, or their nominator, have not already given permission to publish, I send send email to each nominee individually asking for permission to publish their information. - if they agree, their info will be published - if the don't agree i will ask for permission to at least list their names, nationality and gender. - to account for any who don't agree to have their names and basic information published, we will include a count of unpublished candidates on the web site. hope this works for the caucus. thanks a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Wed Apr 12 16:00:28 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:00:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] NomCom nomination statments - To publish or not to Publish Message-ID: sounds good to me, thanks for working it out. --MM >>> Avri Doria 4/12/2006 3:53 PM >>> Hi, The few public comments sent to the list seem to indicate a preference for publishing names. Since this was not made clear to candidates before the process, I plan to respect individual privacy by asking each candidate whether they accept having their information published. The IGC nomcom will therefore publish the names, information and bios/ statements of nominees according to the following process: Assuming that they, or their nominator, have not already given permission to publish, I send send email to each nominee individually asking for permission to publish their information. - if they agree, their info will be published - if the don't agree i will ask for permission to at least list their names, nationality and gender. - to account for any who don't agree to have their names and basic information published, we will include a count of unpublished candidates on the web site. hope this works for the caucus. 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 qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw Wed Apr 12 16:17:14 2006 From: qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw (Qusai Al-Shatti) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 23:17:14 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Nomination Message-ID: <200604122017.XAA00285@safat.kisr.edu.kw> > Hi Avri: > I am forwarding to you my nomination for the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus' (IGC's) IGF Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (IGF- MAG) candidate list. > > After participating in WSIS as part of Civil Society and working with number of caucuses, a good understanding of Internet Governance and the role of civil society have been developed. Therefore I find myself at a position to nominate myself as a candidate. > > I am submitting my nomination to the IGC nominating committee based on the suggested format: > > Name: Qusai AlShatti > Nationality: Kuwaiti > Country of Residence: Kuwait > Gender of Nominee: Male > > Short Bio relevant to IG: > As deputy chairman of Kuwait Information Technology Society (KITS), I have participated in the WSIS as part of the civil society in WSIS. I have joined the IGC, and my participation in it reflected in developing a good detailed understanding of Internet governance and its related issues. I am also a member in the privacy and security group (Part of IGC) and I have participated in their activities and delivered their intervention in phase II prepcom II. > > My participation in the WSIS Prepcoms and the Summit allowed reflected in being a consultant to several stakeholders in the Arab World (Governments, Private sectors and Civil Society) on the Issue of Internet governance. Part of that was convincing them on the importance of the Civil Society role in the WSIS and making them adopting the WGIG report as a base for a position on Internet Governance. As a result of a team effort, Civil Society became a key player in drafting Information Society strategies in Arab countries I worked for as a consultant. A step that was unprecedented before. > > On national Level, I have worked with both government and private sector to improve the Internet service and increase the Internet penetration level, thus allowing more people to access the Internet by reducing service cost, providing higher bandwidth and open the market for several ISPs. I have participated in lobbying and raising awareness on copyright issues, an effort that successfully concluded with passing the copyrights law in Kuwait. Furthermore, I have participated in organizing the management of Kuwait TLD and establishing regulatory procedures for it. > > Why the self nominee is good choice for the MAG: > Working with IGC and being exposed to the world community during the WSIS process, allowed me to build experience and knowledge in the area of Internet Governance. While many (governments and private sector) in my part of the world lacked the proper understanding of issues related to Internet Governance, I was committed to raise awareness and build the necessary background to understand Internet governance. I have been committed to multi stakeholder involvement in the IGF as well as an advocate for evolutionary process in issues related to Internet Governance. Furthermore, I have been committed to the free flow of information and the freedom of access to the Internet; I have lobbied against information filtering policies that exists in some countries in my region. > > I have the capability to handle the workload of MAG and I accept that my nomination to be published on the website being developed for this purpose. > > Qusai AlShatti > KITS Deputy ChairmanHi Avri: > I am forwarding to you my nomination for the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus' (IGC's) IGF Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (IGF- MAG) candidate list. > > After participating in WSIS as part of Civil Society and working with number of caucuses, a good understanding of Internet Governance and the role of civil society have been developed. Therefore I find myself at a position to nominate myself as a candidate. > > I am submitting my nomination to the IGC nominating committee based on the suggested format: > > Name: Qusai AlShatti > Nationality: Kuwaiti > Country of Residence: Kuwait > Gender of Nominee: Male > > Short Bio relevant to IG: > As deputy chairman of Kuwait Information Technology Society (KITS), I have participated in the WSIS as part of the civil society in WSIS. I have joined the IGC, and my participation in it reflected in developing a good detailed understanding of Internet governance and its related issues. I am also a member in the privacy and security group (Part of IGC) and I have participated in their activities and delivered their intervention in phase II prepcom II. > > My participation in the WSIS Prepcoms and the Summit allowed reflected in being a consultant to several stakeholders in the Arab World (Governments, Private sectors and Civil Society) on the Issue of Internet governance. Part of that was convincing them on the importance of the Civil Society role in the WSIS and making them adopting the WGIG report as a base for a position on Internet Governance. As a result of a team effort, Civil Society became a key player in drafting Information Society strategies in Arab countries I worked for as a consultant. A step that was unprecedented before. > > On national Level, I have worked with both government and private sector to improve the Internet service and increase the Internet penetration level, thus allowing more people to access the Internet by reducing service cost, providing higher bandwidth and open the market for several ISPs. I have participated in lobbying and raising awareness on copyright issues, an effort that successfully concluded with passing the copyrights law in Kuwait. Furthermore, I have participated in organizing the management of Kuwait TLD and establishing regulatory procedures for it. > > Why the self nominee is good choice for the MAG: > Working with IGC and being exposed to the world community during the WSIS process, allowed me to build experience and knowledge in the area of Internet Governance. While many (governments and private sector) in my part of the world lacked the proper understanding of issues related to Internet Governance, I was committed to raise awareness and build the necessary background to understand Internet governance. I have been committed to multi stakeholder involvement in the IGF as well as an advocate for evolutionary process in issues related to Internet Governance. Furthermore, I have been committed to the free flow of information and the freedom of access to the Internet; I have lobbied against information filtering policies that exists in some countries in my region. > > I have the capability to handle the workload of MAG and I accept that my nomination to be published on the website being developed for this purpose. > > Qusai AlShatti > KITS Deputy Chairman _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Apr 12 17:16:36 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 23:16:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] NomCom nomination statments - To publish or not to Publish In-Reply-To: <7F0EB6C9-30DA-4928-ABD1-7ECC65666E47@psg.com> References: <401BA02B-3911-49BC-B7E6-E5C6A6C72B57@psg.com> <7F0EB6C9-30DA-4928-ABD1-7ECC65666E47@psg.com> Message-ID: Hi all, I'm confident that all candidates (self) nominated to the nomcom will agree on having their info published. However, if only for a question of principle, I have to say that this proposal below is something I cannot even figure out. It's not a good start, at least. I understand that this was not made explicit from the beginning. Perhaps because it seemed obvious? And what about the nomcom, then? It was not made clear that its members have to sign a non disclosure agreement before volunteering... OK, I trust them, they all are nice people. But it was not made clear either that they would have to disregard the fact, if ever this happens, that candidates who would like to be recommended by the IGC to the IGF have nevertheless chosen to hide this, even to IGC members, unless they are eventually chosen. Would the publication of information be an additional criteria for the nomcom? After all, the nomcom will use its own criteria. Maybe we should have asked the FBI to put the nomcom members in a safe place with no contact with anyone before the start of the process... Next time we should discuss what 'individual privacy' means. And what 'transparency' means. Among a long list of other issues. Meryem Le 12 avr. 06 à 21:53, Avri Doria a écrit : > Hi, > > The few public comments sent to the list seem to indicate a > preference for publishing names. Since this was not made clear to > candidates before the process, I plan to respect individual privacy > by asking each candidate whether they accept having their information > published. > > The IGC nomcom will therefore publish the names, information and bios/ > statements of nominees according to the following process: > > Assuming that they, or their nominator, have not already given > permission to publish, I send send email to each nominee individually > asking for permission to publish their information. > > - if they agree, their info will be published > - if the don't agree i will ask for permission to at least list their > names, nationality and gender. > - to account for any who don't agree to have their names and basic > information published, we will include a count of unpublished > candidates on the web site. > > hope this works for the caucus. > > 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 avri at psg.com Wed Apr 12 17:34:58 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:34:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] NomCom nomination statments - To publish or not to Publish In-Reply-To: References: <401BA02B-3911-49BC-B7E6-E5C6A6C72B57@psg.com> <7F0EB6C9-30DA-4928-ABD1-7ECC65666E47@psg.com> Message-ID: <91755393-6123-4DFF-8D54-D820A1D05337@psg.com> hi, If i understand you correctly you object to people having the ability to decide for themselves whether they want their info published? You think it was obvious that the info would be published. I thought so too, but as is usually the case when I assume something, i was wrong. Several people indicated that this had not been their expectation. Personally I see this as a compromise between transparency and privacy. But if you have a better way to balance the two, please suggest something. I would also welcome an extended conversation on how one balances transparency and privacy. Personally I often find the line between the two difficult to judge, especially when taking multicultural expectations into account. thanks a. On 12 apr 2006, at 17.16, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm confident that all candidates (self) nominated to the nomcom will > agree on having their info published. > > However, if only for a question of principle, I have to say that this > proposal below is something I cannot even figure out. It's not a good > start, at least. > > I understand that this was not made explicit from the beginning. > Perhaps because it seemed obvious? > And what about the nomcom, then? It was not made clear that its > members have to sign a non disclosure agreement before > volunteering... OK, I trust them, they all are nice people. But it > was not made clear either that they would have to disregard the fact, > if ever this happens, that candidates who would like to be > recommended by the IGC to the IGF have nevertheless chosen to hide > this, even to IGC members, unless they are eventually chosen. Would > the publication of information be an additional criteria for the > nomcom? After all, the nomcom will use its own criteria. > > Maybe we should have asked the FBI to put the nomcom members in a > safe place with no contact with anyone before the start of the > process... > > Next time we should discuss what 'individual privacy' means. And what > 'transparency' means. Among a long list of other issues. > > Meryem > > Le 12 avr. 06 à 21:53, Avri Doria a écrit : > >> Hi, >> >> The few public comments sent to the list seem to indicate a >> preference for publishing names. Since this was not made clear to >> candidates before the process, I plan to respect individual privacy >> by asking each candidate whether they accept having their information >> published. >> >> The IGC nomcom will therefore publish the names, information and >> bios/ >> statements of nominees according to the following process: >> >> Assuming that they, or their nominator, have not already given >> permission to publish, I send send email to each nominee individually >> asking for permission to publish their information. >> >> - if they agree, their info will be published >> - if the don't agree i will ask for permission to at least list their >> names, nationality and gender. >> - to account for any who don't agree to have their names and basic >> information published, we will include a count of unpublished >> candidates on the web site. >> >> hope this works for the caucus. >> >> 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 > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Abdullateef at Abdulaziz.com Wed Apr 12 17:42:37 2006 From: Abdullateef at Abdulaziz.com (Abdullateef Al-Abdulrazzaq) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 00:42:37 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Nomination Endorsement Message-ID: <000301c65e7a$04ecb2c0$0200a8c0@VGNS3XP> I endorse the nomination of Mr. Qusai Al-Shatti as a candidate to the advisory board for the Internet Governance Forum. Abdullateef Al-Abdulrazzaq Chairman Kuwait Information Technology Society --- Message Header --- The following message was sent by "Qusai Al-Shatti" on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 23:17:14 +0300. --- Original Message --- > > > Hi Avri: > > I am forwarding to you my nomination for the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus' (IGC's) IGF Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (IGF- MAG) candidate list. > > > > After participating in WSIS as part of Civil Society and working with number of caucuses, a good understanding of Internet Governance and the role of civil society have been developed. Therefore I find myself at a position to nominate myself as a candidate. > > > > I am submitting my nomination to the IGC nominating committee based on the suggested format: > > > > Name: Qusai AlShatti > > Nationality: Kuwaiti > > Country of Residence: Kuwait > > Gender of Nominee: Male > > > > Short Bio relevant to IG: > > As deputy chairman of Kuwait Information Technology Society (KITS), I have participated in the WSIS as part of the civil society in WSIS. I have joined the IGC, and my participation in it reflected in developing a good detailed understanding of Internet governance and its related issues. I am also a member in the privacy and security group (Part of IGC) and I have participated in their activities and delivered their intervention in phase II prepcom II. > > > > My participation in the WSIS Prepcoms and the Summit allowed reflected in being a consultant to several stakeholders in the Arab World (Governments, Private sectors and Civil Society) on the Issue of Internet governance. Part of that was convincing them on the importance of the Civil Society role in the WSIS and making them adopting the WGIG report as a base for a position on Internet Governance. As a result of a team effort, Civil Society became a key player in drafting Information Society strategies in Arab countries I worked for as a consultant. A step that was unprecedented before. > > > > On national Level, I have worked with both government and private sector to improve the Internet service and increase the Internet penetration level, thus allowing more people to access the Internet by reducing service cost, providing higher bandwidth and open the market for several ISPs. I have participated in lobbying and raising awareness on copyright issues, an effort that successfully concluded with passing the copyrights law in Kuwait. Furthermore, I have participated in organizing the management of Kuwait TLD and establishing regulatory procedures for it. > > > > Why the self nominee is good choice for the MAG: > > Working with IGC and being exposed to the world community during the WSIS process, allowed me to build experience and knowledge in the area of Internet Governance. While many (governments and private sector) in my part of the world lacked the proper understanding of issues related to Internet Governance, I was committed to raise awareness and build the necessary background to understand Internet governance. I have been committed to multi stakeholder involvement in the IGF as well as an advocate for evolutionary process in issues related to Internet Governance. Furthermore, I have been committed to the free flow of information and the freedom of access to the Internet; I have lobbied against information filtering policies that exists in some countries in my region. > > > > I have the capability to handle the workload of MAG and I accept that my nomination to be published on the website being developed for this purpose. > > > > Qusai AlShatti > > KITS Deputy ChairmanHi Avri: > > I am forwarding to you my nomination for the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus' (IGC's) IGF Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (IGF- MAG) candidate list. > > > > After participating in WSIS as part of Civil Society and working with number of caucuses, a good understanding of Internet Governance and the role of civil society have been developed. Therefore I find myself at a position to nominate myself as a candidate. > > > > I am submitting my nomination to the IGC nominating committee based on the suggested format: > > > > Name: Qusai AlShatti > > Nationality: Kuwaiti > > Country of Residence: Kuwait > > Gender of Nominee: Male > > > > Short Bio relevant to IG: > > As deputy chairman of Kuwait Information Technology Society (KITS), I have participated in the WSIS as part of the civil society in WSIS. I have joined the IGC, and my participation in it reflected in developing a good detailed understanding of Internet governance and its related issues. I am also a member in the privacy and security group (Part of IGC) and I have participated in their activities and delivered their intervention in phase II prepcom II. > > > > My participation in the WSIS Prepcoms and the Summit allowed reflected in being a consultant to several stakeholders in the Arab World (Governments, Private sectors and Civil Society) on the Issue of Internet governance. Part of that was convincing them on the importance of the Civil Society role in the WSIS and making them adopting the WGIG report as a base for a position on Internet Governance. As a result of a team effort, Civil Society became a key player in drafting Information Society strategies in Arab countries I worked for as a consultant. A step that was unprecedented before. > > > > On national Level, I have worked with both government and private sector to improve the Internet service and increase the Internet penetration level, thus allowing more people to access the Internet by reducing service cost, providing higher bandwidth and open the market for several ISPs. I have participated in lobbying and raising awareness on copyright issues, an effort that successfully concluded with passing the copyrights law in Kuwait. Furthermore, I have participated in organizing the management of Kuwait TLD and establishing regulatory procedures for it. > > > > Why the self nominee is good choice for the MAG: > > Working with IGC and being exposed to the world community during the WSIS process, allowed me to build experience and knowledge in the area of Internet Governance. While many (governments and private sector) in my part of the world lacked the proper understanding of issues related to Internet Governance, I was committed to raise awareness and build the necessary background to understand Internet governance. I have been committed to multi stakeholder involvement in the IGF as well as an advocate for evolutionary process in issues related to Internet Governance. Furthermore, I have been committed to the free flow of information and the freedom of access to the Internet; I have lobbied against information filtering policies that exists in some countries in my region. > > > > I have the capability to handle the workload of MAG and I accept that my nomination to be published on the website being developed for this purpose. > > > > Qusai AlShatti > > KITS Deputy Chairman > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > Hi Avri: > > I am forwarding to you my nomination for the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus' (IGC's) IGF Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (IGF- MAG) candidate list. > > > > After participating in WSIS as part of Civil Society and working with number of caucuses, a good understanding of Internet Governance and the role of civil society have been developed. Therefore I find myself at a position to nominate myself as a candidate. > > > > I am submitting my nomination to the IGC nominating committee based on the suggested format: > > > > Name: Qusai AlShatti > > Nationality: Kuwaiti > > Country of Residence: Kuwait > > Gender of Nominee: Male > > > > Short Bio relevant to IG: > > As deputy chairman of Kuwait Information Technology Society (KITS), I have participated in the WSIS as part of the civil society in WSIS. I have joined the IGC, and my participation in it reflected in developing a good detailed understanding of Internet governance and its related issues. I am also a member in the privacy and security group (Part of IGC) and I have participated in their activities and delivered their intervention in phase II prepcom II. > > > > My participation in the WSIS Prepcoms and the Summit allowed reflected in being a consultant to several stakeholders in the Arab World (Governments, Private sectors and Civil Society) on the Issue of Internet governance. Part of that was convincing them on the importance of the Civil Society role in the WSIS and making them adopting the WGIG report as a base for a position on Internet Governance. As a result of a team effort, Civil Society became a key player in drafting Information Society strategies in Arab countries I worked for as a consultant. A step that was unprecedented before. > > > > On national Level, I have worked with both government and private sector to improve the Internet service and increase the Internet penetration level, thus allowing more people to access the Internet by reducing service cost, providing higher bandwidth and open the market for several ISPs. I have participated in lobbying and raising awareness on copyright issues, an effort that successfully concluded with passing the copyrights law in Kuwait. Furthermore, I have participated in organizing the management of Kuwait TLD and establishing regulatory procedures for it. > > > > Why the self nominee is good choice for the MAG: > > Working with IGC and being exposed to the world community during the WSIS process, allowed me to build experience and knowledge in the area of Internet Governance. While many (governments and private sector) in my part of the world lacked the proper understanding of issues related to Internet Governance, I was committed to raise awareness and build the necessary background to understand Internet governance. I have been committed to multi stakeholder involvement in the IGF as well as an advocate for evolutionary process in issues related to Internet Governance. Furthermore, I have been committed to the free flow of information and the freedom of access to the Internet; I have lobbied against information filtering policies that exists in some countries in my region. > > > > I have the capability to handle the workload of MAG and I accept that my nomination to be published on the website being developed for this purpose. > > > > Qusai AlShatti > > KITS Deputy ChairmanHi Avri: > > I am forwarding to you my nomination for the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus' (IGC's) IGF Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (IGF- MAG) candidate list. > > > > After participating in WSIS as part of Civil Society and working with number of caucuses, a good understanding of Internet Governance and the role of civil society have been developed. Therefore I find myself at a position to nominate myself as a candidate. > > > > I am submitting my nomination to the IGC nominating committee based on the suggested format: > > > > Name: Qusai AlShatti > > Nationality: Kuwaiti > > Country of Residence: Kuwait > > Gender of Nominee: Male > > > > Short Bio relevant to IG: > > As deputy chairman of Kuwait Information Technology Society (KITS), I have participated in the WSIS as part of the civil society in WSIS. I have joined the IGC, and my participation in it reflected in developing a good detailed understanding of Internet governance and its related issues. I am also a member in the privacy and security group (Part of IGC) and I have participated in their activities and delivered their intervention in phase II prepcom II. > > > > My participation in the WSIS Prepcoms and the Summit allowed reflected in being a consultant to several stakeholders in the Arab World (Governments, Private sectors and Civil Society) on the Issue of Internet governance. Part of that was convincing them on the importance of the Civil Society role in the WSIS and making them adopting the WGIG report as a base for a position on Internet Governance. As a result of a team effort, Civil Society became a key player in drafting Information Society strategies in Arab countries I worked for as a consultant. A step that was unprecedented before. > > > > On national Level, I have worked with both government and private sector to improve the Internet service and increase the Internet penetration level, thus allowing more people to access the Internet by reducing service cost, providing higher bandwidth and open the market for several ISPs. I have participated in lobbying and raising awareness on copyright issues, an effort that successfully concluded with passing the copyrights law in Kuwait. Furthermore, I have participated in organizing the management of Kuwait TLD and establishing regulatory procedures for it. > > > > Why the self nominee is good choice for the MAG: > > Working with IGC and being exposed to the world community during the WSIS process, allowed me to build experience and knowledge in the area of Internet Governance. While many (governments and private sector) in my part of the world lacked the proper understanding of issues related to Internet Governance, I was committed to raise awareness and build the necessary background to understand Internet governance. I have been committed to multi stakeholder involvement in the IGF as well as an advocate for evolutionary process in issues related to Internet Governance. Furthermore, I have been committed to the free flow of information and the freedom of access to the Internet; I have lobbied against information filtering policies that exists in some countries in my region. > > > > I have the capability to handle the workload of MAG and I accept that my nomination to be published on the website being developed for this purpose. > > > > Qusai AlShatti > > KITS Deputy Chairman > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From cnd at knowprose.com Wed Apr 12 17:50:20 2006 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:50:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] NomCom nomination statments - To publish or not to Publish In-Reply-To: <91755393-6123-4DFF-8D54-D820A1D05337@psg.com> References: <401BA02B-3911-49BC-B7E6-E5C6A6C72B57@psg.com> <7F0EB6C9-30DA-4928-ABD1-7ECC65666E47@psg.com> <91755393-6123-4DFF-8D54-D820A1D05337@psg.com> Message-ID: <443D761C.1030201@knowprose.com> Avri, By nomination, it's implicit that a person's information relevant to the nomination be made public. If someone takes issue with that, or claims ignorance, perhaps they should consider withdrawing their names. Anything otherwise makes for a less than transparent process. If nominees don't want to be part of a transparent process, I for one am certain that I would not support the results of the process because of the opacity. Everything else has been quite open to public scrutiny. If nominees cannot withstand it, then perhaps they should not be nominees. Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > If i understand you correctly you object to people having the ability > to decide for themselves whether they want their info published? You > think it was obvious that the info would be published. I thought so > too, but as is usually the case when I assume something, i was > wrong. Several people indicated that this had not been their > expectation. > > Personally I see this as a compromise between transparency and > privacy. But if you have a better way to balance the two, please > suggest something. > > I would also welcome an extended conversation on how one balances > transparency and privacy. Personally I often find the line between > the two difficult to judge, especially when taking multicultural > expectations into account. > > thanks > > a. > > -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago cnd at knowprose.com Looking for contracts/work! http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786 New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Apr 12 18:08:29 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 00:08:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] NomCom nomination statments - To publish or not to Publish In-Reply-To: <91755393-6123-4DFF-8D54-D820A1D05337@psg.com> References: <401BA02B-3911-49BC-B7E6-E5C6A6C72B57@psg.com> <7F0EB6C9-30DA-4928-ABD1-7ECC65666E47@psg.com> <91755393-6123-4DFF-8D54-D820A1D05337@psg.com> Message-ID: <48724FED-51ED-4262-9A17-601564E47402@ras.eu.org> Le 12 avr. 06 à 23:34, Avri Doria a écrit : > hi, > > If i understand you correctly you object to people having the ability > to decide for themselves whether they want their info published? Not at all, Avri. And I would fight for their fundamental right to privacy be respected, in such a case. I object - or more exactly, I find unbelievable - that individuals, running into a process of candidating for recommendation by a group of people (or in its name, I mean here the IGC), refuse to disclose to this group of people the very information on which their recommendation would be decided, and to even disclose the simple fact that they are candidating. The fact that the choice (I'm careful of not using the word 'election') has been delegated to a nomcom shouldn't matter here. And, BTW, it's really putting the nomcom members in a difficult situation to ask them to decide on non public information. This may lead to suspicion, and they don't deserve that. [...] Personally I see this as a compromise between transparency and > privacy. I cannot agree with you here since since I don't think it's a matter of privacy (see above). It's only a matter of transparency. So, normally, there is no need to find a balance. It's only a way to work out a situation where something has been forgotten in the conditions of the process. And it's by no mean your fault since no one added this condition when the whole process was presented. People who thought, like you and me, that it was obvious, had no reason to add this. But what about the others ? > But if you have a better way to balance the two, please > suggest something. I can only suggest common sense, but not sure this works:) > I would also welcome an extended conversation on how one balances > transparency and privacy. Personally I often find the line between > the two difficult to judge, especially when taking multicultural > expectations into account. Maybe next time (specially if drinking this delicious Danish 'little grey' beverage:). I mean, not during this process. And when it's an actual question of privacy, yes, of course it's difficult to judge, and decision is generally made on a case by case basis. In the media sector, there has been for long a lot of discussion (I mean, true wars) on how to balance transparency (and right of the public to information) with privacy. I'm not sure it's the right list to discuss this. Meryem _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Apr 12 18:11:24 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:11:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] NomCom nomination statments - To publish or not to Publish In-Reply-To: <443D761C.1030201@knowprose.com> References: <401BA02B-3911-49BC-B7E6-E5C6A6C72B57@psg.com> <7F0EB6C9-30DA-4928-ABD1-7ECC65666E47@psg.com> <91755393-6123-4DFF-8D54-D820A1D05337@psg.com> <443D761C.1030201@knowprose.com> Message-ID: <74FF3787-2B04-418F-A167-7F049747A7FF@psg.com> hi, On 12 apr 2006, at 17.50, Taran Rampersad wrote: > If > nominees don't want to be part of a transparent process, I for one am > certain that I would not support the results of the process because of > the opacity. Well I hope that all nominees will agree to the publication of their nomination statements. So far those who have responded to my email have done so - with only a few answers yet to come in. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Apr 12 18:14:08 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:14:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] NomCom nomination statments - To publish or not to Publish In-Reply-To: <48724FED-51ED-4262-9A17-601564E47402@ras.eu.org> References: <401BA02B-3911-49BC-B7E6-E5C6A6C72B57@psg.com> <7F0EB6C9-30DA-4928-ABD1-7ECC65666E47@psg.com> <91755393-6123-4DFF-8D54-D820A1D05337@psg.com> <48724FED-51ED-4262-9A17-601564E47402@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: Hi, On 12 apr 2006, at 18.08, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > I find unbelievable - that individuals, > running into a process of candidating for recommendation by a group > of people (or in its name, I mean here the IGC), refuse to disclose > to this group of people the very information on which their > recommendation would be decided, and to even disclose the simple fact > that they are candidating. None have refused my request yet, though several have yet to respond (probably due to time zones etc). So it may not be an issue. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Wed Apr 12 19:45:06 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:45:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] NomCom nomination statments - To publish or not to Publish In-Reply-To: <48724FED-51ED-4262-9A17-601564E47402@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20060412234506.25366.qmail@web54701.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, I will have to agree with Meryem and Taran here. IGC is not the only place candidates are nominated, and anyone can send their self nomination directly to the IGF secretariat. So, if someone if seeking the endorsement or support of any constituency (no matter if s/he is not self-nominated as long as s/he is willing to accept her/his nomination), then it is quite a matter of politeness to state this and introduce her/himself to that constituency. That is the principle (I'm not saying anyone who would have any reason not to publish would be impolite, but then again, there are other options for candidating). Though I'm not sure where the issue would come from, whether from the short bio or from the rest of the information requested (or even, would it be that a person could be in a professional situation where s/he wouldn't like to be known that s/he's planning to take up this responsibility??? hope he won't be doing the job "clandestinely!"), anyway, if the privacy issue is with the bio as I first thought, all what is requested is profiling elements related one way or the other to IG. Mawaki --- Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > Le 12 avr. 06 à 23:34, Avri Doria a écrit : > > > hi, > > > > If i understand you correctly you object to people having the > ability > > to decide for themselves whether they want their info published? > > Not at all, Avri. And I would fight for their fundamental right to > > privacy be respected, in such a case. > I object - or more exactly, I find unbelievable - that individuals, > > running into a process of candidating for recommendation by a group > > of people (or in its name, I mean here the IGC), refuse to disclose > > to this group of people the very information on which their > recommendation would be decided, and to even disclose the simple > fact > that they are candidating. > The fact that the choice (I'm careful of not using the word > 'election') has been delegated to a nomcom shouldn't matter here. > And, BTW, it's really putting the nomcom members in a difficult > situation to ask them to decide on non public information. This may > > lead to suspicion, and they don't deserve that. > > [...] > > Personally I see this as a compromise between transparency and > > privacy. > > I cannot agree with you here since since I don't think it's a > matter > of privacy (see above). It's only a matter of transparency. So, > normally, there is no need to find a balance. > It's only a way to work out a situation where something has been > forgotten in the conditions of the process. And it's by no mean > your > fault since no one added this condition when the whole process was > > presented. People who thought, like you and me, that it was > obvious, > had no reason to add this. But what about the others ? > > > But if you have a better way to balance the two, please > > suggest something. > > I can only suggest common sense, but not sure this works:) > > > I would also welcome an extended conversation on how one balances > > transparency and privacy. Personally I often find the line > between > > the two difficult to judge, especially when taking multicultural > > expectations into account. > > Maybe next time (specially if drinking this delicious Danish > 'little > grey' beverage:). I mean, not during this process. And when it's an > > actual question of privacy, yes, of course it's difficult to judge, > > and decision is generally made on a case by case basis. In the > media > sector, there has been for long a lot of discussion (I mean, true > wars) on how to balance transparency (and right of the public to > information) with privacy. I'm not sure it's the right list to > discuss this. > > Meryem > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Apr 13 02:22:32 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 11:52:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality & IG - a proposal to the IGC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200604130618.k3D6IQvG000188@trout.cpsr.org> Michael Gurstein wrote: >> In that context the question of Network Neutrality is not fundamental but rather secondary to the realization of the public interest-->> That is exactly the point. That is why though there is a lot of talk around (strangely, much more in arenas outside IGC than inside it) about the NN issue as an important issue to be taken by IGF --- and though this concern trigged our IGF proposal - the proposal was written deliberately not in terms of NN but in terms of 'public-ness'. And I used this 'public-ness' term as a broader term than public interest because (1)the term 'public interest' can get constructed too narrowly, with each taking one's own conception of it (2)there were connected issues of reclaiming the 'public sphere or domain' on the Internet, that many CS activists in the IPR arena speak about. And there are infrastructure issues like open spectrum and ownership of spectrum - and I thought there was a common thread running through these Internet related issues (which are at the base of the political lines of contestation in the emerging information society) which our theme proposal tries to capture. >> Internet (or its carriage) should (not) be seen solely from the perspective of the (or "a") market, but rather as a place where the public interest (the achievement of public goods) can and should be realized.>> Yes, there is a market component/ aspect of the Internet - and public interest in context of this market aspect needs to be preserved - and NN principle means to do that. And as you rightly observe, there are other non-market aspects of the Internet which are as important, and nature of public interest in these respects may be different, and remains paramount. >>>if NN supports the public interest, well and good; if it doesn't then the public interest should prevail and NN should be structured so as to accommodate this.>>> Of course. NN is not by itself important, it is merely a technical issue - it is the public interest that is important. Technology advances towards more and more possibilities and that also means more differentiation. The issue is how these technology advances and increased possibilities used for public interest. (In fact I can already think of some public interest issues that can be used to overrule network neutrality.) And I do not understand what special public-private complementarily Milton speaks about which is not there in most other public infrastructure. The road infrastructure which is certainly public also connects the private spaces (say, our home) to private spaces (our office) which we can travel in private spaces (our cars). But this doesn't take away from the essential public nature of the road infrastructure. So whats the problem in asserting the essential public nature of the Internet! In fact, that there seems to such a problem in some (strong and dominant) quarters to do so is the real justification of our public-ness proposal. Many IS concepts and theorizations have a congenital neo-liberal dominant slant, in sharp contrast to the traditional public-private balance of the yester-decades. And this slant hurts the developing countries a lot. We have tried to argue such congenital deformity of IS discourse in our recent paper on 'political economy of the IS' (http://wsispapers.choike.org/papers/eng/itfc_political_economy_is.pdf ) Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Gurstein, Michael Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 4:25 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality & IG - a proposal to the IGC I think the issue might be clarified somewhat if we were somewhat clearer on what is being discussed. As I understand it the IGF is in fact to be the IG (P) F -- Internet Governance (Policy) Forum i.e. a place where broad issues of public policy with respect to the Internet in a global environment are discussed and presumably recommendations made with respect to appropriate responses including the appropriate vehicles or institutions for implementing those responses. In a "Policy" forum the fundamental questions, which underlie all others are what are the basic assumptions which are made concerning the framework or policy pre-conditions which underlie all others--ultimately this means what are one's fundamental "political" choices. In the context of Network Neutrality, what is being assumed as being "neutral" is the positioning of the various players with respect to the "market" i.e. there is no discrimination as to the various players/competitors in the Internet (or the underlying carriage of the Internet) as a "marketplace". My understanding of Parminder's position is that the underlying assumption should not be that the Internet (or its carriage) should be seen solely from the perspective of the (or "a") market, but rather as a place where the public interest (the achievement of public goods) can and should be realized. In that context the question of Network Neutrality is not fundamental but rather secondary to the realization of the public interest--if NN supports the public interest, well and good; if it doesn't then the public interest should prevail and NN should be structured so as to accommodate this. Seems fairly clear to me (as does the reason for introducing Parminder's "issue" concerning the public interest into the initial IGF discussions as well... MG -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: April 12, 2006 12:03 PM To: Milton Mueller Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality & IG - a proposal to the IGC Milton Mueller ha scritto: > The meaning of NN in this context is not entirely clear. At its best, > Net Neutrality is about maintaining that complementary relationship > and protecting it against certain (real or imagined) threats. At its > worst, it is a rather unproductive replay of the US model of regulated > unbundling of networks, which devolved into microregulation and court > battles. I prefer discussions to revolve around concepts of > "nondiscrimination", but admit that NN is a better PR term. Given the > rootedness of these issues in domestic telecom policy laws, > regulations and institutions, however, I am confused as to how a > nonbinding global discussion forum would be able to make a > contribution in this area. I think that the best contribution would be a sort of principle recognition of what you say, i.e. the importance of keeping a balance between the freedom for private parties to communicate and to innovate, and the need for the network to be one, open, and publicly sharing its basic elements. Network neutrality should mean, for example, that private entities are encouraged to fight through their ingenuity to gain advantage positions in one of the spots of the value chain(s) of the network, but should not be allowed [too much] to use those positions to break the unity of the network or to reduce others' freedom to act or to alter competition in other spots. This then involves countless situations, not just last mile & provider control on content, but also the Apple / iTunes type of situations, and even Microsoft / WindowsMedia or Microsoft / IE - but also SiteFinder (eg Verisign using a monopoly position at the DNS protocol level to gain an advantage position at the application protocol level). -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Thu Apr 13 09:15:55 2006 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:15:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] NomCom nomination statments - To publish or not to Publish In-Reply-To: <91755393-6123-4DFF-8D54-D820A1D05337@psg.com> References: <401BA02B-3911-49BC-B7E6-E5C6A6C72B57@psg.com> <7F0EB6C9-30DA-4928-ABD1-7ECC65666E47@psg.com> <91755393-6123-4DFF-8D54-D820A1D05337@psg.com> Message-ID: <443E4F0B.1090707@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Avri Doria wrote: > Personally I see this as a compromise between transparency and > privacy. This has nothing to do with privacy. Privacy is what people do in their private life, but not what they do in public functions and especially not when running for a UN mandate. I totally agree with Meryem and Taran that we need a fully transparent process here. So it's nice to hear that the nominees have not objected to the publication of the info, but anything else would just make them (and us) fail the giggle test. Best, Ralf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 13 11:55:11 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 11:55:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] AT&T and the U.S. NSA Message-ID: Documents Show Link Between AT&T and Agency in Eavesdropping Case SAN FRANCISCO, April 12 * Mark Klein was a veteran AT&T technician in 2002 when he began to see what he thought were suspicious connections between that telecommunications giant and the National Security Agency. But he kept quiet about it until news broke late last year that President Bush had approved an N.S.A. program to eavesdrop without court warrants on Americans suspected of ties to Al Qaeda. Now Mr. Klein and a few company documents he saved have emerged as key elements in a class-action lawsuit filed against AT&T on Jan. 31 by a civil liberties group, the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The suit accuses the company of helping the security agency invade its customers' privacy. Mr. Klein's account and the documents provide new details about how the agency works with the private sector in intercepting communications for intelligence purposes. The documents, some of which Mr. Klein had earlier provided to reporters, describe a mysterious room at the AT&T Internet and telephone hub in San Francisco where he worked. The documents, which were examined by four independent telecommunications and computer security experts at the request of The New York Times, describe equipment capable of monitoring a large quantity of e-mail messages, Internet phone calls, and other Internet traffic. The equipment, which Mr. Klein said was installed by AT&T in 2003, was able to select messages that could be identified by keywords, Internet or e-mail addresses or country of origin and divert copies to another location for further analysis. The security agency began eavesdropping without warrants on international phone calls and e-mail messages of people inside the United States suspected of terrorist links soon after the Sept. 11 attacks. After disclosing the program last December, The New York Times also reported that the agency had gathered data from phone and e-mail traffic with the cooperation of several major telecommunications companies. The technical experts all said that the documents showed that AT&T had an agreement with the federal government to systematically gather information flowing on the Internet through the company's network. The gathering of such information, known as data mining, involves the use of sophisticated computer programs to detect patterns or glean useful intelligence from masses of information. "This took expert planning and hundreds of millions of dollars to build," said Brian Reid, director of engineering at the Internet Systems Consortium in Redwood City, Calif. "This is the correct way to do high volume Internet snooping." Another expert, who had designed large federal and commercial data networks, said that the documents were consistent with administration assertions that the N.S.A. monitored only foreign communications and communications between foreign and United States locations, partly because of the location of the monitoring sites. The network designer was granted anonymity because he believed that commenting on the operation could affect his ability to work as a consultant. The documents referred to a second location, in Atlanta, and suggested similar rooms might exist at other AT&T switching sites. Mr. Klein said other AT&T technicians had told him of such installations in San Jose, Calif.; Los Angeles; San Diego; and Seattle. The Internet hubs there carry a significant amount of international traffic. The network designer and other experts said it would be a simple technical matter to reprogram the equipment to intercept purely domestic Internet traffic. The Department of Justice initially asked the Electronic Frontier Foundation not to file Mr. Klein's documents in court, but a review determined that they were not classified and the government dropped its objection. The foundation filed the documents under seal because of concern about releasing proprietary information. On Monday, AT&T filed a motion with a federal judge in San Francisco asking the court to order the foundation to return the documents because they were proprietary. The documents showed that the room in San Francisco, which Mr. Klein says was off-limits to most employees but serviced by a company technician working with the security agency, contained computerized equipment that could sift through immense volumes of traffic as it passed through the cables of AT&T's WorldNet Internet service. According to the documents, e-mail messages and other data carried by 16 other commercial Internet providers reached AT&T customers through the San Francisco hub. One piece of filtering equipment described in the documents was manufactured by Narus, based in Mountain View, Calif. The equipment could be programmed to identify and intercept voice or data conversations between e-mail, telephone or Internet addresses, said Steve Bannerman, the company's vice president for marketing. Buyers included companies trying to comply with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which requires that communications systems have a wiretapping capability built in. Typically, law enforcement interceptions are done on a case by case basis and require warrants. Mr. Bannerman said he could not comment further because Narus had not announced any sales to the federal government. William P. Crowell, a former deputy director of the N.S.A, is on the Narus board. In an interview, Mr. Klein said he did not have a security clearance but had witnessed interactions between colleagues who did have clearances and the highly secretive N.S.A. "It was strange and sort of suspicious," he said. Mr. Klein said he learned of an agency connection to the mysterious room in 2002 when a company manager told him to expect a visit from an N.S.A. official who wanted to speak with another senior company technician about "a special job." That technician later installed the equipment in the room, he said. Based on his observations and technical knowledge, Mr. Klein concluded that the equipment permitted "vacuum-cleaner surveillance" of Internet traffic. Mr. Klein, 60, who retired in 2004 after 23 years with AT&T and lives near Oakland, Calif., said he decided to make his observations known because he believed the government's monitoring was violating Americans' civil liberties. An AT&T spokesman at the company's corporate headquarters in San Antonio declined to comment on Mr. Klein's statements. "AT&T does follow all laws with respect to assistance offered to government agencies," said Walt Sharp, the AT&T spokesman. "However, we are not in a position to comment on matters of national security." Asked to comment, Don Weber, a spokesman for the N.S.A., said, "It would be irresponsible of us to discuss actual or alleged operational issues as it would give those wishing to do harm to the United States the ability to adjust and potentially inflict harm." John Markoff reported from San Francisco for this article, and Scott Shane from Washington. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Apr 13 14:07:00 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:07:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Additional HR Caucus nominations for the MAG through IGC nomcom References: Message-ID: <24AE965E-4698-4654-A6AE-4A8FE1A3E03A@ras.eu.org> Apologies to the list moderators. Please discard the previous mail sent from a non recognized address. Meryem Début du message réexpédié : > De : Meryem Marzouki > Date : 13 avril 2006 19:54:00 HAEC > À : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Objet : Réexp : Additional HR Caucus nominations for the MAG > through IGC nomcom > > FYI. Meryem > > Début du message réexpédié : > >> De : Meryem Marzouki >> Date : 13 avril 2006 19:53:16 HAEC >> À : IGC-nomcom at wsis-cs.org >> Cc : Cedric Laurant , >> Meryem.Marzouki at iris.sgdg.org >> Objet : Additional HR Caucus nominations for the MAG through IGC >> nomcom >> >> Dear IGC nomcom members, >> >> Please find below information on an additional candidate, Cédric >> Laurant, the WSIS CS HR Caucus would like to recommend for your >> consideration, in view of the nomination of IGC list of candidates >> to the MAG. >> We apologize for this late nomination. We hope you would >> nevertheless accept to consider it. If you don't find this >> possible, we would perfectly understand your decision. >> >> Don't hesitate to contact me in case you need additional information. >> Best regards, >> Meryem Marzouki >> WSIS CS HR Caucus Co-chair >> >> ======= >> >> Name: Cédric Laurant >> >> Name of nominator (or self): WSIS Civil Society Human Rights >> Caucus (contact: Meryem Marzouki, co-chair, >> Meryem.Marzouki at iris.sgdg.org) >> >> Nationality: Belgian >> >> Country of Residence: United States >> >> Gender: Male >> >> Short Bio relevant to IG: >> Cédric Laurant is an attorney and international privacy policy >> expert in Washington, D.C. He is the Director of the International >> Privacy Project, and Policy Counsel since 2001, with the >> Electronic Privacy Information Center, a public interest research >> center in Washington, D.C.. Cédric Laurant has advised policy >> makers on privacy issues and comparative policy and legal aspects >> of privacy regimes in Europe, the United States and Canada, Latin >> America, Africa and the Middle East. He has testified before the >> U.S. Congress and the European Parliament. He is actively >> participating to the negotiation of the APEC Privacy Framework and >> its implementation scheme. He is the main editor of "Privacy and >> Human Rights" 2003, 2004 and 2005, EPIC's comprehensive >> international survey of privacy laws and developments in the world. >> >> Cédric Laurant has organized coalitions with several NGOs around >> the world on issues of global significance for the right to >> privacy, consumer protection and emerging international privacy >> issues in Europe, Latin America and Africa. He coordinated EPIC's >> advocacy actions within international coalitions of consumer >> privacy and human rights advocates around the world. He is a >> member of the Asia-Pacific Privacy Charter Council and the >> International Working Group on Data Protection in >> Telecommunications. Through EPIC, he is active within several >> organizations, including the Organization for Economic Cooperation >> and Development (OECD) and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation >> (APEC). >> >> Cédric Laurant holds a licence en droit (law degree) from the >> University of Louvain, a Master of Laws from Columbia University >> School of Law, a European Master of Arts in Science, Technology >> and Society (London), and a Diploma in Print and Broadcast >> Journalism (Brussels). He is licensed to practice law in the >> District of Columbia and is a member of the D.C. Bar. He is a >> native French speaker, fluent in English and Spanish, and >> proficient in Dutch and Portuguese. >> >> Why the (self) nominee is a good choice for the MAG: >> A member of the caucus and active throughout the WSIS process, >> Cédric Laurant has developed since 1999 a thorough understanding >> of the key policy and legal privacy issues in the online world and >> especially at an international level. His experience as a CS >> observer at several international fora where privacy and other >> human rights topics have been discussed, and his legal background >> in both European civil law and US common law, specially allow him >> to deal with privacy and civil liberties issues in the IGF >> context, in line with the caucus recommendations. >> >> Willingness to serve on MAG: Confirmed >> > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Sat Apr 15 11:46:53 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 11:46:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] List of Nominees being considered by IGC Nomcom Message-ID: Hi, While all the information is not in, most is. The nominations received by the IGC nomcom, and the statements, can be found at: http://www.wsis-cs.org/igfnominees.shtml Thank you to all the nominees and nominators. The IGC nomcom is currently considering the nominees and plans to have a slate to propose to the IGF secretariat on or before 18 April. a. Acting for the IGC Nomcom Note: If you notice any errors or omissions in the information, please let me know. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Sun Apr 16 04:44:51 2006 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 09:44:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9pondre=3A_=5BWSIS_CS-Plenary=5D_L?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ist_of__Nominees_being_considered_by_IGC_Nomcom?= In-Reply-To: <200604160733.k3G7XawX013050@smtp2.planet.net.tn> References: <200604160733.k3G7XawX013050@smtp2.planet.net.tn> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060416094006.01feae48@gn.apc.org> hi tijani >ACSIS (African Civil Society for Information Society) nominated Ken >Lohento and Cissé Kane with Mawaki. But in the list you gave the link to >didn't include Ken and Cissé. as avri is probably sleeping now, i'll take the liberty of responding.. ken's nomination is online (under his 'official' name): Gemma Brice (Ken) Lohento http://www.wsis-cs.org/igfnominees.shtml?slice_id=3e640adb2506b8421b3f31232657571b&sh_itm=6095f9a07349603c347e62b7962940ae but, it is true that the nomination for cisse kane did not make it to the nomcom list, though, i saw a reference to it, possibly on this list.. no, i don't see it on the governance list.. and, i can't see it on the plenary list.. it may have been that i only saw a reference to it in a forwarded message from the ACSIS list - was it sent possibly dfirect to the IGF? in any case, could you as a matter of urgency, post it here and to the nomcom list: igc-nomcom at wsis-cs.org thanks a lot karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Sun Apr 16 07:14:08 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 07:14:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9pondre=3A_=5BWSIS_CS-Plenary=5D_L?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ist_of_Nominees_being_considered_by_IGC_Nomcom?= In-Reply-To: <200604160733.k3G7XawX013050@smtp2.planet.net.tn> References: <200604160733.k3G7XawX013050@smtp2.planet.net.tn> Message-ID: <521F8CD7-2009-4FE3-832F-5B4D952FBF7D@acm.org> Hi, I have searched through the IGC nomcom archives as well as my own private email and do not find a nomination from the ACSIS. The only email I have from the ACSIS is a copy of the nomination sent directly to the IGF that I received this morning. It appears that the ACSIS nomination was sent to the IGF and not to the IGC nominating group. The nominations for Ken and Mawaki were sent separately by APC to the IGC nomcom. They were not received from the ACSIS. So, unfortunately, Cissé was not nominated within the IGC process. Had I erred, alwasy a possibility, and dropped her nomination I would gladly update the list. As it is, I do not believe I can add another name so long after the deadline. As was discussed earlier, the IGC nomination process is not the only one, and many groups sent their own lists to the IGF secretariat without participating in the IGC process. I expect that the IGF secretariat will give all the nominations received from groups due consideration. With regrets, a. On 16 apr 2006, at 03.33, Mohamed Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > Dear Avri, > > ACSIS (African Civil Society for Information Society) nominated Ken > Lohento and Cissé Kane with Mawaki. But in the list you gave the > link to > didn't include Ken and Cissé. > Thank you to update. > > Best. > > Tijani > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rishi at gipi.org.in Sun Apr 16 07:47:41 2006 From: rishi at gipi.org.in (Rishi Chawla) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 17:17:41 +0530 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_=5Bgovernance=5D_R=E9pondre:_=5BWSIS_CS-Plenary=5D?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?_List_of_Nominees_being_considered_by_IGC_Nomcom?= In-Reply-To: <521F8CD7-2009-4FE3-832F-5B4D952FBF7D@acm.org> Message-ID: Dear Avri, I totally agree with your point of respecting the deadline for the process, however, on the other hand i think, the final recommendations have not been made, there wont be any harm caused in being flexible and including GOOD nominations in the larger interest. Either ways it is upto the NOMCOM to decide, I am just giving my 2 penny worth. Thanks and regards Rishi Chawla Center for Communications Law & Policy Research, India www.ictpolicy.org -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 4:44 PM To: Mohamed Tijani BEN JEMAA Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org Subject: Re: [governance] Répondre: [WSIS CS-Plenary] List of Nominees being considered by IGC Nomcom Hi, I have searched through the IGC nomcom archives as well as my own private email and do not find a nomination from the ACSIS. The only email I have from the ACSIS is a copy of the nomination sent directly to the IGF that I received this morning. It appears that the ACSIS nomination was sent to the IGF and not to the IGC nominating group. The nominations for Ken and Mawaki were sent separately by APC to the IGC nomcom. They were not received from the ACSIS. So, unfortunately, Cissé was not nominated within the IGC process. Had I erred, alwasy a possibility, and dropped her nomination I would gladly update the list. As it is, I do not believe I can add another name so long after the deadline. As was discussed earlier, the IGC nomination process is not the only one, and many groups sent their own lists to the IGF secretariat without participating in the IGC process. I expect that the IGF secretariat will give all the nominations received from groups due consideration. With regrets, a. On 16 apr 2006, at 03.33, Mohamed Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > Dear Avri, > > ACSIS (African Civil Society for Information Society) nominated Ken > Lohento and Cissé Kane with Mawaki. But in the list you gave the > link to > didn't include Ken and Cissé. > Thank you to update. > > Best. > > Tijani > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Sun Apr 16 09:46:51 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 06:46:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Rpondre: [WSIS CS-Plenary] List of Nominees being considered by IGC Nomcom In-Reply-To: <521F8CD7-2009-4FE3-832F-5B4D952FBF7D@acm.org> Message-ID: <20060416134651.5217.qmail@web54701.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, Avri, you're totally right as to your understanding, and I'm afraid Tijani is making a confusion. The ACSIS's nomination and the IGC's nomination are two different lists of nomination, and it must be admitted that ACSIS did not request IGC to endorse our (ACSIS) list of three nominees. It turns out that in the IGC nomination process, APC nominated two persons that appear also on the ACSIS's nomination list. Karen, you may have seen the ACSIS's nominees on the plenary list (where some of our members may have forwarded it, am not sure), or in a message forwarded to your individual address FYI, but certainly not here with IGC. Please note: Anriette (APC) is subscribed to ACSIS list where she stated APC's support to ACSIS nomination, while clarifying that APC is also nominating two of the nominees. I hope this clarifies, or reduces possible confusion. Mawaki --- Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I have searched through the IGC nomcom archives as well as my own > private > email and do not find a nomination from the ACSIS. The only email > I > have > from the ACSIS is a copy of the nomination sent directly to the IGF > > that I > received this morning. > It appears that the ACSIS nomination was sent to the IGF and not to > > the IGC > nominating group. The nominations for Ken and Mawaki were sent > separately > by APC to the IGC nomcom. They were not received from the ACSIS. > > So, unfortunately, Cissé was not nominated within the IGC process. > > Had I erred, > alwasy a possibility, and dropped her nomination I would gladly > update the list. > As it is, I do not believe I can add another name so long after the > > deadline. > > As was discussed earlier, the IGC nomination process is not the > only > one, and > many groups sent their own lists to the IGF secretariat without > participating > in the IGC process. I expect that the IGF secretariat will give > all > the nominations > received from groups due consideration. > > With regrets, > a. > > > On 16 apr 2006, at 03.33, Mohamed Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > > > Dear Avri, > > > > ACSIS (African Civil Society for Information Society) nominated > Ken > > Lohento and Cissé Kane with Mawaki. But in the list you gave the > > > link to > > didn't include Ken and Cissé. > > Thank you to update. > > > > Best. > > > > Tijani > > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.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 Sun Apr 16 10:37:45 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 10:37:45 -0400 Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_[governance]_R=E9pondre:_[WSIS_CS-Plenary]_Li?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?st_of_Nominees_being_considered_by_IGC_Nomcom?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I like the idea of being flexible and try to be whenever I can. I have two problems with accepting the 3 late nominations I have received (it is not a matter of just the one from ACSIS) that go beyond a notion of being strict about deadlines. - I have no way of knowing how many people might have thought about applying on the 14th, seen the deadline and decided that they were too late, and hence not applied. It would not be fair to those who may have reacted this way to the deadline to now accept new nominations without reopening nominations. And given the tight schedule (decision due on Tuesday 18 April), reopening nominations would be impossible. - The members of the IGC nomcom are well along in their deliberations. Giving due consideration on an equal basis to the new nominees would be extremely difficult if not impossible. thanks a. On 16 apr 2006, at 07.47, Rishi Chawla wrote: > Dear Avri, > > I totally agree with your point of respecting the deadline for the > process, > however, on the other hand i think, the final recommendations have > not been > made, there wont be any harm caused in being flexible and including > GOOD > nominations in the larger interest. > > Either ways it is upto the NOMCOM to decide, I am just giving my 2 > penny > worth. > > Thanks and regards > > Rishi Chawla > Center for Communications Law & Policy Research, India > www.ictpolicy.org _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Sun Apr 16 11:06:02 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 11:06:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Nominations of another sort - ICANN Board Message-ID: Hi, There is a vacancy on the ICANN board that will be filled by the GNSO council. As an ICANN nomcom appointee to the GNSO council, I am one of those who can nominate and second people for this position, and will vote for the candidate. Specific info can be found at: http://gnso.icann.org/announcements/ announcement-16apr06.htm I welcome suggestions from this caucus on candidates, either suggestions for nomination or, once candidates are announced, comments on the candidates. I don't commit to actually nominate everyone, or even anyone, who is suggested, but I do promise to consider all comments and discussion. As I am not sure everyone on this list is interested in such intense ICANN discussion, I welcome private email on the subject. thanks a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Sun Apr 16 14:16:00 2006 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 11:16:00 -0700 Subject: [governance] Nominations of another sort - ICANN Board In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001201c66181$d1846cb0$0301000a@CCKLLP.local> I've already made recommendations to other members of the Council that they conscript Avri Doria for the open Board seat. :-) Avri wrote: > There is a vacancy on the ICANN board that will > be filled by the GNSO council. As an ICANN nomcom > appointee to the GNSO council, I am one of those > who can nominate and second people for this position, > and will vote for the candidate. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Mon Apr 17 00:35:47 2006 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 00:35:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Nominations of another sort - ICANN Board In-Reply-To: <001201c66181$d1846cb0$0301000a@CCKLLP.local> References: <001201c66181$d1846cb0$0301000a@CCKLLP.local> Message-ID: <131293a20604162135u2665f19dxed0b9e33221b95c3@mail.gmail.com> That's a great idea! Jacqueline On 4/16/06, Bret Fausett wrote: > I've already made recommendations to other members of the Council that they > conscript Avri Doria for the open Board seat. :-) > > Avri wrote: > > There is a vacancy on the ICANN board that will > > be filled by the GNSO council. As an ICANN nomcom > > appointee to the GNSO council, I am one of those > > who can nominate and second people for this position, > > and will vote for the candidate. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Apr 17 10:23:10 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:23:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] List of Nominees being considered by IGC Nomcom Message-ID: Avri: I would like to know why the very open, transparent nomination process of the Internet Governance Project is not recognized by your nominees list. IGP, like APC, ACSIS, etc., is an organization and made an official nomination, via Lee McKnight. Jeanette, myself and Mathiason were all nominated. I'd appreciate it if your information ont he web was corrected and and announcement made to Nomcom correcting this oversight. >>> Avri Doria 4/15/2006 11:46 AM >>> Hi, While all the information is not in, most is. The nominations received by the IGC nomcom, and the statements, can be found at: http://www.wsis-cs.org/igfnominees.shtml Thank you to all the nominees and nominators. The IGC nomcom is currently considering the nominees and plans to have a slate to propose to the IGF secretariat on or before 18 April. a. Acting for the IGC Nomcom Note: If you notice any errors or omissions in the information, please let me know. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Mon Apr 17 10:31:36 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:31:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] Nominations of another sort - ICANN Board In-Reply-To: <001201c66181$d1846cb0$0301000a@CCKLLP.local> References: <001201c66181$d1846cb0$0301000a@CCKLLP.local> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060417103106.05faf450@veni.com> At 11:16 AM 16.4.2006 '?.' -0700, Bret Fausett wrote: >I've already made recommendations to other members of the Council that they >conscript Avri Doria for the open Board seat. :-) I don't understand why you don't want to run yourself? ;-) veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 17 10:35:52 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:35:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Woops- disregard my mast lessage re: nominations Message-ID: I was looking at the wrong column! (Endorse 1) Too many emails, too quick a trigger finger! Apologies all around. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Tue Apr 18 16:58:43 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:58:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Nomcom selection of IGC candidates for the IGF MAG Message-ID: Hi, I am in the process of putting together the document for presenting the candidates selected by the IGC-nomcom to the IGF secretariat. This document will cover the criteria and process used in the selection as well as include the biographies of the candidates being presented. I was going to wait until this document was ready to present the names to the IGC and CS-plenary, but it is taking me forever to get the document completed and I do not want to delay any further. The members of the nomcom selected the following individuals as candidates for the IGC nomcom: Adam Peake Chun Eunghwi Divina Frau-Meigs Gemma Brice (Ken) Lohento Gustavo Gindre Monteiro Soares Jeanette Hofmann Mawaki Chango Milton Mueller Parminder Jeet Singh Paul Byron Wilson Qusai AlShatti Rikke Frank Joergensen Robert Guerra Robin D. Gross William Drake (their information can still be found at: http://www.wsis-cs.org/ igfnominees.shtml) Once I have finished the document discussing the criteria and the process I will post the URL for it on these list. I hope you will join me in thanking the members of the nomcom for the work they have done in selecting the candidates. And that you will join me in wishing the candidates luck in the continuing selection process. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Tue Apr 18 17:47:07 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:47:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] Nomcom selection of IGC candidates for the IGF MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44455E5B.4020200@lists.privaterra.org> I'd like to thank Avri and the rest of the Nominating committee for its hard work. Secondly, my word of thanks to everyone who participated in the process, and congratulations to the those who have been selected by the Nomcom. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 on 4/18/06 4:58 PM Avri Doria said the following: > > The members of the nomcom selected the following individuals as > candidates for the IGC nomcom: > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Tue Apr 18 18:52:43 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:52:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Nomcom selection of IGC candidates for the IGF MAG Message-ID: I am honored to have been selected by the Nomcom group. I will wait for the next step, which is in the UN's hands, before getting too expansive about any further comments and promises, however. But I think a special thanks is due to Avri for taking the initiative to put together a good, workable process. That was quite an achievement. The trains ran on time and I was particularly impressed with the way she stuck to her guns when we all said we would be satisfied with whatever number of volunteers showed up. I am painfully aware of how dependent civil society processes are on people like that who take initiative and do the work. Let's see what happens next. It looks like a good group. Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> Avri Doria 4/18/2006 4:58 PM >>> Hi, I am in the process of putting together the document for presenting the candidates selected by the IGC-nomcom to the IGF secretariat. This document will cover the criteria and process used in the selection as well as include the biographies of the candidates being presented. I was going to wait until this document was ready to present the names to the IGC and CS-plenary, but it is taking me forever to get the document completed and I do not want to delay any further. The members of the nomcom selected the following individuals as candidates for the IGC nomcom: Adam Peake Chun Eunghwi Divina Frau-Meigs Gemma Brice (Ken) Lohento Gustavo Gindre Monteiro Soares Jeanette Hofmann Mawaki Chango Milton Mueller Parminder Jeet Singh Paul Byron Wilson Qusai AlShatti Rikke Frank Joergensen Robert Guerra Robin D. Gross William Drake (their information can still be found at: http://www.wsis-cs.org/ igfnominees.shtml) Once I have finished the document discussing the criteria and the process I will post the URL for it on these list. I hope you will join me in thanking the members of the nomcom for the work they have done in selecting the candidates. And that you will join me in wishing the candidates luck in the continuing selection process. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Tue Apr 18 19:55:09 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:55:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Write up for the IGC candidates for the IGF-MAG Message-ID: <058770D9-0278-4B46-895F-32FA5776609C@acm.org> Hi, I have put copies of the submission to the IGF secretariat at: http://www.nomadicity.net/IGC-candidates-for-IGF-MAG.html http://www.nomadicity.net/IGC-candidates-for-IGF-MAG.pdf (i am sure it still contains some of my sometime strange typos, and if you spot one, please let me know. i never seem to see them) The process explanation in this doc is not overly detailed. It was recommended that i, with advise from the nomcom members and other interested participants, create a more detailed process note and include a section on lessons learned. This way, should the IGC, or any other caucus, wish to engage in a similar process in the future they have something to build on. I will work on this, but not for a bit yet as i have some other work to catch up on first. A one sheet pdf that sorts the recommendations based on region of residence and gender is also available: http://www.nomadicity.net/IGC-recommendations.pdf thanks to everyone for everything a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Apr 19 02:50:08 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:50:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: Nomcom selection of IGC candidates for the IGF MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4445DDA0.3090306@wz-berlin.de> > But I think a special thanks is due to Avri for taking the initiative > to put together a good, workable process. That was quite an > achievement. The trains ran on time and I was particularly impressed > with the way she stuck to her guns when we all said we would be > satisfied with whatever number of volunteers showed up. I am > painfully aware of how dependent civil society processes are on > people like that who take initiative and do the work. I agree wholeheartedly. jeanette > > Let's see what happens next. It looks like a good group. > > Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org > > > >>>> Avri Doria 4/18/2006 4:58 PM >>> > > Hi, > > I am in the process of putting together the document for presenting > the candidates selected by the IGC-nomcom to the IGF secretariat. > This document will cover the criteria and process used in the > selection as well as include the biographies of the candidates being > presented. I was going to wait until this document was ready to > present the names to the IGC and CS-plenary, but it is taking me > forever to get the document completed and I do not want to delay any > further. > > The members of the nomcom selected the following individuals as > candidates for the IGC nomcom: > > Adam Peake Chun Eunghwi Divina Frau-Meigs Gemma Brice (Ken) Lohento > Gustavo Gindre Monteiro Soares Jeanette Hofmann Mawaki Chango Milton > Mueller Parminder Jeet Singh Paul Byron Wilson Qusai AlShatti Rikke > Frank Joergensen Robert Guerra Robin D. Gross William Drake > > (their information can still be found at: http://www.wsis-cs.org/ > igfnominees.shtml) > > Once I have finished the document discussing the criteria and the > process I will post the URL for it on these list. > > I hope you will join me in thanking the members of the nomcom for the > work they have done in selecting the candidates. And that you will > join me in wishing the candidates luck in the continuing selection > process. > > a. > > > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing > list governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ 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 chun at peacenet.or.kr Wed Apr 19 04:42:26 2006 From: chun at peacenet.or.kr (Chun Eung Hwi) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 17:42:26 +0900 (KST) Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Nomcom selection of IGC candidates for the IGF MAG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thank you, Avri Doria and all other nom-com members for your hard work of this selection! Without your committed time and actions, it may be almost impossible for our civil society group to move forward. We all know it well. And also I appreciate our Asian friends' support in this nomination process. Personally, I am truly honored to be nominated. I hope, like all of us, UN would take the next step further appropriately. regards, Chun On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Avri Doria wrote: > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people] > > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message! > _______________________________________ > > Hi, > > I am in the process of putting together the document for presenting > the candidates selected by the IGC-nomcom to the IGF secretariat. > This document will cover the criteria and process used in the > selection as well as include the biographies of the candidates being > presented. I was going to wait until this document was ready to > present the names to the IGC and CS-plenary, but it is taking me > forever to get the document completed and I do not want to delay any > further. > > The members of the nomcom selected the following individuals as > candidates for the IGC nomcom: > > Adam Peake > Chun Eunghwi > Divina Frau-Meigs > Gemma Brice (Ken) Lohento > Gustavo Gindre Monteiro Soares > Jeanette Hofmann > Mawaki Chango > Milton Mueller > Parminder Jeet Singh > Paul Byron Wilson > Qusai AlShatti > Rikke Frank Joergensen > Robert Guerra > Robin D. Gross > William Drake > > (their information can still be found at: http://www.wsis-cs.org/ > igfnominees.shtml) > > Once I have finished the document discussing the criteria and the > process I will post the URL for it on these list. > > I hope you will join me in thanking the members of the nomcom for the > work they have done in selecting the candidates. And that you will > join me in wishing the candidates luck in the continuing selection > process. > > a. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Plenary mailing list > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary > -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Chun Eung Hwi General Secretary, PeaceNet | fax: (+82) 2-2649-2624 Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 | pcs: (+82) 19-259-2667 Seoul, 158-600, Korea | eMail: chun at peacenet.or.kr ------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Wed Apr 19 04:24:27 2006 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 17:24:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Nomcom selection of IGCcandidates for the IGF MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20060419171929.0b89d0e0@anr.org> Congratulations for all who are selected as the candidates for the IGF MAG from IGC. I appreciate your coming hard work, blood sweat and tears! Thank you so much for the Nom-com members who not volunteered to work on this, but also refrained from being selected as candidates. Yes, Chun, you have my strong support from and for Asia. Parminder and Paul as well as Adam, all of you/us. Of course, the biggest appreciation should go to Avri, with your persistance and creative ideas with prgamatics, now we can "start" our new process. I hope the Civil society members will continue to engage in IGF with our wonderful diversity, sometimes painful struggle, and always big fun! izumi At 17:42 06/04/19 +0900, Chun Eung Hwi wrote: >Thank you, Avri Doria and all other nom-com members for your hard work of >this selection! Without your committed time and actions, it may be almost >impossible for our civil society group to move forward. We all know it >well. And also I appreciate our Asian friends' support in this nomination >process. Personally, I am truly honored to be nominated. I hope, like >all of us, UN would take the next step further appropriately. > > >regards, > >Chun > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Apr 19 04:24:13 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:24:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Nomcom selection of IGC candidates for the IGF MAG Message-ID: Congratulations to all selected candidates. Thanks to the members of the NomCom. Well (gender und geographic) balanced group. Special thanks to Avri. Great processual work. Avri, what about chairing the Caucus, at least until Athens? Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Di 18.04.2006 22:58 An: Internet Governance Caucus Cc: WSIS Plenary Betreff: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Nomcom selection of IGC candidates for the IGF MAG [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, I am in the process of putting together the document for presenting the candidates selected by the IGC-nomcom to the IGF secretariat. This document will cover the criteria and process used in the selection as well as include the biographies of the candidates being presented. I was going to wait until this document was ready to present the names to the IGC and CS-plenary, but it is taking me forever to get the document completed and I do not want to delay any further. The members of the nomcom selected the following individuals as candidates for the IGC nomcom: Adam Peake Chun Eunghwi Divina Frau-Meigs Gemma Brice (Ken) Lohento Gustavo Gindre Monteiro Soares Jeanette Hofmann Mawaki Chango Milton Mueller Parminder Jeet Singh Paul Byron Wilson Qusai AlShatti Rikke Frank Joergensen Robert Guerra Robin D. Gross William Drake (their information can still be found at: http://www.wsis-cs.org/ igfnominees.shtml) Once I have finished the document discussing the criteria and the process I will post the URL for it on these list. I hope you will join me in thanking the members of the nomcom for the work they have done in selecting the candidates. And that you will join me in wishing the candidates luck in the continuing selection process. a. _______________________________________________ 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 klohento at panos-ao.org Wed Apr 19 05:30:59 2006 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (klohento at panos-ao.org) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:30:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Nomcom selection of IGC candidates for the IGF MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1713.82.67.160.8.1145439059.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> I share totally Milton views. Thank you again Avri for your commitment work. Ken in brackets :-) > I am honored to have been selected by the Nomcom group. I will wait for > the next step, which is in the UN's hands, before getting too expansive > about any further comments and promises, however. > > But I think a special thanks is due to Avri for taking the initiative to > put together a good, workable process. That was quite an achievement. The > trains ran on time and I was particularly impressed with the way she stuck > to her guns when we all said we would be satisfied with whatever number of > volunteers showed up. I am painfully aware of how dependent civil society > processes are on people like that who take initiative and do the work. > > Let's see what happens next. It looks like a good group. > > Dr. Milton Mueller > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://www.digital-convergence.org > http://www.internetgovernance.org > > >>>> Avri Doria 4/18/2006 4:58 PM >>> > Hi, > > I am in the process of putting together the document for presenting > the candidates selected by the IGC-nomcom to the IGF secretariat. > This document will cover the criteria and process used in the > selection as well as include the biographies of the candidates being > presented. I was going to wait until this document was ready to > present the names to the IGC and CS-plenary, but it is taking me > forever to get the document completed and I do not want to delay any > further. > > The members of the nomcom selected the following individuals as > candidates for the IGC nomcom: _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rbloem at ngocongo.org Wed Apr 19 08:35:01 2006 From: rbloem at ngocongo.org (Renate Bloem) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:35:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Write up for the IGC candidates for the IGF-MAG In-Reply-To: <058770D9-0278-4B46-895F-32FA5776609C@acm.org> Message-ID: <200604191236.k3JCaAss018906@mta-gw2.infomaniak.ch> Excellent job done! Avri, and preliminary congrats to those elected! Renata -----Message d'origine----- De : plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] De la part de Avri Doria Envoyé : mercredi, 19. avril 2006 00:55 À : Internet Governance Caucus Cc : WSIS Plenary Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] Write up for the IGC candidates for the IGF-MAG [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, I have put copies of the submission to the IGF secretariat at: http://www.nomadicity.net/IGC-candidates-for-IGF-MAG.html http://www.nomadicity.net/IGC-candidates-for-IGF-MAG.pdf (i am sure it still contains some of my sometime strange typos, and if you spot one, please let me know. i never seem to see them) The process explanation in this doc is not overly detailed. It was recommended that i, with advise from the nomcom members and other interested participants, create a more detailed process note and include a section on lessons learned. This way, should the IGC, or any other caucus, wish to engage in a similar process in the future they have something to build on. I will work on this, but not for a bit yet as i have some other work to catch up on first. A one sheet pdf that sorts the recommendations based on region of residence and gender is also available: http://www.nomadicity.net/IGC-recommendations.pdf thanks to everyone for everything a. _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing list Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary -------------- 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 jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca Wed Apr 19 09:37:39 2006 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:37:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE : Nomcom selection of IGC candidates for the IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <1713.82.67.160.8.1145439059.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> Message-ID: <000f01c663b6$6dbc6a20$0201a8c0@yourq94bjvtl0r> I would like to echo the sentiments of congratulations for the people that have been put forward by the NOMCOM as well as to thank the not only the members of the NOMCOM but also those of you who were nominated but not selected for the IGF MAG. Like so many others, I would especially like to underline the appreciation of the caucus for what Avri has done here. Not only was she thinking outside the box, she built a whole new box and then left the instructions. Inspiring. Best wishes, Jeremy Shtern -----Message d'origine----- De : governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] De la part de klohento at panos-ao.org Envoyé : April 19, 2006 5:31 AM À : Milton Mueller Cc : governance at lists.cpsr.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org Objet : Re: [governance] Nomcom selection of IGC candidates for the IGF MAG I share totally Milton views. Thank you again Avri for your commitment work. Ken in brackets :-) > I am honored to have been selected by the Nomcom group. I will wait for > the next step, which is in the UN's hands, before getting too expansive > about any further comments and promises, however. > > But I think a special thanks is due to Avri for taking the initiative to > put together a good, workable process. That was quite an achievement. The > trains ran on time and I was particularly impressed with the way she stuck > to her guns when we all said we would be satisfied with whatever number of > volunteers showed up. I am painfully aware of how dependent civil society > processes are on people like that who take initiative and do the work. > > Let's see what happens next. It looks like a good group. > > Dr. Milton Mueller > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://www.digital-convergence.org > http://www.internetgovernance.org > > >>>> Avri Doria 4/18/2006 4:58 PM >>> > Hi, > > I am in the process of putting together the document for presenting > the candidates selected by the IGC-nomcom to the IGF secretariat. > This document will cover the criteria and process used in the > selection as well as include the biographies of the candidates being > presented. I was going to wait until this document was ready to > present the names to the IGC and CS-plenary, but it is taking me > forever to get the document completed and I do not want to delay any > further. > > The members of the nomcom selected the following individuals as > candidates for the IGC nomcom: _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw Wed Apr 19 09:46:46 2006 From: qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw (Qusai Al-Shatti) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:46:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Nomcom selection of IGCcandidates for the IGF MAG Message-ID: <200604191346.QAA13199@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Dear all: I would like to congratulate all my colleagues who were selected for the IGC MAG wishing all the best in their work. I would like to thank the Noncom committee: Avri, Bret,Karen, Magaly,Rainer and Richard for their effort and time spent to make a balanced selection. Especially, I would like to thank Avri for initiating the process of selection and setting up a great selection process that unified the caucus . I join Wolfgang in asking Avri to chair the Caucus (At least until Athens). All the best to all of you,, Qusai Al-Shatti _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Wed Apr 19 15:00:13 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:00:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: ICANN Nominating Committee Issues a Formal Call for Statements of Interest References: <44467F41.5000300@gnso.icann.org> Message-ID: Hi, ICANN can always use more Civil Society. a. Begin forwarded message: > > Please note that the 2006 ICANN Nominating Committee Issues a > Formal Call for Statements of Interest. > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-18apr06.htm > > Marina del Rey, CA - April 18, 2006 - ICANN's Nominating Committee > invites Statements of Interest from the Internet community as it > seeks qualified candidates to assist in ICANN's technical and > policy coordination role. Interested individuals are invited to > submit a Statement of Interest to this year's Committee for the > following positions: > > Three members of the ICANN Board of Directors > > One member of the Council of the Generic Names Supporting > Organization (GNSO) > > One member of the Council of the Country-Code Names Supporting > Organization (ccNSO) > Two members of the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) > > ICANN's Nominating Committee (NomCom) is an independent committee > tasked with selecting a majority of the members of ICANN's Board of > Directors and other positions within ICANN's Supporting > Organisations. ICANN is an internationally organised, public > benefit, non-profit corporation dedicated to: preserving the > operational security and stability of the Internet; promoting > competition; achieving broad representation of global Internet > communities; and supporting the development of policies appropriate > to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes. > > Individuals selected by the Nominating Committee will have a unique > opportunity to work with accomplished colleagues from around the > globe, address the Internet's intriguing technical coordination > problems and policy development challenges with diverse functional, > cultural, and geographic dimensions, and gain valuable insights and > experience from working across boundaries of knowledge, > responsibility and perspective. > > Those selected will gain the satisfaction of making a valuable > public service contribution towards the continued function and > evolution of an essential global resource. Considering the broad > public interest, nominees will work to achieve the goals towards > which ICANN is dedicated in order to facilitate the Internet's > critically important societal functions. > > Current Board members who have been selected by the Nominating > Committee include: Vint Cerf (Chairman), Susan Crawford, Hagen > Hultzsch, Joichi Ito, Veni Markovski, Hualin Qian, Njeri Rionge, > and Vanda Scartezini (see, http://www.icann.org/general/board.html). > > Statements of Interest for the positions described above can be > submitted through nomcom.submissions at icann.org. > > More information regarding the Nominating Committee can be found at > http://www.icann.org/committees/nom-comm/. Applications will be > considered confidentially and should be received by 16 July 2006 > for full consideration. Selections will be announced before 31 > October 2006. Successful candidates will take up their positions > following ICANN's Annual Meeting in Sao Paolo, Brazil in December > 2006. > > Questions or comments may be emailed to ICANN at nomcom- > comments at icann.org. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Wed Apr 19 15:04:43 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:04:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Nomcom selection of IGCcandidates for the IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <200604191346.QAA13199@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Message-ID: <20060419190443.62186.qmail@web54706.mail.yahoo.com> Well, we can only be unanimous in congratulating Avri for the rigour and inspiration with which she conducted the whole process. Many thanks to all the nomcom members for their effort and time, and maybe their renunciation in pursuing a candidature. And last, my sympathy for those who have not been selected in the IGC process (but I'm sure the names of some of them will make their way to the IGF secretariat :-)). Mawaki --- Qusai Al-Shatti wrote: > Dear all: > I would like to congratulate all my colleagues who were selected for the IGC MAG > wishing all the best in their work. > > I would like to thank the Noncom committee: Avri, Bret,Karen, Magaly,Rainer and > Richard for their effort and time spent to make a balanced selection. Especially, > I would like to thank Avri for initiating the process of selection and setting up > a great selection process that unified the caucus . I join Wolfgang in asking Avri > to chair the Caucus (At least until Athens). > > All the best to all of you,, > > Qusai Al-Shatti > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Wed Apr 19 15:58:05 2006 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:58:05 -0700 Subject: [governance] Nomcom selection of IGCcandidates for the IGF MAG In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20060419171929.0b89d0e0@anr.org> Message-ID: <000001c663eb$9357ff80$0501a8c0@CCKLLP.local> Everyone is quite right to thank Avri, without whom we would not have accomplished this task. And thanks to all of those who submitted their names and nominations. You gave us a talented pool from which to select and made our choices difficult. That was a good problem to have. Bret _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Thu Apr 20 12:30:12 2006 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:30:12 -0700 Subject: [governance] OECD Antspam toolkit Message-ID: <000001c66497$b4073b90$331fa8c0@CCKLLP.local> via Dave Farber's list. Given the fact that spam has come up as a probable agenda item for Greece, this looks worth reading. -- Bret ------------ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Date: April 20, 2006 6:53:12 AM EDT To: Dave Farber , Declan McCullagh Subject: OECD Antispam Toolkit released Hi Declan and Dave The paper is available for download from http://www.oecd- antispam.org .. in pdf format at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/ 63/28/36494147.pdf Please see the OECD press release below, taken from http:// www.oecd.org/document/ 62/0,2340,en_2649_22555297_36488702_1_1_1_1,00.html -srs nb: The background paper on "Spam Problem in Developing Economies" that I wrote for the OECD antispam toolkit is in the section on International Cooperation: http://www.oecd-antispam.org/ rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=12 __________________ OECD urges governments and industry to do more to tackle spam 19/04/2006 - Governments and industry should step up their coordination to combat the global problem of spam, according to a new set of OECD recommendations. Spam is dangerous and costly for business and consumers. It disrupts networks, cuts productivity, spreads viruses and is increasingly used by criminals who steal passwords to access confidential information and often bank accounts. While there is no single solution, governments and the private sector should act fast on a number of fronts. The OECD calls on governments to establish clear national anti-spam policies and give enforcement authorities more power and resources. Co-ordination and co-operation between public and private sectors are critical, the report notes. International cooperation is also key. Spam moves between countries and investigators have to follow the flow across borders to track spammers. To address this, OECD governments have approved a "Recommendation on Cross-Border Co-operation in the Enforcement of Laws against Spam", urging countries to ensure that their laws enable enforcement authorities to share information with other countries and do so more quickly and effectively. They should also establish a single national contact point to facilitate international cooperation. Educating people on the risks of spam and how to deal with it is also important. Governments, working with industry, should run nationwide campaigns to raise awareness. Lessons on spam and Internet security should be included in computer courses in schools and for senior citizens. These recommendations form part of the OECD Anti-Spam Toolkit, available online at www.oecd-antispam.org. It gives policy makers a comprehensive package of concrete regulatory approaches, technical solutions, and industry initiatives to fight spam. The Toolkit also includes a guide to best practices for Internet Service Providers and other network operators, and for email marketing. These were produced by the Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC), the business advisory group to the OECD, in co- operation with the Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group (MAAWG), an organization of Internet Service Providers. This is the first effort by the private sector to develop a series of common best practices at the international level. For further information, journalists should contact Claudia Sarrocco (tel. + 33 1 45 24 96 93) or Dimitri Ypsilanti (tel. + 33 1 45 24 94 42) of the OECD's Directorate for science, technology and industry. The OECD Anti-Spam Toolkit is available online at www.oecd-antispam.org. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Fri Apr 21 18:33:55 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:33:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC Message-ID: Hi, Several people, both publicly and privately, have suggested that I volunteer myself for the task of coordinating the IGC. And by and large I have kept quiet, or argued why it was impossible, wherever such recommendations were made. At this point I figure I owe some sort of public response. My first reaction is to be thankful that some of the participants in this caucus view me with that kind of trust. I appreciate it, even if the task being discussed is somewhat daunting. I have thought about this a lot and have concluded that I am willing to take the chance and try to do the job, though I believe following in the footsteps of Adam and Jeanette would be a challenge. Before taking on this task, though, I wanted to make some things clear and discuss some of the organizational ideas I have for the IGC. And I want to make sure that no one in the caucus objects to my taking the role or objects to my approach. I.e. I am looking for consensus before proceeding. 1. Possible caveats - As I have indicated before on this list, I occasionally do some paid consulting for the IGF secretariat. Since this consulting is one of my paying jobs, I am not eager to give this up. I have checked with the secretariat and since the IGC chair is a voluntary position they don't see a problem as long as everything is done transparently. But you the participants in the IGC have to decide whether these periodic contracts are a problem. - As I have also indicated, I have a seat on the GSNO council. While that is not in conflict with the role of IGC coordinator, it might have an affect of some participant's view of my eligibility for the role. Again as participants in the IGC you have to decide whether this is an issue. - I am a dues paying, card carrying (well at least i have the cards, i think) member of ISOC, CPSR, ACLU and Amnesty International. Something in that list for most everyone to disapprove of. 2. Possible Plans: - I tend to think that we, the IGC, need to regroup and do a certain amount of reorganization to finish the transition from a WSIS oriented group to an IGF+ oriented group. (Note: eventually I think this caucus has a role with any Internet governance organization, but at this point I think we need to focus on the founding of the IGF) - One of the things I would like to do if chosen/accepted is work with the caucus to write a charter for the IGC going forward. I don't expect that we can come up with a closed, buttoned up document, but it should be possible for us to put together a statement of principles, basic action areas and basic practices. - In terms of my term length, while doing it until Athens is long enough, I would like to suggest a term of a year. I will explain more below. I do see it as a reorganization period appointment. - I think the IGC should have co-cooridnators. Mostly to share the work, but also to make sure there is someone who can handle issues when a possible conflict of interest occurs. Or is available if someone takes a vacation. - I think that each of co-coordinator should have a two year term except for my initial one year term during the reorganization process, with staggered terms (i.e one term 06-08, one 07-09). I think it is good to have rotation of people in the chair role, but we should try to avoid getting in the situation again where we lose both chairs at the same time. I.e. we should have a well formed method for continuity. - My suggestion would be to put together a nomcom after the charter is created to pick a co-coordinator for a two year term (the even year term). I would hope we could have the basic working charter in about a month and a co-coordinator within about 2 months - this way we would be in good shape for the work needed to prepare for the Athens meeting by mid June or the beginning of July. - Before my one year term ends, someone new could be chosen for the next two year term (the odd year term). While this could be done in Athens, I would not recommend it: - not enough people go to any single meeting - we will probably be too busy dealing with substance at that point. - i believe the best time to think about what to do next in terms of picking the next co-coordinator would be after the Athens meeting. But with meeting burn out and holidays, I would be surprised if it got done before the beginning of 2007. So I suggest we plan it that way. - Someone suggested that we have a nomcom in position for a long term period to make all the choices for that period, for example a year. While this idea has some merit, I think this needs to be considered with caution. Partly becasue one would be excluded from other roles for as long as they were on the nomcom, and partly because picking a nomcom for a specific purpose is not all that difficult. I certainly do _not_ think that the current nomcom should be pressed into service since they only volunteered for a single choice. Also we need to review the experience of the nomcom and deal with any pending issues and decide whether this is the way we want to proceed in the future. There may be other suggestions that would be worth considering. - Another thing I would like to do during a term is experiment with new collaborative working methods and decision methods to see if we could find an easier way to come to closure on proposals and comments/ contributions. This has often been one of the flash points in the caucus and needs to be resolved if the IGC going to be a fully functional contributor to the IGF and other governance efforts into the future. I believe that if we have a good organizational process and can come up with consensus documents, we can have a decent effect on the IGF. So, as I said at the beginning of this note, I am willing, but only if no one objects. And I am certainly willing to discuss any of the things in this note - I know that I sometimes write in a manner that is not clear to all readers. Or that what I wrote may be completely wrong headed. But, if there is general support of this proposal and there are no major objections to me taking the role, then i would be honored to take on the task for a year starting in May. I figure we can use the rest of this month to discuss it and find out if there are objections. thanks a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Fri Apr 21 19:42:42 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 01:42:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC Message-ID: <1145662962.44496df22d8c6@heimail.unige.ch> Hi Avri, As one of those who have so suggested, I'm happy to see you take the plunge. And I don't see any problem with respect to your work for Markus, role in the GNSO, etc. A couple of quick thoughts on your other points: 1. Charter. I've supported this before and still do. However, I would still go beyond it, and suggest that we can't have properly functioning consensus building/voting on anything procedural or substantive, or indeed democratic legitimacy and accountability, if we don't have any idea who the electorate/constituency is. Hence, once a charter has been assembled, I would like to see people opt in and publicly become listed members of the caucus, in the same manner as the Human Rights Caucus, so we finally know who actually considers themselves to be a member (a large chunk of the 300 people on the list probably do not), who we are talking to on caucus matters. 2. Co-Coordinators. I agree that there should be two people. But I am not sure though how you're visualizing the roles, since you also refer to one person being a "Chair." Could you clarify? 3. Terms. It's less obvious to me why we would need to do a one year thing with you and then two year positions for others etc. Why not just elect two people now, for one or two years, whichever? I don't see the problem with non-staggered terms, personally. 4. Nomcom. I at least would oppose having a nomcom process to decide on coordinators. It was fine for the MAG where we had this huge pool of people and tight time frame etc, but for two slots with few probable candidates and less urgency, I would think an open, transparent, democratic election for the coordinators is preferable. Having a small group privately making our big decisions just doesn't seem right to me. Quick thoughts, must return to the A2K conference. Thanks again for throwing your hat in the ring... Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 6:34 PM > To: Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC > > > Hi, > > > Several people, both publicly and privately, have suggested that I > volunteer myself for the task of coordinating the IGC. And by and > large I have kept quiet, or argued why it was impossible, wherever > such recommendations were made. At this point I figure I owe some > sort of public response. > > My first reaction is to be thankful that some of the participants in > this caucus view me with that kind of trust. I appreciate it, even > if the task being discussed is somewhat daunting. I have thought > about this a lot and have concluded that I am willing to take the > chance and try to do the job, though I believe following in the > footsteps of Adam and Jeanette would be a challenge. > > Before taking on this task, though, I wanted to make some things > clear and discuss some of the organizational ideas I have for the > IGC. And I want to make sure that no one in the caucus objects to > my taking the role or objects to my approach. I.e. I am looking for > consensus before proceeding. > > 1. Possible caveats > > - As I have indicated before on this list, I occasionally do some > paid consulting for the IGF secretariat. Since this consulting is > one of my paying jobs, I am not eager to give this up. I have > checked with the secretariat and since the IGC chair is a voluntary > position they don't see a problem as long as everything is done > transparently. But you the participants in the IGC have to decide > whether these periodic contracts are a problem. > > - As I have also indicated, I have a seat on the GSNO council. While > that is not in conflict with the role of IGC coordinator, it might > have an affect of some participant's view of my eligibility for the > role. Again as participants in the IGC you have to decide whether > this is an issue. > > - I am a dues paying, card carrying (well at least i have the cards, > i think) member of ISOC, CPSR, ACLU and Amnesty International. > Something in that list for most everyone to disapprove of. > > 2. Possible Plans: > > - I tend to think that we, the IGC, need to regroup and do a certain > amount of reorganization to finish the transition from a WSIS > oriented group to an IGF+ oriented group. (Note: eventually I think > this caucus has a role with any Internet governance organization, but > at this point I think we need to focus on the founding of the IGF) > > - One of the things I would like to do if chosen/accepted is work > with the caucus to write a charter for the IGC going forward. I > don't expect that we can come up with a closed, buttoned up document, > but it should be possible for us to put together a statement of > principles, basic action areas and basic practices. > > - In terms of my term length, while doing it until Athens is long > enough, I would like to suggest a term of a year. I will explain more > below. I do see it as a reorganization period appointment. > > - I think the IGC should have co-cooridnators. Mostly to share the > work, but also to make sure there is someone who can handle issues > when a possible conflict of interest occurs. Or is available if > someone takes a vacation. > > - I think that each of co-coordinator should have a two year term > except for my initial one year term during the reorganization > process, with staggered terms (i.e one term 06-08, one 07-09). I > think it is good to have rotation of people in the chair role, but we > should try to avoid getting in the situation again where we lose both > chairs at the same time. I.e. we should have a well formed method > for continuity. > > - My suggestion would be to put together a nomcom after the charter > is created to pick a co-coordinator for a two year term (the even > year term). I would hope we could have the basic working charter in > about a month and a co-coordinator within about 2 months - this way > we would be in good shape for the work needed to prepare for the > Athens meeting by mid June or the beginning of July. > > - Before my one year term ends, someone new could be chosen for the > next two year term (the odd year term). While this could be done in > Athens, I would not recommend it: > - not enough people go to any single meeting > - we will probably be too busy dealing with substance at that point. > - i believe the best time to think about what to do next in terms > of picking the next co-coordinator would be after the Athens > meeting. But with meeting burn out and holidays, I would be > surprised if it got done before the beginning of 2007. So I suggest > we plan it that way. > > - Someone suggested that we have a nomcom in position for a long term > period to make all the choices for that period, for example a year. > While this idea has some merit, I think this needs to be considered > with caution. Partly becasue one would be excluded from other roles > for as long as they were on the nomcom, and partly because picking a > nomcom for a specific purpose is not all that difficult. I certainly > do _not_ think that the current nomcom should be pressed into service > since they only volunteered for a single choice. Also we need to > review the experience of the nomcom and deal with any pending issues > and decide whether this is the way we want to proceed in the future. > There may be other suggestions that would be worth considering. > > - Another thing I would like to do during a term is experiment with > new collaborative working methods and decision methods to see if we > could find an easier way to come to closure on proposals and comments/ > contributions. This has often been one of the flash points in the > caucus and needs to be resolved if the IGC going to be a fully > functional contributor to the IGF and other governance efforts into > the future. I believe that if we have a good organizational process > and can come up with consensus documents, we can have a decent effect > on the IGF. > > So, as I said at the beginning of this note, I am willing, but only > if no one objects. And I am certainly willing to discuss any of the > things in this note - I know that I sometimes write in a manner that > is not clear to all readers. Or that what I wrote may be completely > wrong headed. But, if there is general support of this proposal and > there are no major objections to me taking the role, then i would be > honored to take on the task for a year starting in May. I figure we > can use the rest of this month to discuss it and find out if there > are objections. > > 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 avri at acm.org Fri Apr 21 20:21:06 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:21:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC In-Reply-To: <1145662962.44496df22d8c6@heimail.unige.ch> References: <1145662962.44496df22d8c6@heimail.unige.ch> Message-ID: On 21 apr 2006, at 19.42, William Drake wrote: > > 2. Co-Coordinators. I agree that there should be two people. But > I am not > sure though how you're visualizing the roles, since you also refer > to one > person being a "Chair." Could you clarify? i miswrote. two equal co-ordinators. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Fri Apr 21 20:29:14 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:29:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Terms was coordinating the IGC In-Reply-To: <1145662962.44496df22d8c6@heimail.unige.ch> References: <1145662962.44496df22d8c6@heimail.unige.ch> Message-ID: <3143C379-98DE-49CC-AD36-EF3CAB9993A8@acm.org> On 21 apr 2006, at 19.42, William Drake wrote: > 3. Terms. It's less obvious to me why we would need to do a one > year thing > with you and then two year positions for others etc. i suggested because we are at a stand still point and need something to get the process moving again. if the caucus is able to figure out a way to pick two chairs then fine. but several months after the departure of the previous coordinators, we still don't have any. > Why not just elect two > people now, for one or two years, whichever? we have no way to do an election that i can think of. and hence no way to give a coordinator legitimacy. as far as i can tell the only way for a coordinator to have legitimacy at this point is to have full consensus. and that is why my potential agreement to take on the role is based on getting full consensus. if i can't then i see no way to have legitimacy in the role. > I don't see the problem with > non-staggered terms, personally. i do. we end up in the situation we are in now. no coordinator and no one willing to take on the role or rather no one willing to risk taking on the role. the reason for me to offer to take a year term is to a. establish the staggered coordinatorship b. as a bootstrap to developing a method of picking coordinators with legitimacy. but i am more then willing to stand aside for any other method someone might suggest. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Sat Apr 22 00:57:23 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:57:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Terms was coordinating the IGC In-Reply-To: <3143C379-98DE-49CC-AD36-EF3CAB9993A8@acm.org> Message-ID: <20060422045723.63811.qmail@web54707.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, --- Avri Doria wrote: > the reason for me to offer to take a year term is to > a. establish the staggered coordinatorship > b. as a bootstrap to developing a method of picking coordinators with > legitimacy. Thanks a lot for making yourself available for this responsibility, once again. I see no issue with the whole situation, and support the idea of staggered mandates. Though it might sound like putting too much on your shoulders, I would see your transition coordination role being extended until the second (i.e. the first even-year) coordinator be elected, assuming we elect the first coordinator early 07. That means you would be in office about 1.5 year for a smooth start of the staggered coordination mandates. But maybe I've missed something or someone has a better idea? Mawaki _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Apr 22 05:41:20 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:41:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC Message-ID: Thanks Avri, You have my full backing, support and help, where needed. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Sa 22.04.2006 00:33 An: Internet Governance Caucus Betreff: [governance] coordinating the IGC Hi, Several people, both publicly and privately, have suggested that I volunteer myself for the task of coordinating the IGC. And by and large I have kept quiet, or argued why it was impossible, wherever such recommendations were made. At this point I figure I owe some sort of public response. My first reaction is to be thankful that some of the participants in this caucus view me with that kind of trust. I appreciate it, even if the task being discussed is somewhat daunting. I have thought about this a lot and have concluded that I am willing to take the chance and try to do the job, though I believe following in the footsteps of Adam and Jeanette would be a challenge. Before taking on this task, though, I wanted to make some things clear and discuss some of the organizational ideas I have for the IGC. And I want to make sure that no one in the caucus objects to my taking the role or objects to my approach. I.e. I am looking for consensus before proceeding. 1. Possible caveats - As I have indicated before on this list, I occasionally do some paid consulting for the IGF secretariat. Since this consulting is one of my paying jobs, I am not eager to give this up. I have checked with the secretariat and since the IGC chair is a voluntary position they don't see a problem as long as everything is done transparently. But you the participants in the IGC have to decide whether these periodic contracts are a problem. - As I have also indicated, I have a seat on the GSNO council. While that is not in conflict with the role of IGC coordinator, it might have an affect of some participant's view of my eligibility for the role. Again as participants in the IGC you have to decide whether this is an issue. - I am a dues paying, card carrying (well at least i have the cards, i think) member of ISOC, CPSR, ACLU and Amnesty International. Something in that list for most everyone to disapprove of. 2. Possible Plans: - I tend to think that we, the IGC, need to regroup and do a certain amount of reorganization to finish the transition from a WSIS oriented group to an IGF+ oriented group. (Note: eventually I think this caucus has a role with any Internet governance organization, but at this point I think we need to focus on the founding of the IGF) - One of the things I would like to do if chosen/accepted is work with the caucus to write a charter for the IGC going forward. I don't expect that we can come up with a closed, buttoned up document, but it should be possible for us to put together a statement of principles, basic action areas and basic practices. - In terms of my term length, while doing it until Athens is long enough, I would like to suggest a term of a year. I will explain more below. I do see it as a reorganization period appointment. - I think the IGC should have co-cooridnators. Mostly to share the work, but also to make sure there is someone who can handle issues when a possible conflict of interest occurs. Or is available if someone takes a vacation. - I think that each of co-coordinator should have a two year term except for my initial one year term during the reorganization process, with staggered terms (i.e one term 06-08, one 07-09). I think it is good to have rotation of people in the chair role, but we should try to avoid getting in the situation again where we lose both chairs at the same time. I.e. we should have a well formed method for continuity. - My suggestion would be to put together a nomcom after the charter is created to pick a co-coordinator for a two year term (the even year term). I would hope we could have the basic working charter in about a month and a co-coordinator within about 2 months - this way we would be in good shape for the work needed to prepare for the Athens meeting by mid June or the beginning of July. - Before my one year term ends, someone new could be chosen for the next two year term (the odd year term). While this could be done in Athens, I would not recommend it: - not enough people go to any single meeting - we will probably be too busy dealing with substance at that point. - i believe the best time to think about what to do next in terms of picking the next co-coordinator would be after the Athens meeting. But with meeting burn out and holidays, I would be surprised if it got done before the beginning of 2007. So I suggest we plan it that way. - Someone suggested that we have a nomcom in position for a long term period to make all the choices for that period, for example a year. While this idea has some merit, I think this needs to be considered with caution. Partly becasue one would be excluded from other roles for as long as they were on the nomcom, and partly because picking a nomcom for a specific purpose is not all that difficult. I certainly do _not_ think that the current nomcom should be pressed into service since they only volunteered for a single choice. Also we need to review the experience of the nomcom and deal with any pending issues and decide whether this is the way we want to proceed in the future. There may be other suggestions that would be worth considering. - Another thing I would like to do during a term is experiment with new collaborative working methods and decision methods to see if we could find an easier way to come to closure on proposals and comments/ contributions. This has often been one of the flash points in the caucus and needs to be resolved if the IGC going to be a fully functional contributor to the IGF and other governance efforts into the future. I believe that if we have a good organizational process and can come up with consensus documents, we can have a decent effect on the IGF. So, as I said at the beginning of this note, I am willing, but only if no one objects. And I am certainly willing to discuss any of the things in this note - I know that I sometimes write in a manner that is not clear to all readers. Or that what I wrote may be completely wrong headed. But, if there is general support of this proposal and there are no major objections to me taking the role, then i would be honored to take on the task for a year starting in May. I figure we can use the rest of this month to discuss it and find out if there are objections. 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 avri at acm.org Sat Apr 22 05:49:31 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 05:49:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Terms was coordinating the IGC In-Reply-To: <20060422045723.63811.qmail@web54707.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060422045723.63811.qmail@web54707.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8CD666EB-9886-4232-91FA-7657C16B0DD0@acm.org> On 22 apr 2006, at 00.57, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Thanks a lot for making yourself available for this responsibility, > once again. I > see no issue with the whole situation, and support the idea of > staggered mandates. > Though it might sound like putting too much on your shoulders, I > would see your > transition coordination role being extended until the second (i.e. > the first > even-year) coordinator be elected, assuming we elect the first > coordinator early 07. > That means you would be in office about 1.5 year for a smooth start > of the staggered > coordination mandates. But maybe I've missed something or someone > has a better idea?ner a time line of what i was thinking of: - assuming the basic idea is acceptable - i start in May - we arrive at a working charter in May/June - we select (by some manner or other) a co-coordinator (even-year) in June/July - we select a co-coordinator to replace me in Mar/April 2007 (odd-year) - we select a co-coordinator in Mar/April 2008 (even-year) ... This has me serving about 12 months, maybe a little less and the first even year co-coordinator serving 22 months, maybe a little less (of course the months when things happen could shift a little one way or another) so the only time this would leave me alone in the role is through the charter discussion and the selection process for the co-coordinator (including the time during which we, the IGC, figure out the selection process), i.e hopefully only 1-2 months. thanks a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Sat Apr 22 08:43:58 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 05:43:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Terms was coordinating the IGC In-Reply-To: <8CD666EB-9886-4232-91FA-7657C16B0DD0@acm.org> Message-ID: <20060422124358.7176.qmail@web54711.mail.yahoo.com> Ok, that sounds good. when I read your first message talking about (s)electing a coordinator after Athens and probably end year break, I thought that would be our first coordinator. Now it's clearer. Mawaki --- Avri Doria wrote: > > On 22 apr 2006, at 00.57, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > Thanks a lot for making yourself available for this responsibility, > > once again. I > > see no issue with the whole situation, and support the idea of > > staggered mandates. > > Though it might sound like putting too much on your shoulders, I > > would see your > > transition coordination role being extended until the second (i.e. > > the first > > even-year) coordinator be elected, assuming we elect the first > > coordinator early 07. > > That means you would be in office about 1.5 year for a smooth start > > of the staggered > > coordination mandates. But maybe I've missed something or someone > > has a better idea?ner > > a time line of what i was thinking of: > > - assuming the basic idea is acceptable - i start in May > - we arrive at a working charter in May/June > - we select (by some manner or other) a co-coordinator (even-year) in > June/July > - we select a co-coordinator to replace me in Mar/April 2007 (odd-year) > - we select a co-coordinator in Mar/April 2008 (even-year) > ... > > This has me serving about 12 months, maybe a little less > and the first even year co-coordinator serving 22 months, maybe a > little less > > (of course the months when things happen could shift a little one way > or another) > > so the only time this would leave me alone in the role is through the > charter discussion and the selection process for the co-coordinator > (including the time during which we, the IGC, figure out the > selection process), i.e hopefully only 1-2 months. > > thanks > a. > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From pwilson at apnic.net Sat Apr 22 03:25:48 2006 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 17:25:48 +1000 Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC In-Reply-To: <1145662962.44496df22d8c6@heimail.unige.ch> References: <1145662962.44496df22d8c6@heimail.unige.ch> Message-ID: Hi Avri I also welcome and support your offer to act as chair/coordinator for the IGC. I do not see any problems at present with respect to your other activities, and I am confident that any future conflict of interest situations (if any) can be handled easily enough. Regarding staggered 2-year terms, I support this proposal, both for continuity of knowledge and logistics, and because I think an annual election process is a useful thing (and conversely because having an election every 2 years is too infrequent). Can I ask you to confirm whether the terms "chair" and "coordinator" refer to the same role? This is not entirely clear in your proposal. Thanks! Paul. --On Saturday, 22 April 2006 1:42 AM +0200 William Drake wrote: > > Hi Avri, > > As one of those who have so suggested, I'm happy to see you take the > plunge. And I don't see any problem with respect to your work for > Markus, role in the GNSO, etc. A couple of quick thoughts on your other > points: > > 1. Charter. I've supported this before and still do. However, I would > still go beyond it, and suggest that we can't have properly functioning > consensus building/voting on anything procedural or substantive, or > indeed democratic legitimacy and accountability, if we don't have any > idea who the electorate/constituency is. Hence, once a charter has been > assembled, I would like to see people opt in and publicly become listed > members of the caucus, in the same manner as the Human Rights Caucus, so > we finally know who actually considers themselves to be a member (a large > chunk of the 300 people on the list probably do not), who we are talking > to on caucus matters. > > 2. Co-Coordinators. I agree that there should be two people. But I am > not sure though how you're visualizing the roles, since you also refer to > one person being a "Chair." Could you clarify? > > 3. Terms. It's less obvious to me why we would need to do a one year > thing with you and then two year positions for others etc. Why not just > elect two people now, for one or two years, whichever? I don't see the > problem with non-staggered terms, personally. > > 4. Nomcom. I at least would oppose having a nomcom process to decide on > coordinators. It was fine for the MAG where we had this huge pool of > people and tight time frame etc, but for two slots with few probable > candidates and less urgency, I would think an open, transparent, > democratic election for the coordinators is preferable. Having a small > group privately making our big decisions just doesn't seem right to me. > > Quick thoughts, must return to the A2K conference. Thanks again for > throwing your hat in the ring... > > Bill > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 6:34 PM >> To: Internet Governance Caucus >> Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> Several people, both publicly and privately, have suggested that I >> volunteer myself for the task of coordinating the IGC. And by and >> large I have kept quiet, or argued why it was impossible, wherever >> such recommendations were made. At this point I figure I owe some >> sort of public response. >> >> My first reaction is to be thankful that some of the participants in >> this caucus view me with that kind of trust. I appreciate it, even >> if the task being discussed is somewhat daunting. I have thought >> about this a lot and have concluded that I am willing to take the >> chance and try to do the job, though I believe following in the >> footsteps of Adam and Jeanette would be a challenge. >> >> Before taking on this task, though, I wanted to make some things >> clear and discuss some of the organizational ideas I have for the >> IGC. And I want to make sure that no one in the caucus objects to >> my taking the role or objects to my approach. I.e. I am looking for >> consensus before proceeding. >> >> 1. Possible caveats >> >> - As I have indicated before on this list, I occasionally do some >> paid consulting for the IGF secretariat. Since this consulting is >> one of my paying jobs, I am not eager to give this up. I have >> checked with the secretariat and since the IGC chair is a voluntary >> position they don't see a problem as long as everything is done >> transparently. But you the participants in the IGC have to decide >> whether these periodic contracts are a problem. >> >> - As I have also indicated, I have a seat on the GSNO council. While >> that is not in conflict with the role of IGC coordinator, it might >> have an affect of some participant's view of my eligibility for the >> role. Again as participants in the IGC you have to decide whether >> this is an issue. >> >> - I am a dues paying, card carrying (well at least i have the cards, >> i think) member of ISOC, CPSR, ACLU and Amnesty International. >> Something in that list for most everyone to disapprove of. >> >> 2. Possible Plans: >> >> - I tend to think that we, the IGC, need to regroup and do a certain >> amount of reorganization to finish the transition from a WSIS >> oriented group to an IGF+ oriented group. (Note: eventually I think >> this caucus has a role with any Internet governance organization, but >> at this point I think we need to focus on the founding of the IGF) >> >> - One of the things I would like to do if chosen/accepted is work >> with the caucus to write a charter for the IGC going forward. I >> don't expect that we can come up with a closed, buttoned up document, >> but it should be possible for us to put together a statement of >> principles, basic action areas and basic practices. >> >> - In terms of my term length, while doing it until Athens is long >> enough, I would like to suggest a term of a year. I will explain more >> below. I do see it as a reorganization period appointment. >> >> - I think the IGC should have co-cooridnators. Mostly to share the >> work, but also to make sure there is someone who can handle issues >> when a possible conflict of interest occurs. Or is available if >> someone takes a vacation. >> >> - I think that each of co-coordinator should have a two year term >> except for my initial one year term during the reorganization >> process, with staggered terms (i.e one term 06-08, one 07-09). I >> think it is good to have rotation of people in the chair role, but we >> should try to avoid getting in the situation again where we lose both >> chairs at the same time. I.e. we should have a well formed method >> for continuity. >> >> - My suggestion would be to put together a nomcom after the charter >> is created to pick a co-coordinator for a two year term (the even >> year term). I would hope we could have the basic working charter in >> about a month and a co-coordinator within about 2 months - this way >> we would be in good shape for the work needed to prepare for the >> Athens meeting by mid June or the beginning of July. >> >> - Before my one year term ends, someone new could be chosen for the >> next two year term (the odd year term). While this could be done in >> Athens, I would not recommend it: >> - not enough people go to any single meeting >> - we will probably be too busy dealing with substance at that point. >> - i believe the best time to think about what to do next in terms >> of picking the next co-coordinator would be after the Athens >> meeting. But with meeting burn out and holidays, I would be >> surprised if it got done before the beginning of 2007. So I suggest >> we plan it that way. >> >> - Someone suggested that we have a nomcom in position for a long term >> period to make all the choices for that period, for example a year. >> While this idea has some merit, I think this needs to be considered >> with caution. Partly becasue one would be excluded from other roles >> for as long as they were on the nomcom, and partly because picking a >> nomcom for a specific purpose is not all that difficult. I certainly >> do _not_ think that the current nomcom should be pressed into service >> since they only volunteered for a single choice. Also we need to >> review the experience of the nomcom and deal with any pending issues >> and decide whether this is the way we want to proceed in the future. >> There may be other suggestions that would be worth considering. >> >> - Another thing I would like to do during a term is experiment with >> new collaborative working methods and decision methods to see if we >> could find an easier way to come to closure on proposals and comments/ >> contributions. This has often been one of the flash points in the >> caucus and needs to be resolved if the IGC going to be a fully >> functional contributor to the IGF and other governance efforts into >> the future. I believe that if we have a good organizational process >> and can come up with consensus documents, we can have a decent effect >> on the IGF. >> >> So, as I said at the beginning of this note, I am willing, but only >> if no one objects. And I am certainly willing to discuss any of the >> things in this note - I know that I sometimes write in a manner that >> is not clear to all readers. Or that what I wrote may be completely >> wrong headed. But, if there is general support of this proposal and >> there are no major objections to me taking the role, then i would be >> honored to take on the task for a year starting in May. I figure we >> can use the rest of this month to discuss it and find out if there >> are objections. >> >> 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 > ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Sat Apr 22 09:56:19 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 15:56:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC In-Reply-To: <1145662962.44496df22d8c6@heimail.unige.ch> References: <1145662962.44496df22d8c6@heimail.unige.ch> Message-ID: <444A3603.1080002@wz-berlin.de> Hi Avri, I am really glad you are willing to take over, and I offer as much support to your ambitious plans as you want and need. In response to Bill's reply: > 1. Charter. I've supported this before and still do. However, I would still > go beyond it, and suggest that we can't have properly functioning consensus > building/voting on anything procedural or substantive, or indeed democratic > legitimacy and accountability, if we don't have any idea who the > electorate/constituency is. Hence, once a charter has been assembled, I would > like to see people opt in and publicly become listed members of the caucus, in > the same manner as the Human Rights Caucus, so we finally know who actually > considers themselves to be a member (a large chunk of the 300 people on the > list probably do not), who we are talking to on caucus matters. Some months ago I proposed to keep the list as it is right now and restrict voting rights to those who regard themselves as members (as opposed to observers) and thus register as voting members. That way nothing would change for the majority of subscribers. Does this sound ok for both of you, Avri and Bill? > > 2. Co-Coordinators. I agree that there should be two people. But I am not > sure though how you're visualizing the roles, since you also refer to one > person being a "Chair." Could you clarify? I am not sure about the exact difference between coordinators and chairs. Does it have to do with certain functions? When we talked about the role of coordinators some time back, Avri made the point that the chairs/coordinators need the authority to call consensus on certain issues even in the absence of a 100% support. I agree with this. We should overcome the situation where individuals can excercise veto power. The coordinator/chair should have right to determine a rough consensus. If this authority constitutes a chair, then I I'd say we should get chairs rather than coordinators. > > 3. Terms. It's less obvious to me why we would need to do a one year thing > with you and then two year positions for others etc. Why not just elect two > people now, for one or two years, whichever? I don't see the problem with > non-staggered terms, personally. I agree with Avri that staggered terms are better because changes are less disruptive. The only drawback I see with staggered terms is that the 2 people who are chairing or coordinating the caucus might not get along with each other. Yet, the advantages of staggered terms outweigh this risk I think. > > 4. Nomcom. I at least would oppose having a nomcom process to decide on > coordinators. It was fine for the MAG where we had this huge pool of people > and tight time frame etc, but for two slots with few probable candidates and > less urgency, I would think an open, transparent, democratic election for the > coordinators is preferable. Having a small group privately making our big > decisions just doesn't seem right to me. I find it crucial that we formalize the process of selecting coordinators/chairs. The way we used to select coordinators with a handful of people speaking up in favor of those under discussion is doesn't provide sufficient support and legitimacy. Whether an election or a nomcom is the better method for selection I don't know. Can somebody with a strong preference for one of the two methods explain why? > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >>[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 6:34 PM >>To: Internet Governance Caucus >>Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC >> >> >>Hi, >> >> >>Several people, both publicly and privately, have suggested that I >>volunteer myself for the task of coordinating the IGC. And by and >>large I have kept quiet, or argued why it was impossible, wherever >>such recommendations were made. At this point I figure I owe some >>sort of public response. >> >>My first reaction is to be thankful that some of the participants in >>this caucus view me with that kind of trust. I appreciate it, even >>if the task being discussed is somewhat daunting. I have thought >>about this a lot and have concluded that I am willing to take the >>chance and try to do the job, though I believe following in the >>footsteps of Adam and Jeanette would be a challenge. >> >>Before taking on this task, though, I wanted to make some things >>clear and discuss some of the organizational ideas I have for the >>IGC. And I want to make sure that no one in the caucus objects to >>my taking the role or objects to my approach. I.e. I am looking for >>consensus before proceeding. >> >>1. Possible caveats >> >>- As I have indicated before on this list, I occasionally do some >>paid consulting for the IGF secretariat. Since this consulting is >>one of my paying jobs, I am not eager to give this up. I have >>checked with the secretariat and since the IGC chair is a voluntary >>position they don't see a problem as long as everything is done >>transparently. But you the participants in the IGC have to decide >>whether these periodic contracts are a problem. >> >>- As I have also indicated, I have a seat on the GSNO council. While >>that is not in conflict with the role of IGC coordinator, it might >>have an affect of some participant's view of my eligibility for the >>role. Again as participants in the IGC you have to decide whether >>this is an issue. >> >>- I am a dues paying, card carrying (well at least i have the cards, >>i think) member of ISOC, CPSR, ACLU and Amnesty International. >>Something in that list for most everyone to disapprove of. >> >>2. Possible Plans: >> >>- I tend to think that we, the IGC, need to regroup and do a certain >>amount of reorganization to finish the transition from a WSIS >>oriented group to an IGF+ oriented group. (Note: eventually I think >>this caucus has a role with any Internet governance organization, but >>at this point I think we need to focus on the founding of the IGF) >> >>- One of the things I would like to do if chosen/accepted is work >>with the caucus to write a charter for the IGC going forward. I >>don't expect that we can come up with a closed, buttoned up document, >>but it should be possible for us to put together a statement of >>principles, basic action areas and basic practices. >> >>- In terms of my term length, while doing it until Athens is long >>enough, I would like to suggest a term of a year. I will explain more >>below. I do see it as a reorganization period appointment. >> >>- I think the IGC should have co-cooridnators. Mostly to share the >>work, but also to make sure there is someone who can handle issues >>when a possible conflict of interest occurs. Or is available if >>someone takes a vacation. >> >>- I think that each of co-coordinator should have a two year term >>except for my initial one year term during the reorganization >>process, with staggered terms (i.e one term 06-08, one 07-09). I >>think it is good to have rotation of people in the chair role, but we >>should try to avoid getting in the situation again where we lose both >>chairs at the same time. I.e. we should have a well formed method >>for continuity. >> >>- My suggestion would be to put together a nomcom after the charter >>is created to pick a co-coordinator for a two year term (the even >>year term). I would hope we could have the basic working charter in >>about a month and a co-coordinator within about 2 months - this way >>we would be in good shape for the work needed to prepare for the >>Athens meeting by mid June or the beginning of July. >> >>- Before my one year term ends, someone new could be chosen for the >>next two year term (the odd year term). While this could be done in >>Athens, I would not recommend it: >> - not enough people go to any single meeting >> - we will probably be too busy dealing with substance at that point. >> - i believe the best time to think about what to do next in terms >>of picking the next co-coordinator would be after the Athens >>meeting. But with meeting burn out and holidays, I would be >>surprised if it got done before the beginning of 2007. So I suggest >>we plan it that way. >> >>- Someone suggested that we have a nomcom in position for a long term >>period to make all the choices for that period, for example a year. >>While this idea has some merit, I think this needs to be considered >>with caution. Partly becasue one would be excluded from other roles >>for as long as they were on the nomcom, and partly because picking a >>nomcom for a specific purpose is not all that difficult. I certainly >>do _not_ think that the current nomcom should be pressed into service >>since they only volunteered for a single choice. Also we need to >>review the experience of the nomcom and deal with any pending issues >>and decide whether this is the way we want to proceed in the future. >>There may be other suggestions that would be worth considering. >> >>- Another thing I would like to do during a term is experiment with >>new collaborative working methods and decision methods to see if we >>could find an easier way to come to closure on proposals and comments/ >>contributions. This has often been one of the flash points in the >>caucus and needs to be resolved if the IGC going to be a fully >>functional contributor to the IGF and other governance efforts into >>the future. I believe that if we have a good organizational process >>and can come up with consensus documents, we can have a decent effect >>on the IGF. >> >>So, as I said at the beginning of this note, I am willing, but only >>if no one objects. And I am certainly willing to discuss any of the >>things in this note - I know that I sometimes write in a manner that >>is not clear to all readers. Or that what I wrote may be completely >>wrong headed. But, if there is general support of this proposal and >>there are no major objections to me taking the role, then i would be >>honored to take on the task for a year starting in May. I figure we >>can use the rest of this month to discuss it and find out if there >>are objections. >> >>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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Sat Apr 22 10:48:28 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 10:48:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC In-Reply-To: References: <1145662962.44496df22d8c6@heimail.unige.ch> Message-ID: Hi, On 22 apr 2006, at 03.25, Paul Wilson wrote: > I also welcome and support your offer to act as chair/coordinator > for the IGC. I do not see any problems at present with respect to > your other activities, and I am confident that any future conflict > of interest situations (if any) can be handled easily enough. thanks. > > Regarding staggered 2-year terms, I support this proposal, both for > continuity of knowledge and logistics, and because I think an > annual election process is a useful thing (and conversely because > having an election every 2 years is too infrequent). > > Can I ask you to confirm whether the terms "chair" and > "coordinator" refer to the same role? This is not entirely clear > in your proposal. Yes, it was a mis-typing. The IGC has always had coordinators. To me, a chair is just a coordinator that is easier to spell (i can't seem to type coordinator correctly on the first try), but I know that to some people sometimes the roles are different with a chair having more authority then a coordinator would. The IGC has had coordinators from the beginning. And that is the role I am thinking of. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sat Apr 22 11:48:54 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:48:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC Message-ID: <005801c66624$43df6ed0$6401a8c0@ams.com> Let me make a suggestion here. If the caucus can declare a coordinator by acclamation (or consensus or whatever set of words fit), then it can do so for co-coordinators. In fact, co-coordinators would seem most suited to the circumstances. Co-coordinators are in the (brief) tradition of the caucus. If one person is to be selected in a special way, certainly two can be selected. With this as the tradition it seems we even need the balance of co-coordinators, if there is to be special consensus selection. But far and away most important, there is already a proposal before the caucus, requesting two people to take the helm at this special moment: Avri and Bill. I am traveling and unable to search my archive. But I know there is one post already, asking Bill and Avri to step forward. I am all but certain there is more than one post. The proposition is on the table, and the suggestion here only reminds us. Then the caucus does not have immediately to adopt provisions such as staggered terms or nominating committees and elections. We see, in posts just the last little bit, there are natural questions raised to discuss these matters. Instead, Avri and Bill can have a productive dialog between themselves, and with the caucus, to reach considered conclusions. For instance, continuity for the caucus seems to turn more on cohesion in the group, than on mechanisms such as staggered terms. But such structural arrangements might still be helpful (or not). Two people, to whom the caucus has already turned, can see that discussion through, to an effective conclusion. If there turns out to be a need to stagger remaining terms of these two consensus coordinators, that can be sorted out too. Likewise the selection process to be used later can get suitable consideration. But especially, a host of other matters that shape cohesion and effectiveness will have the benefit of two whom the caucus has already turned to. As discussed by others, this is a special time when the caucus might outfit itself to be an effective partner in the IGF and other, related governance pursuits. The caucus can, and it seems is well advised to, take advantage of the leadership of two it has already identified. Then Avri especially is due very special thanks, for bootstrapping such a desirable outcome. David -------------- 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 Sat Apr 22 11:53:40 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:53:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC Participation In-Reply-To: <444A3603.1080002@wz-berlin.de> References: <1145662962.44496df22d8c6@heimail.unige.ch> <444A3603.1080002@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <3335B517-E5FE-4254-A3B8-BF29C52FFA24@acm.org> hi, On 22 apr 2006, at 09.56, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > On 21 apr 2006, at 19.42, William Drake wrote: > >> 1. Charter. I've supported this before and still do. However, I >> would still >> go beyond it, and suggest that we can't have properly functioning >> consensus >> building/voting on anything procedural or substantive, or indeed >> democratic >> legitimacy and accountability, if we don't have any idea who the >> electorate/constituency is. Hence, once a charter has been >> assembled, I would >> like to see people opt in and publicly become listed members of >> the caucus, in >> the same manner as the Human Rights Caucus, I though the HRC was composed of individuals from various organizations and that the organizations were the members. I don't really know. i think i was on the HRC caucus list for a while based on CPSR membership, but seem to have fallen off. So I am not sure how they are organized or how membership works. Maybe somebody from the HRC can explain. >> so we finally know who actually >> considers themselves to be a member (a large chunk of the 300 >> people on the >> list probably do not), who we are talking to on caucus matters. > > Some months ago I proposed to keep the list as it is right now and > restrict voting rights to those who regard themselves as members > (as opposed to observers) and thus register as voting members. That > way nothing would change for the majority of subscribers. Does this > sound ok for both of you, Avri and Bill? > This is an idea that i think is worth considering. I do worry, however, about losing people from the list. I think one of the virtues of the IGC is its large size and the number of people who read the list and participate at least occasionally. So I wonder if you mean that the only criteria is that someone wishes to consider them self a member with no regard for other attributes they may have. This could, for example, include someone who was a government minister - as by some definition everyone can be considered civil society when they are at home acting as a citizen, parent and user of the Internet. From other things I have read, I am not sure that everyone in the caucus can buy into this definition of member. It would be good to see this idea discussed. I am also concerned about the mechanics of voting. I have not found a good way to do it on-line. I am still looking for the right software and methods that would make it practical. In a basic way it looks like it might be the right thing to do, but I have trouble understanding how we serve the various requirements, e.g.: - easy access for anyone with basic web access - difficult to capture - confirm identity of voter - confidential voting - basically at no cost - easy to manage The Multistakehoder Modalities Working Group (MMWG) has adopted this as part of their model, and while i am in favor of it (not surprising perhaps) we have not yet found the right way to do it, though we did hold successful elections for our co-chairs. Seperate from the IGC discussions, I do think a small group of intersted people should work together to see if we can find a way to make voting feasible. Then at least a group like the IGC could decide whther it wanted to use voting without needing to take the technical possibility into account. At this point I don't think we are there yet. I am also not sure that the IGC is a voting organization, and that it should not be consensus or rough consensus based instead. But both of these present difficulties as well. As I have argued elsewhere, for a rough consensus model to work, there needs to be a way to appeal the decision of the person who calls the rough consensus. E.g in almost any decision worth making, there will be someone who objects strongly to the direction being taken by the majority. At some point though, the coordinator would need to judge that rough consensus had been reached. In some cases the person who disagrees would look at this and accept it, but in others, the person who objects might beleive that their viewpoint was not given a fair hearing. If there is no way to appeal the rough consensus call then this person has no recourse other then anger and the behavior that may result from anger. So, in order to use rough consensus one has to have some sort of adjudication body. In the IGC we don't have a higher authority to go to. We could create a council whose sole role was to adjudicate any appeal, but that is not an idea that we have explored yet. Otherwise, though, I don't know how to do rough consensus. There are, I believe, people on the list who also support a full consensus model. For some things I certainly do, and that is why I am looking for full consensus on my candidacy for interim co- coordinator. for other things, like statements in the heat of schedules, I believe it is impossible because it takes too long especially when there is a difference of opinion. In this case we need to have a firm set of consensus positions decided in advance and then restrict those writing positions to the content of those pre- decided positions. This, however leaves those involved in active discussions hamstrung when it becomes necessary to comment on something that the IGC has not developed a consensus position on. This may be ok, but the IGC needs to consider how it want to deal with this sort of case - as it will come up. I think this is an important conversation for the caucus to have and think that it is one of the most important components of the charter i proposed we create, we need to figure out how we want to work. First I believe we need to figure out the principles by which we want to work, and then we need to be creative and figure out methods that allow us to work according to those principles as much as possible. Thanks to both Bill and Jeanette for getting the discussion started. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Sat Apr 22 14:13:57 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:13:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC In-Reply-To: <005801c66624$43df6ed0$6401a8c0@ams.com> References: <005801c66624$43df6ed0$6401a8c0@ams.com> Message-ID: <25078349-32A8-4947-A7A9-9D9A0181242B@psg.com> Hi, Thanks for your suggestion. As I mentioned earlier, the reason I was making my suggestion was because I thought that the IGC was in a transition state that required re-organization. I also indicated that I would only be willing to take the role if there was consensus on the proposal for ways to move ahead. I do not believe that the status quo in the IGC is workable, and I don't believe that the old way of picking coordinators works. True I was asking for consensus on a transition role in order to facilitate reorganization but I was not asking to be chosen coordinator in the old way of acclimation. That is why I put forward a proposal that required full consensus before I wouls assume the role of coordinator. But I accept that other participants have a different viewpoint. As several have indicated already there is a preference for picking 2 co- coordinators and moving forward as we have in the past, I take that to mean that there is not consensus on the suggestion I offered and that there is not a strong feeling that we need to reorganize before we can move ahead. I accept that and might even accept Bill as an IGC coordinator in your sort of proposal - assuming it finds consensus. I am not, however, interested in serving in that circumstance and decline participation in any slate of co-cos. I also do not think that having a discussion between Bill and myself is the way to resolve the identity and methods of the IGC. At this point, I think it is important for the IGC to figure out what, if anything, we can reach consensus on. thanks a. On 22 apr 2006, at 11.48, David Allen wrote: > Let me make a suggestion here. > > If the caucus can declare a coordinator by acclamation (or > consensus or whatever set of words fit), then it can do so for co- > coordinators. In fact, co-coordinators would seem most suited to > the circumstances. > > Co-coordinators are in the (brief) tradition of the caucus. If one > person is to be selected in a special way, certainly two can be > selected. With this as the tradition it seems we even need the > balance of co-coordinators, if there is to be special consensus > selection. > > But far and away most important, there is already a proposal before > the caucus, requesting two people to take the helm at this special > moment: Avri and Bill. > > I am traveling and unable to search my archive. But I know there > is one post already, asking Bill and Avri to step forward. I am > all but certain there is more than one post. The proposition is on > the table, and the suggestion here only reminds us. > > Then the caucus does not have immediately to adopt provisions such > as staggered terms or nominating committees and elections. We see, > in posts just the last little bit, there are natural questions > raised to discuss these matters. Instead, Avri and Bill can have a > productive dialog between themselves, and with the caucus, to reach > considered conclusions. > > For instance, continuity for the caucus seems to turn more on > cohesion in the group, than on mechanisms such as staggered terms. > But such structural arrangements might still be helpful (or not). > Two people, to whom the caucus has already turned, can see that > discussion through, to an effective conclusion. If there turns out > to be a need to stagger remaining terms of these two consensus > coordinators, that can be sorted out too. > > Likewise the selection process to be used later can get suitable > consideration. But especially, a host of other matters that shape > cohesion and effectiveness will have the benefit of two whom the > caucus has already turned to. As discussed by others, this is a > special time when the caucus might outfit itself to be an effective > partner in the IGF and other, related governance pursuits. The > caucus can, and it seems is well advised to, take advantage of the > leadership of two it has already identified. > > Then Avri especially is due very special thanks, for bootstrapping > such a desirable outcome. > > David > _______________________________________________ > 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 ki_chango at yahoo.com Sat Apr 22 14:59:35 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:59:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC In-Reply-To: <25078349-32A8-4947-A7A9-9D9A0181242B@psg.com> Message-ID: <20060422185935.10570.qmail@web54704.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, --- Avri Doria wrote: > But I accept that other participants have a different viewpoint. As > several have indicated already there is a preference for picking 2 co- > coordinators and moving forward as we have in the past, I take that > to mean that there is not consensus on the suggestion I offered and > that there is not a strong feeling that we need to reorganize before > we can move ahead. I've been reading the emails since your offer, and I haven't seen any message that expresses anything but a support. Like you, I understand that David is suggesting something else, which I sincerely don't know what it is, but I do know that all the others, including myself, have expressed support thus far. The only thing that remains is, as you said (and I beleive that's what Jeannette was also trying to address), the IGC needs to have a conversation about some processes and their implementation. Mawaki _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Sat Apr 22 16:58:45 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:58:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC In-Reply-To: <20060422185935.10570.qmail@web54704.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060422185935.10570.qmail@web54704.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi. Thanks for your note. On 22 apr 2006, at 14.59, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Hi, > > --- Avri Doria wrote: > > >> But I accept that other participants have a different viewpoint. As >> several have indicated already there is a preference for picking 2 >> co- >> coordinators and moving forward as we have in the past, I take that >> to mean that there is not consensus on the suggestion I offered and >> that there is not a strong feeling that we need to reorganize before >> we can move ahead. > > I've been reading the emails since your offer, and I haven't seen > any message that > expresses anything but a support. Like you, I understand that David > is suggesting > something else, which I sincerely don't know what it is, but I do > know that all the > others, including myself, have expressed support thus far. The only > thing that > remains is, as you said (and I beleive that's what Jeannette was > also trying to > address), the IGC needs to have a conversation about some processes > and their > implementation. > Yes I understand that I am personally getting support and I very much appreciate that. What concerns me is whether there is support for going into a period of transition that allows the IGC to step back and consider how it moves on. I think that I am volunteering to facilitate that transition period. And in suggesting that the co-coordinator be picked as soon as we decide on our charter and method of working I am suggesting that this new person will be chosen (by some means yet to be agreed on) according to the needs of decisions yet to be made. I am afraid that if we pick 2 co-coordinators this month we will make it more difficult to make a transition to a new organizational model. But I am accepting that I may be wrong and the IGC may not need to transition to a new model. And if i am wrong about this, then I am obviously not the right person be a co-coordinator. So, this is why I think we need to understand what the consensus of the IGC is. thanks a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Sat Apr 22 17:27:39 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060422212739.97414.qmail@web54711.mail.yahoo.com> You're welcome. I hear you, however my support was not just personal, but also to the transition process. I clearly supported the idea of staggered terms (others also did, or just asked questions); and in my very mistake earlier, thinking that the first [sic] coordinator would be (s)elected early next year etc., there was my support to the transition formula you put forward. As far as I read (and unless there are parallel exchanges), the idea of picking two co-coordinators right away has been suggested by one person... out of how many? or is this because of the consensus you've asked for? Anyway, I'll leave the place to others to speak. Whatever the IGC decides, I wish us wisdom and good luck! Mawaki --- Avri Doria wrote: > Hi. > > Thanks for your note. > > On 22 apr 2006, at 14.59, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > --- Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > >> But I accept that other participants have a different viewpoint. As > >> several have indicated already there is a preference for picking 2 > >> co- > >> coordinators and moving forward as we have in the past, I take that > >> to mean that there is not consensus on the suggestion I offered and > >> that there is not a strong feeling that we need to reorganize before > >> we can move ahead. > > > > I've been reading the emails since your offer, and I haven't seen > > any message that > > expresses anything but a support. Like you, I understand that David > > is suggesting > > something else, which I sincerely don't know what it is, but I do > > know that all the > > others, including myself, have expressed support thus far. The only > > thing that > > remains is, as you said (and I beleive that's what Jeannette was > > also trying to > > address), the IGC needs to have a conversation about some processes > > and their > > implementation. > > > > Yes I understand that I am personally getting support and I very much > appreciate that. > > What concerns me is whether there is support for going into a period > of transition that allows the IGC to step back and consider how it > moves on. I think that I am volunteering to facilitate that > transition period. And in suggesting that the co-coordinator be > picked as soon as we decide on our charter and method of working I am > suggesting that this new person will be chosen (by some means yet to > be agreed on) according to the needs of decisions yet to be made. I > am afraid that if we pick 2 co-coordinators this month we will make > it more difficult to make a transition to a new organizational model. > > But I am accepting that I may be wrong and the IGC may not need to > transition to a new model. And if i am wrong about this, then I am > obviously not the right person be a co-coordinator. > > So, this is why I think we need to understand what the consensus of > the IGC is. > > > thanks > a. > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Sat Apr 22 18:16:40 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 00:16:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] FYI:HR Caucus Membership - Was Re: IGC Participation In-Reply-To: <3335B517-E5FE-4254-A3B8-BF29C52FFA24@acm.org> References: <1145662962.44496df22d8c6@heimail.unige.ch> <444A3603.1080002@wz-berlin.de> <3335B517-E5FE-4254-A3B8-BF29C52FFA24@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Avri and all, You're right, HR Caucus membership is composed by organizations, or groups (i.e. loose groups, coalitions, etc.). But the situation was special, Re: Tunisian governerment issues: as most of you may remember, the HR Caucus have experienced many problems, with its public events systematically disrupted and the tentative meetings of caucus members during prepcoms almost prevented. To face this situation, right after what happened during Hammamet Prepcom in Tunisia (June 2004), the caucus decided that "only organizations, not individuals, may join, and that the caucus membership implies the agreement to the goal of protecting and promoting human rights standards in the WSIS process and in all countries of the world, not least the host country of the Summit.", as mentioned on its website at http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/ hr-wsis/#3. This may change now, it has to be discussed by the members. In any case, the mailing list archives are public (http:// www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/list/), and the number of representatives from member organizations are not limited. That said, Bill's suggestion wasn't referring to this feature of HR caucus membership, but rather to the fact that its membership is indeed made public (http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/ #6). However, what is normal and well accepted for organizations may not be that obvious when the membership is mainly composed by individuals. I think they should be asked before having their name publicly listed as members of the IGC. Alternatively, since this process may become heavy when there are many members, it could be added to the IGC charter that the members names will be made public. But I don't think it's acceptable to "force" people this way (or to prevent them from becoming members when they don't want this publicity). This is closely related to the IGC very specificity: it's easier to reach consensus in the HR caucus, as anyone can imagine, since members start from well established background and a common vision. If I simply remember the discussions we had on the IGC list about, e.g. the right to development, this would be harder to reach in this caucus. Not to mention discussions on more specifically Internet governance related issues, and more generally speaking what we use to describe as "IGC diversity", i.e. almost as many different IG visions as the size of IGC membership: when you're publicly listed as a member of a coalition, external people generally understand that you support, in some way or another, the coalition's positions. Providing a list of reservations in any IGC document would be a nightmare, and in any case longer than the document itself:) In any case, I'm afraid Jeanette's proposal ("to keep the list as it is right now and restrict voting rights to those who regard themselves as members (as opposed to observers) and thus register as voting members") is hardly workable: we would very soon reach a state where people on the list (not to mention IGC coordinators) wont know whether list subscrivers are observers or members, and we would end with a difficult situation. Finally, I would add that problems may arise well before, or even without, any vote to consider: it's extremely easy to create a complete mess, on purpose or not, by discussing endlessly and diluting any issue or decision to make. Thus, the problem isn't restricted to voting periods. Best, Meryem PS. Regarding your own case, Avri, I dont remember that you have ever been on the HR caucus mailing list (CPSR representatives have been Bill McIver and Katitza Rodriguez), and I'll add you right now. Another explanation may be that the list management software we use automatically removes addresses after too many bounces. Le 22 avr. 06 à 17:53, Avri Doria a écrit : >> On 21 apr 2006, at 19.42, William Drake wrote: >> >>> 1. Charter. I've supported this before and still do. However, I >>> would still >>> go beyond it, and suggest that we can't have properly functioning >>> consensus >>> building/voting on anything procedural or substantive, or indeed >>> democratic >>> legitimacy and accountability, if we don't have any idea who the >>> electorate/constituency is. Hence, once a charter has been >>> assembled, I would >>> like to see people opt in and publicly become listed members of >>> the caucus, in >>> the same manner as the Human Rights Caucus, > > I though the HRC was composed of individuals from various > organizations and that the organizations were the members. I don't > really know. i think i was on the HRC caucus list for a while based > on CPSR membership, but seem to have fallen off. So I am not sure > how they are organized or how membership works. Maybe somebody from > the HRC can explain. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From db at dannybutt.net Sat Apr 22 19:09:22 2006 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 11:09:22 +1200 Subject: [governance] IGC Participation In-Reply-To: References: <1145662962.44496df22d8c6@heimail.unige.ch> <444A3603.1080002@wz-berlin.de> <3335B517-E5FE-4254-A3B8-BF29C52FFA24@acm.org> Message-ID: <2454F9A3-FF8C-46E8-BE5C-2ABE0E4F40F3@dannybutt.net> Hi all I've been offline a lot but just wanted to throw in a few points relevant to recent discussion (which has been very productive thanks!). I've been doing a lot of governance writing the last couple of weeks so please excuse the jargon which I see creeping in, and I don't have time to write something shorter and clearer. * Avri, you will be a great coordinator of the process of transition to whatever IGC will become. * I think that it might be more workable for you in the short term if your coordinating role (e.g. making the call on "consensus") is limited to and focussed on the IGC processes, rather than the content of IGC submissions themselves. I still think the IGC is too diverse (or *should be* too diverse if it's even roughly representative) to find agreement on many substantive issues, as Meryem suggests. So I am reading your offer as being primarily to lead us through our own governance reform, and that the various mechanisms for participation in IGF etc. will come out of that. Is that in line with your and others thinking Avri? * I don't think elections are going to work because the constituency is not set, and I am not in favour of drawing a line around who's here and calling that the constituency. This is an opportunity for the group who have established a strong seeding presence to grow, but it will come at the expense of the coherence that small groups have. As I've said before, and this might just be the naivete of a recent arrival, but I think the IGC should have a goal of being a place where diverse organisations want to have a voice and feel heard, where they can see their issues making a contribution to a larger platform. This will require sophisticated mechanisms for mediating substantive differences in internet governance priorities. * I think the IGC can gain broad agreement on principles without too much conflict. I also think that the problems with existing IG regimes stem from thinking that this is sufficient. Because the way these principles are operationalised is a political contest among people with very different stakes and capacities. My lesson from ICANN is that principles of democracy and openness are not going to generate participation if it just means an opportunity to be ignored. So I'm interested in knowing whether there's an interest within IGC generally to have more sophisticated governance processes that will foster diversity and the collation of diverse perspectives, rather than a focus on generating consensus. (I like consensus as a principle, not so much as a mechanism - and I'd like to see these distinguished). I think that will entail some specialisation within IGC members and some tricky weaving together of their expertise depending on the situation. I am happy to contribute to building those frameworks/mechanisms if there's interest. Regards Danny -- http://www.dannybutt.net On 23/04/2006, at 10:16 AM, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Hi Avri and all, > > You're right, HR Caucus membership is composed by organizations, or > groups (i.e. loose groups, coalitions, etc.). But the situation was > special, Re: Tunisian governerment issues: as most of you may > remember, the HR Caucus have experienced many problems, with its > public events systematically disrupted and the tentative meetings of > caucus members during prepcoms almost prevented. > To face this situation, right after what happened during Hammamet > Prepcom in Tunisia (June 2004), the caucus decided that "only > organizations, not individuals, may join, and that the caucus > membership implies the agreement to the goal of protecting and > promoting human rights standards in the WSIS process and in all > countries of the world, not least the host country of the Summit.", > as mentioned on its website at http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/ > hr-wsis/#3. This may change now, it has to be discussed by the > members. > In any case, the mailing list archives are public (http:// > www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/list/), and the number of > representatives from member organizations are not limited. > > That said, Bill's suggestion wasn't referring to this feature of HR > caucus membership, but rather to the fact that its membership is > indeed made public (http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/ > #6). However, what is normal and well accepted for organizations may > not be that obvious when the membership is mainly composed by > individuals. I think they should be asked before having their name > publicly listed as members of the IGC. > > Alternatively, since this process may become heavy when there are > many members, it could be added to the IGC charter that the members > names will be made public. But I don't think it's acceptable to > "force" people this way (or to prevent them from becoming members > when they don't want this publicity). This is closely related to the > IGC very specificity: it's easier to reach consensus in the HR > caucus, as anyone can imagine, since members start from well > established background and a common vision. If I simply remember the > discussions we had on the IGC list about, e.g. the right to > development, this would be harder to reach in this caucus. Not to > mention discussions on more specifically Internet governance related > issues, and more generally speaking what we use to describe as "IGC > diversity", i.e. almost as many different IG visions as the size of > IGC membership: when you're publicly listed as a member of a > coalition, external people generally understand that you support, in > some way or another, the coalition's positions. Providing a list of > reservations in any IGC document would be a nightmare, and in any > case longer than the document itself:) > > In any case, I'm afraid Jeanette's proposal ("to keep the list as it > is right now and restrict voting rights to those who regard > themselves as members (as opposed to observers) and thus register as > voting members") is hardly workable: we would very soon reach a state > where people on the list (not to mention IGC coordinators) wont know > whether list subscrivers are observers or members, and we would end > with a difficult situation. Finally, I would add that problems may > arise well before, or even without, any vote to consider: it's > extremely easy to create a complete mess, on purpose or not, by > discussing endlessly and diluting any issue or decision to make. > Thus, the problem isn't restricted to voting periods. > > Best, > Meryem > > PS. Regarding your own case, Avri, I dont remember that you have ever > been on the HR caucus mailing list (CPSR representatives have been > Bill McIver and Katitza Rodriguez), and I'll add you right now. > Another explanation may be that the list management software we use > automatically removes addresses after too many bounces. > > > Le 22 avr. 06 à 17:53, Avri Doria a écrit : > >>> On 21 apr 2006, at 19.42, William Drake wrote: >>> >>>> 1. Charter. I've supported this before and still do. However, I >>>> would still >>>> go beyond it, and suggest that we can't have properly functioning >>>> consensus >>>> building/voting on anything procedural or substantive, or indeed >>>> democratic >>>> legitimacy and accountability, if we don't have any idea who the >>>> electorate/constituency is. Hence, once a charter has been >>>> assembled, I would >>>> like to see people opt in and publicly become listed members of >>>> the caucus, in >>>> the same manner as the Human Rights Caucus, >> >> I though the HRC was composed of individuals from various >> organizations and that the organizations were the members. I don't >> really know. i think i was on the HRC caucus list for a while based >> on CPSR membership, but seem to have fallen off. So I am not sure >> how they are organized or how membership works. Maybe somebody from >> the HRC can explain. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Sun Apr 23 07:55:07 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 13:55:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] FYI:HR Caucus Membership - Was Re: IGC Participation Message-ID: <1145793307.444b6b1bb473a@heimail.unige.ch> Hi Meryem, > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Meryem Marzouki > That said, Bill's suggestion wasn't referring to this feature of HR > caucus membership, but rather to the fact that its membership is > indeed made public (http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/ > #6). However, what is normal and well accepted for organizations may > not be that obvious when the membership is mainly composed by > individuals. I think they should be asked before having their name > publicly listed as members of the IGC. Of course, I was suggesting that people who want to opt in, not that they be enlisted by armed caucus police. > IGC membership: when you're publicly listed as a member of a > coalition, external people generally understand that you support, in > some way or another, the coalition's positions. Providing a list of > reservations in any IGC document would be a nightmare, and in any > case longer than the document itself:) I don't really see the problem here. On procedural or any other matters where there's not a lot of disagreement,we could stick with the silence is assent model; far from ideal, but sometimes you have to work with what you have. On substantive policy matters on which there is disagreement, if we had a defined constituency and a decent web tool, people who want to support a given statement could sign on and be listed, and nobody who didn't could be presumed to have supported the thing. > In any case, I'm afraid Jeanette's proposal ("to keep the list as it > is right now and restrict voting rights to those who regard > themselves as members (as opposed to observers) and thus register as > voting members") is hardly workable: we would very soon reach a state > where people on the list (not to mention IGC coordinators) wont know > whether list subscrivers are observers or members, and we would end > with a difficult situation. Finally, I would add that problems may Here again I'm not sure I see a problem. If members who opt in are listed on a web page, anyone who wants to know could check, and what complexities would really arise if they were uncertain anyway? > PS. Regarding your own case, Avri, I dont remember that you have ever > been on the HR caucus mailing list (CPSR representatives have been > Bill McIver and Katitza Rodriguez), and I'll add you right now. Please add me too, I meant to do this long ago and forgot. Best, Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Sun Apr 23 07:31:47 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 13:31:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC Message-ID: <1145791907.444b65a3f2281@heimail.unige.ch> Hi David, In past weeks I too had a number of people suggest this publicly and privately, and since I'm not running for reelection from July in CPSR I might have had a little more time to take it on. But upon reflection I shouldn't do it, I have a book project and other writing that needs to get moving. Anyway, as I understand Avri's offer, she's only interested in coordinating the transitional period solo. While I'd have preferred to have simply elected two people now with her being one of them, if that's not possible I think we should capitalize on her willingness to step up. Best, Bill -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of David Allen Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 11:49 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] coordinating the IGC Let me make a suggestion here. If the caucus can declare a coordinator by acclamation (or consensus or whatever set of words fit), then it can do so for co-coordinators. In fact, co-coordinators would seem most suited to the circumstances. Co-coordinators are in the (brief) tradition of the caucus. If one person is to be selected in a special way, certainly two can be selected. With this as the tradition it seems we even need the balance of co-coordinators, if there is to be special consensus selection. But far and away most important, there is already a proposal before the caucus, requesting two people to take the helm at this special moment: Avri and Bill. I am traveling and unable to search my archive. But I know there is one post already, asking Bill and Avri to step forward. I am all but certain there is more than one post. The proposition is on the table, and the suggestion here only reminds us. Then the caucus does not have immediately to adopt provisions such as staggered terms or nominating committees and elections. We see, in posts just the last little bit, there are natural questions raised to discuss these matters. Instead, Avri and Bill can have a productive dialog between themselves, and with the caucus, to reach considered conclusions. For instance, continuity for the caucus seems to turn more on cohesion in the group, than on mechanisms such as staggered terms. But such structural arrangements might still be helpful (or not). Two people, to whom the caucus has already turned, can see that discussion through, to an effective conclusion. If there turns out to be a need to stagger remaining terms of these two consensus coordinators, that can be sorted out too. Likewise the selection process to be used later can get suitable consideration. But especially, a host of other matters that shape cohesion and effectiveness will have the benefit of two whom the caucus has already turned to. As discussed by others, this is a special time when the caucus might outfit itself to be an effective partner in the IGF and other, related governance pursuits. The caucus can, and it seems is well advised to, take advantage of the leadership of two it has already identified. Then Avri especially is due very special thanks, for bootstrapping such a desirable outcome. David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Sun Apr 23 08:15:16 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 08:15:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC Participation In-Reply-To: <2454F9A3-FF8C-46E8-BE5C-2ABE0E4F40F3@dannybutt.net> References: <1145662962.44496df22d8c6@heimail.unige.ch> <444A3603.1080002@wz-berlin.de> <3335B517-E5FE-4254-A3B8-BF29C52FFA24@acm.org> <2454F9A3-FF8C-46E8-BE5C-2ABE0E4F40F3@dannybutt.net> Message-ID: Hi Danny, thank for your note and the points in it. In time i might want to comment on several but did want to address this point which was directed at me. On 22 apr 2006, at 19.09, Danny Butt wrote: > > * I think that it might be more workable for you in the short term if > your coordinating role (e.g. making the call on "consensus") is > limited to and focussed on the IGC processes, rather than the content > of IGC submissions themselves. I still think the IGC is too diverse > (or *should be* too diverse if it's even roughly representative) to > find agreement on many substantive issues, as Meryem suggests. So I > am reading your offer as being primarily to lead us through our own > governance reform, and that the various mechanisms for participation > in IGF etc. will come out of that. Is that in line with your and > others thinking Avri? Yes, i think most of the coordination during the interim period would involve IGC mission, methods and process. And while it is possible, depending on how long it takes us to come to closure on these issues that we could have substantive work to do, i do not believe there is any means by which anyone, myself included, can call consensus in this group at the moment - except by establishing an ad-hoc process to try and determine full consensus. so if there were something substantive that needed to be done during the, hopefully short, interim period when i was a single coordinator, i would hope we could develop an ad-hoc process by which to do the work - and i am sure i would suggest something. at the moment it looks like the schedule is clear until after the May consultations at least. so yes, my thinking is in line with your suggestion, though i would tend to see it as coordinating our efforts through the period as opposed to leading through the period. Being leader, i.e. one who leads, has so many different connotations in so many cultures that i would want to avoid the use of that word in reference to myself. and as i indicated in another email, i would hope the IGC would be in a position to pick a second co-coordinator within a relatively short time right after we figure out what our processes etc. thanks a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Sun Apr 23 10:46:53 2006 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 11:46:53 -0300 Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC In-Reply-To: References: <1145662962.44496df22d8c6@heimail.unige.ch> Message-ID: <444B935D.6070307@rits.org.br> With the clarifications provided by Avri below, I agree with Paul Wilson's proposals. fraternal regards --c.a. Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > On 22 apr 2006, at 03.25, Paul Wilson wrote: > >> I also welcome and support your offer to act as chair/coordinator >> for the IGC. I do not see any problems at present with respect to >> your other activities, and I am confident that any future conflict >> of interest situations (if any) can be handled easily enough. > > thanks. > >> Regarding staggered 2-year terms, I support this proposal, both for >> continuity of knowledge and logistics, and because I think an >> annual election process is a useful thing (and conversely because >> having an election every 2 years is too infrequent). >> >> Can I ask you to confirm whether the terms "chair" and >> "coordinator" refer to the same role? This is not entirely clear >> in your proposal. > > > Yes, it was a mis-typing. The IGC has always had coordinators. To > me, a chair is just a coordinator that is easier to spell (i can't > seem to type coordinator correctly on the first try), but I know that > to some people sometimes the roles are different with a chair having > more authority then a coordinator would. The IGC has had > coordinators from the beginning. And that is the role I am thinking of. > > a. > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br ******************************************** * Sacix -- distribuição Debian CDD Linux * * orientada a projetos de inclusão digital * * com software livre e de código aberto, * * mantida pela Rits em colaboração com o * * Coletivo Digital. * * Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br * ******************************************** _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Apr 23 04:35:37 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 10:35:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC Message-ID: Dear list, what about drafting by doing? We have to clarify a lot of procedural issues - and I support here Avri´s approach - and we have to have workable mechanisms. But please, do not try to be too specific which will underminde flexibility in the future. The real challenge comes with the substance. We should not repeat the painful discussions we had in the WSIS process between the CS Bureau and CS Content&Themes. We should not only preach "bottom up", we should practice it. Do not try to be perfect, try to be good. We need procedures and methods which help us to clarify issues, to develop policies and to draft language for negotiation processes. This brings me to the next point: Should the IGC concentrate on the IGF? Should it include "enhanced cooperation"? And what about ICANN? And what about other broader IG issues under dicussion in the OECD, ITU, WIPO, UNESCO, The Global Alliance etc.? I believe that the IGC has the potential to become a key platform representing non-governmental and non-for-profit constituencies (the "third voice") in the coming broader Internet debate. The way how the Caucus is designed is very different from other bodies. Lets keep this difference. Lets test it out how such an innovative NewMechanism (NeMe) can develop. We all need energy, engagement, optimism and patience. Think big, start small, move fast. Good times with great challenges :-))) Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Sa 22.04.2006 20:13 An: David Allen Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] coordinating the IGC Hi, Thanks for your suggestion. As I mentioned earlier, the reason I was making my suggestion was because I thought that the IGC was in a transition state that required re-organization. I also indicated that I would only be willing to take the role if there was consensus on the proposal for ways to move ahead. I do not believe that the status quo in the IGC is workable, and I don't believe that the old way of picking coordinators works. True I was asking for consensus on a transition role in order to facilitate reorganization but I was not asking to be chosen coordinator in the old way of acclimation. That is why I put forward a proposal that required full consensus before I wouls assume the role of coordinator. But I accept that other participants have a different viewpoint. As several have indicated already there is a preference for picking 2 co-coordinators and moving forward as we have in the past, I take that to mean that there is not consensus on the suggestion I offered and that there is not a strong feeling that we need to reorganize before we can move ahead. I accept that and might even accept Bill as an IGC coordinator in your sort of proposal - assuming it finds consensus. I am not, however, interested in serving in that circumstance and decline participation in any slate of co-cos. I also do not think that having a discussion between Bill and myself is the way to resolve the identity and methods of the IGC. At this point, I think it is important for the IGC to figure out what, if anything, we can reach consensus on. thanks a. On 22 apr 2006, at 11.48, David Allen wrote: Let me make a suggestion here. If the caucus can declare a coordinator by acclamation (or consensus or whatever set of words fit), then it can do so for co-coordinators. In fact, co-coordinators would seem most suited to the circumstances. Co-coordinators are in the (brief) tradition of the caucus. If one person is to be selected in a special way, certainly two can be selected. With this as the tradition it seems we even need the balance of co-coordinators, if there is to be special consensus selection. But far and away most important, there is already a proposal before the caucus, requesting two people to take the helm at this special moment: Avri and Bill. I am traveling and unable to search my archive. But I know there is one post already, asking Bill and Avri to step forward. I am all but certain there is more than one post. The proposition is on the table, and the suggestion here only reminds us. Then the caucus does not have immediately to adopt provisions such as staggered terms or nominating committees and elections. SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> We see, in posts just the last little bit, there are natural questions raised to discuss these matters. Instead, Avri and Bill can have a productive dialog between themselves, and with the caucus, to reach considered conclusions. For instance, continuity for the caucus seems to turn more on cohesion in the group, than on mechanisms such as staggered terms. But such structural arrangements might still be helpful (or not). Two people, to whom the caucus has already turned, can see that discussion through, to an effective conclusion. If there turns o t to be a need to stagger remaining terms of these two consensus coordinators, that can be sorted out too. Likewise the selection process to be used later can get suitable consideration. But especially, a host of other matters that shape cohesion and effectiveness will have the benefit of two whom the caucus has already turned to. As discussed by others, this is a special time when the caucus might outfit itself to be an effective partner in the IGF and other, related governance pursuits. The caucus can, and it seems is well advised to, take advantage of the leadership of two it has already identified. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Sun Apr 23 08:06:38 2006 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (klohento at panos-ao.org) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 14:06:38 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC In-Reply-To: <1145791907.444b65a3f2281@heimail.unige.ch> References: <1145791907.444b65a3f2281@heimail.unige.ch> Message-ID: <33602.65.173.208.2.1145793998.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> Dear all I'm favorable to the idea of having co-cordinators, even for the transitional period. Not only because it's what was done in the past, but also because, in my opinion, for a virtual "group" it's better not to have only one person as chair. And I support Avri and Bill as co-ordinators, since Bill seems a bit available too. Ken Lohento > Hi David, > > In past weeks I too had a number of people suggest this publicly and > privately, > and since I'm not running for reelection from July in CPSR I might have > had a > little more time to take it on. But upon reflection I shouldn't do it, I > have > a book project and other writing that needs to get moving. Anyway, as I > understand Avri's offer, she's only interested in coordinating the > transitional > period solo. While I'd have preferred to have simply elected two people > now > with her being one of them, if that's not possible I think we should > capitalize > on her willingness to step up. > > Best, > > Bill > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Sun Apr 23 12:17:23 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 18:17:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] purpose of restructuring In-Reply-To: References: <1145662962.44496df22d8c6@heimail.unige.ch> <444A3603.1080002@wz-berlin.de> <3335B517-E5FE-4254-A3B8-BF29C52FFA24@acm.org> <2454F9A3-FF8C-46E8-BE5C-2ABE0E4F40F3@dannybutt.net> Message-ID: <444BA893.4080500@wz-berlin.de> Hi, >.... after we figure out what our processes etc. I notice that there is * unanimous support for Avri as a coordinator (although a few would prefer to have two coordinators guiding the process) and * unanimous support for a restructuring of the caucus. However, my feeling is that there is not much common unerstanding on what we actually want to achieve with a reorganization. This confuses me a bit. How can we figure out what processes and structures we like if there is no common vision on the future roles or tasks of the caucus? 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 veni at veni.com Sun Apr 23 12:17:26 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:17:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] purpose of restructuring In-Reply-To: <444BA893.4080500@wz-berlin.de> References: <1145662962.44496df22d8c6@heimail.unige.ch> <444A3603.1080002@wz-berlin.de> <3335B517-E5FE-4254-A3B8-BF29C52FFA24@acm.org> <2454F9A3-FF8C-46E8-BE5C-2ABE0E4F40F3@dannybutt.net> <444BA893.4080500@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060423121704.03776be0@veni.com> Jeanette, I am with you on that matter. veni At 06:17 PM 23.4.2006 '?.' +0200, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Hi, > > >.... after we figure out what our processes etc. > >I notice that there is > >* unanimous support for Avri as a coordinator (although a few would >prefer to have two coordinators guiding the process) and >* unanimous support for a restructuring of the caucus. > >However, my feeling is that there is not much common unerstanding on >what we actually want to achieve with a reorganization. This confuses me > a bit. How can we figure out what processes and structures we like if >there is no common vision on the future roles or tasks of the caucus? > >jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Sun Apr 23 12:31:39 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:31:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] purpose of restructuring In-Reply-To: <444BA893.4080500@wz-berlin.de> References: <1145662962.44496df22d8c6@heimail.unige.ch> <444A3603.1080002@wz-berlin.de> <3335B517-E5FE-4254-A3B8-BF29C52FFA24@acm.org> <2454F9A3-FF8C-46E8-BE5C-2ABE0E4F40F3@dannybutt.net> <444BA893.4080500@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <7E79BD0C-D621-4F32-92DA-00DB7173B9BF@psg.com> Hi, On 23 apr 2006, at 12.17, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > However, my feeling is that there is not much common unerstanding > on what we actually want to achieve with a reorganization. This > confuses me a bit. How can we figure out what processes and > structures we like if there is no common vision on the future roles > or tasks of the caucus? Yes, that is a really good question. I think that this is what needs to be captured in the chartering process, which I was conceiving of as the most immediate goal. I do, however, think that this discussion has already started, e.g. with messages like yours, Bill's, Wolfgangs's, Meryem's, Danny's and others that have opened topics like (non exhaustive list): - scope of focus - igf alone of other Internet Governance mechanisms - diversity and consensus - how we make substantive decisions - concept of membership and/or levels of particpation - establishing guiding principles - focus and flexibilty thanks a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sun Apr 23 15:10:20 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:10:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC Participation In-Reply-To: References: <1145662962.44496df22d8c6@heimail.unige.ch> <444A3603.1080002@wz-berlin.de> <3335B517-E5FE-4254-A3B8-BF29C52FFA24@acm.org> <2454F9A3-FF8C-46E8-BE5C-2ABE0E4F40F3@dannybutt.net> Message-ID: <444BD11C.1030201@bertola.eu.org> Avri Doria ha scritto: > Yes, i think most of the coordination during the interim period would > involve IGC mission, methods and process. And while it is possible, > depending on how long it takes us to come to closure on these issues > that we could have substantive work to do, i do not believe there is > any means by which anyone, myself included, can call consensus in > this group at the moment - except by establishing an ad-hoc process > to try and determine full consensus. so if there were something > substantive that needed to be done during the, hopefully short, > interim period when i was a single coordinator, i would hope we could > develop an ad-hoc process by which to do the work - and i am sure i > would suggest something. at the moment it looks like the schedule is > clear until after the May consultations at least. I've just connected and read the entire discussion, so let me try to sum it up. Perhaps we can get out of the deadlock by adopting an opt-in approach, i.e. rather than picking one or two co-coordinators, we could ask you to lead an open online working group that would prepare a basic charter and rules of order for the caucus. I guess that most of the people that are participating in this discussion would be happy to join and contribute to that. Once a charter is worked out, we simply ask to people to sign up to it and thus become members of the "caucus v2.0", perhaps with a clause so that unless at least, say, 50% of the current list members do so, the new charter won't become operational. Any other people who won't join - either because uneligible according to the new charter, or because they don't want - may stay on the list (we'll see whether a separate members-only list is necessary for organizational, non-substantial issues). In the meantime, I guess we will refrain from making any substantial statement, but perhaps we can speed up the process and try to close it in a few weeks, so to be ready by the summer. -- 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 nne75 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 23 15:56:07 2006 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:56:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Restructuring In-Reply-To: <444BA893.4080500@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <20060423195607.60175.qmail@web50201.mail.yahoo.com> How can we figure out what processes and structures we like if there is no common vision on the future roles or tasks of the caucus? Dear all It is good that finally this question has come to fore. I think that the idea of a IGC charter is fundamental. I would suggest we use the guidelines that have been developed by the Working Methods Caucus. On comon vision The basic understanding so far is that this caucus inputs into governance issues and facilitates the input on CS into thematic issues in the IG domain. Future roles Will IMHO include Maintain open discussions on IG Exercise oversight of MSP status of IG issues in all related domain Make propositions to the CS plenary in IG issues Coordinate global CS input into general IG debates, initiatives and activities Draft CS position papers on IG etc On restructuring It will be nice to congratulate Jeannette and Adam on the stress they have taken so far. The consensus here is that Avri, seconded by Bill will play coordination roles. It is easier to co-opt this idea into the charter. II am willing to help in drafting a two-pager. All for now Nnenna --------------------------------- Celebrate Earth Day everyday! Discover 10 things you can do to help slow climate change. Yahoo! Earth Day -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Apr 23 17:30:09 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:30:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC Message-ID: >>> Avri Doria 4/22/2006 4:58:45 PM >>> >What concerns me is whether there is support for going into >a period of transition that allows the IGC to step back and >consider how it moves on. I think that I am volunteering to >facilitate that transition period. And in suggesting that the >co-coordinator be picked as soon as we decide on our charter >and method of working I am suggesting that this new person >will be chosen (by some means yet to be agreed on) according > to the needs of decisions yet to be made. I am afraid that if >we pick 2 co-coordinators this month we will make >it more difficult to make a transition to a new organizational >model. I agree with this emphatically. I think Avri's original proposal is quite well thought out. She occupies a shorter, bootstrapping role while we get a charter in place and are able to use agreed procedures to put co-coordinators in place. Makes a lot of sense. --MM _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Apr 23 17:38:33 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:38:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC Message-ID: >>> 4/23/2006 8:06:38 AM >>> >I'm favorable to the idea of having co-cordinators, even for >the transitional period. Not only because it's what was done >in the past, but also because, in my opinion, for a virtual >"group" it's better not to have only one person as chair. Problem is, Ken, we have no method to select co-coordinators. Avri's proposal is, to repeat, very well thought out. She is accepted by consensus and assumes the transitional leadership role required to put in place the mechanisms needed to select co-coordinators in the future. I see no viable alternative to this. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Sun Apr 23 18:20:09 2006 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (klohento at panos-ao.org) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 00:20:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <33600.65.173.208.2.1145830809.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> Dear Milton, all > we have no method to select co-coordinators. It seems to me that we had problems to find volunteers...and now we have 2 persons available (for the transitional period). But if we will have problems to select (meaning that other people want to volunteer or need to be nominated), then I think it's better Avri does the job solo. On another point and as input to Jeannette's questions: personally I don't like too much formalized global organizations (how to justify its specificity, heaviness in the functioning, stronger leadership conflicts, etc.). But I understand the need to structure a bit the group. The issue now would be how to be innovative I remember the Global Community Network Partnership faced the same problem...I wish this group a different fate. KL Avri's > proposal is, to repeat, very well thought out. She is accepted by > consensus and assumes the transitional leadership role required to put in > place the mechanisms needed to select co-coordinators in the future. I > see no viable alternative to this. > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sun Apr 23 18:36:58 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 18:36:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC In-Reply-To: <33600.65.173.208.2.1145830809.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> References: <33600.65.173.208.2.1145830809.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> Message-ID: <444C018A.5010406@lists.privaterra.org> on 4/23/06 6:20 PM klohento at panos-ao.org said the following: > > It seems to me that we had problems to find volunteers... Am curious to know if those involved in large CS networks and/or NGOs can suggest additional names to help with facilitation and coordination of this caucus. For example, would anyone at APC, Ubuntu or NGLS be able and interested to help out? Worth asking I guess... regards Robert Refs: http://www.apc.org http://www.ubuntu.upc.edu/ -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra 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 ki_chango at yahoo.com Mon Apr 24 00:47:23 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGC Participation In-Reply-To: <2454F9A3-FF8C-46E8-BE5C-2ABE0E4F40F3@dannybutt.net> Message-ID: <20060424044723.92839.qmail@web54707.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Danny, --- Danny Butt wrote: > > * I think the IGC can gain broad agreement on principles without too > much conflict. I also think that the problems with existing IG > regimes stem from thinking that this is sufficient. Because the way > these principles are operationalised is a political contest among > people with very different stakes and capacities. My lesson from > ICANN is that principles of democracy and openness are not going to > generate participation if it just means an opportunity to be ignored. > So I'm interested in knowing whether there's an interest within IGC > generally to have more sophisticated governance processes that will > foster diversity and the collation of diverse perspectives, rather > than a focus on generating consensus. (I like consensus as a > principle, not so much as a mechanism - and I'd like to see these > distinguished). I think that will entail some specialisation within > IGC members and some tricky weaving together of their expertise > depending on the situation. I am happy to contribute to building > those frameworks/mechanisms if there's interest. I fully support this view for more innovative ways of participation/"representation", which might also be the IGC brand in the realm of the current IG players, and I would be glad to join you in this effort. Mawaki > > Regards > > Danny > > > -- > http://www.dannybutt.net > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Mon Apr 24 01:19:40 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 22:19:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC In-Reply-To: <1145791907.444b65a3f2281@heimail.unige.ch> Message-ID: <20060424051940.52293.qmail@web54715.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Bill, I see this to be even a perfect timing! the transition as being designed by Avri is about 2 months, so the first fully fledged coordinator will be (s)elected by July, which might perfectly be you (I do hope to see you contest as one of our next co-coordinators). I understand that Avri is not interested in anything right now but coordinating the transition (reason why I support her coordinating alone the transition), my reasoning being that our first two co-coordinators (full mandate) should not be too much involved in leading the transition. In Africa, we experienced that kind of situation when some countries went through a democratic transition period in the years that followed the end of the Cold War: parties had a fight to make sure that the prime minister of the transitional govt be not a future candidate to the next presidential elections (and not even from the ruling party). [Ok, that was not a guaranty of successful transition :), but it made sense]. All things being equal... Cheers, Mawaki --- William Drake wrote: > Hi David, > > In past weeks I too had a number of people suggest this publicly and privately, > and since I'm not running for reelection from July in CPSR I might have had a > little more time to take it on. But upon reflection I shouldn't do it, I have > a book project and other writing that needs to get moving. Anyway, as I > understand Avri's offer, she's only interested in coordinating the transitional > period solo. While I'd have preferred to have simply elected two people now > with her being one of them, if that's not possible I think we should capitalize > on her willingness to step up. > > Best, > > Bill > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Apr 24 03:40:40 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:40:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC In-Reply-To: <444C018A.5010406@lists.privaterra.org> References: <33600.65.173.208.2.1145830809.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> <444C018A.5010406@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <444C80F8.3010005@bertola.eu.org> Robert Guerra ha scritto: > Am curious to know if those involved in large CS networks and/or NGOs > can suggest additional names to help with facilitation and coordination > of this caucus. > > For example, would anyone at APC, Ubuntu or NGLS be able and interested > to help out? Worth asking I guess... This suggestion (even if I know that this wasn't your intention) reminds me of another point I wanted to make, regarding the issue of membership. I personally would be quite disturbed if the caucus took the road of the organizational membership, similarly to the HR Caucus (which however had some specific reasons for that, as pointed out before). I would recommend that caucus members do not wear hats while working here, and do not act as representatives of this or that NGO, but as individual human beings. Things could be different if you were to build a global, complex representative structure, but as long as this caucus is meant to be the "think-tank" of that handful of active people in the field, all of us should be peers; and I think that we should not forget that the Internet, even in the user rights advocacy field, has been up to now very often, if not mostly, shaped by lonely active individuals. I was already concerned by the idea of organizational endorsements in our selection processes, as if names put forward by organizations were for that very reason more deserving of consideration. I would not be able to recognize myself in this caucus any more, if it became practically dominated by a few big NGOs. -- 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 Mon Apr 24 03:43:41 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:43:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC Message-ID: Vittorio: I personally would be quite disturbed if the caucus took the road of the organizational membership, similarly to the HR Caucus (which however had some specific reasons for that, as pointed out before). I would recommend that caucus members do not wear hats while working here, and do not act as representatives of this or that NGO, but as individual human beings. I think that we should not forget that the Internet, even in the user rights advocacy field, has been up to now very often, if not mostly, shaped by lonely active individuals. I was already concerned by the idea of organizational endorsements in our selection processes, as if names put forward by organizations were for that very reason more deserving of consideration. I would not be able to recognize myself in this caucus any more, if it became practically dominated by a few big NGOs. Wolfgang: I can only support Vittorio. Over-organization is counter-productive, as you can see from the four years of ICANNs ALAC . Vittorio, why you did not argue within ALAC when you chaired the body as you do now? Regards wolfgang _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Apr 24 03:59:21 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:59:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <444C8559.3080107@bertola.eu.org> Wolfgang Kleinwächter ha scritto: > Wolfgang: > > I can only support Vittorio. Over-organization is counter-productive, > as you can see from the four years of ICANNs ALAC . Vittorio, why you > did not argue within ALAC when you chaired the body as you do now? Hi Wolfgang, thanks for your support. As for what regards the ALAC, as you raise the issue again, it was a structure designed to follow up to an election which saw participation by 150'000 individuals, and it was made that way exactly because you can't put 150'000 individuals on a mailing list or interact with them directly in meaningful ways. So we came up with this sort of indirect representation model relying on both formal (NGO) and informal (mailing lists, online campaigns) organizations - which in fact might be revisited in the future, since the interest seems to have dropped in the meantime. Of course things are very different if you need to formalize a working structure where not more than 20-30 people are active. I think that what we need to do with this caucus is just to organize it a bit more and implant a way to get out of deadlocks, while leaving the spirit and working methods mostly untouched. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Apr 24 04:28:09 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:28:09 +0900 Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And I agree with Milton - and thank Avri for volunteering to move things forward. I support Avri's proposal. Will help best I can. Adam At 5:30 PM -0400 4/23/06, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>> Avri Doria 4/22/2006 4:58:45 PM >>> >>What concerns me is whether there is support for going into >>a period of transition that allows the IGC to step back and >>consider how it moves on. I think that I am volunteering to >>facilitate that transition period. And in suggesting that the >>co-coordinator be picked as soon as we decide on our charter >>and method of working I am suggesting that this new person >>will be chosen (by some means yet to be agreed on) according >> to the needs of decisions yet to be made. I am afraid that if >>we pick 2 co-coordinators this month we will make  >>it more difficult to make a transition to a new organizational >>model. > >I agree with this emphatically. I think Avri's >original proposal is quite well thought out. She >occupies a shorter, bootstrapping role while we >get a charter in place and are able to use >agreed procedures to put co-coordinators in >place. Makes a lot of sense. > >--MM > > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.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 Apr 24 21:39:17 2006 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:39:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] coordinating the IGC Message-ID: Hi, I too support Avri's proposal with regard to the transition process, methods, and general objectives. As to the specific outcomes or 'improved'/reformed processes on the other side of that transition, I agree with jeanette and others that it is too soon to say exactly what those will be, and how they will work. But at least we can get from here (one consensus coordinator) to there (two co-coordinators). And maybe even, occasionally rough consensus positions. Ok, I'm an optimist! Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Adam Peake 4/24/2006 4:28 AM >>> And I agree with Milton - and thank Avri for volunteering to move things forward. I support Avri's proposal. Will help best I can. Adam At 5:30 PM -0400 4/23/06, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>> Avri Doria 4/22/2006 4:58:45 PM >>> >>What concerns me is whether there is support for going into >>a period of transition that allows the IGC to step back and >>consider how it moves on. I think that I am volunteering to >>facilitate that transition period. And in suggesting that the >>co-coordinator be picked as soon as we decide on our charter >>and method of working I am suggesting that this new person >>will be chosen (by some means yet to be agreed on) according >> to the needs of decisions yet to be made. I am afraid that if >>we pick 2 co-coordinators this month we will make >>it more difficult to make a transition to a new organizational >>model. > >I agree with this emphatically. I think Avri's >original proposal is quite well thought out. She >occupies a shorter, bootstrapping role while we >get a charter in place and are able to use >agreed procedures to put co-coordinators in >place. Makes a lot of sense. > >--MM > > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.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 Mon Apr 24 22:31:20 2006 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:31:20 +1200 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: <444C80F8.3010005@bertola.eu.org> References: <33600.65.173.208.2.1145830809.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> <444C018A.5010406@lists.privaterra.org> <444C80F8.3010005@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: On 24/04/2006, at 7:40 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Things could be different if you were to build a global, > complex representative structure, but as long as this caucus is > meant to > be the "think-tank" of that handful of active people in the field, all > of us should be peers; and I think that we should not forget that the > Internet, even in the user rights advocacy field, has been up to now > very often, if not mostly, shaped by lonely active individuals. So, for example, the 100million-plus Internet users in China aren't here because... they're not active? Or that they're not interested in the rights of users? Or civil society doesn't exist there? Or there are too many people for them to be lonely? Or they're not individuals?... I'll be blunt with my opinion: if the IGC doesn't scale in capacity and diversity it won't be taken seriously. I think that assessment is in keeping with the annoyance expressed at the process of coordinating our IGF theme proposals. The "working methods" in place have not scaled, I don't see how they can be taken as being successful or not in need of significant change. Well, I can see that if the vision of civil society input into internet governance is 30-40 people setting the agenda then things are fine. But I would cast people's mind back to the comments by the Indian delegation at the presentation of the WGIG report where the question of CS legitimacy and representativeness has already been raised. From my point of view those criticisms will best be addressed by a strategy of fostering openness and participation - especially by NGOs working in the field. After all, NGOs are staffed and run by individuals who have gathered resources to further particular issues. In the political process they become markers of the ongoing relevance of particular issues (e.g. it's not from an individual who'll change their mind next week), or in some cases a proxy for a group of people interested in those issues. You can't write policy based on individuals. Well you can, when you're a small group of engineers and enthusiasts setting up a network. But to bring up the role of the individual in global policy participation (I mean process, not the idea of the individual in human rights) is pure ideology when so many of them are not here. We are talking about decisions that affect hundreds of millions of people! With a background in user experience testing, I've become very used to the idea that it's hard to know what the user is thinking without testing it. Because users behave surprisingly differently to oneself. I don't trust myself - or anyone on this list - to represent the rights of the individual user, whoever they are. Thus, my previous point about effective mechanisms for participation and accountability to our diverse constituency. "Over-organisation is counterproductive", it's true, but that statement also a common ideology among those who do well out of a laissez-faire setup and would prefer to not have to negotiate with different views. I couldn't care less about being an individual in this process. What I care about are the issues: human rights, development, diversity, etc. I'd be ecstatic if I didn't have to spend my time working on them, if there were NGOs on board who could use their capacity to do a better job than I do, if the IGC didn't need to exist because the issues were always on the table. I don't spend my time here because I want to be a part of 30-40 smart and active people: I am looking for a productive platform where my contributions can make a difference - and where other people working on them can make a difference. The combination of individualism and wanting fewer seats at the table seems to me to be the largest barrier to this being the kind of platform I think CS should represent. Regards Danny On 24/04/2006, at 7:43 PM, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > > Vittorio: > > I personally would be quite disturbed if the caucus took the road > of the organizational membership, similarly to the HR Caucus (which > however had some specific reasons for that, as pointed out before). > I would recommend that caucus members do not wear hats while > working here, and do not act as representatives of this or that > NGO, but as individual human beings. I think that we should not > forget that the Internet, even in the user rights advocacy field, > has been up to now very often, if not mostly, shaped by lonely > active individuals. I was already concerned by the idea of > organizational endorsements in our selection processes, as if names > put forward by organizations were for that very reason more > deserving of consideration. I would not be able to recognize myself > in this caucus any more, if it became practically dominated by a > few big NGOs. > > > > Wolfgang: > > I can only support Vittorio. Over-organization is counter- > productive, as you can see from the four years of ICANNs ALAC . > Vittorio, why you did not argue within ALAC when you chaired the > body as you do now? > > > > Regards > > > > wolfgang > > > > -- > Danny Butt > db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net > Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com > Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand > Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200 > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Apr 25 01:20:14 2006 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:20:14 +1000 (EST) Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060425052014.47610.qmail@web54101.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all I agree with Danny, but let's not also forget the digital divide that exists for the poor in the developed world in cities and remote areas including indigenous peoples, or for those with disabilities. cheers David --- Danny Butt wrote: > > > On 24/04/2006, at 7:40 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > Things could be different if you were to build a > global, > > complex representative structure, but as long as > this caucus is > > meant to > > be the "think-tank" of that handful of active > people in the field, all > > of us should be peers; and I think that we should > not forget that the > > Internet, even in the user rights advocacy field, > has been up to now > > very often, if not mostly, shaped by lonely active > individuals. > > > So, for example, the 100million-plus Internet users > in China aren't > here because... they're not active? Or that they're > not interested in > the rights of users? Or civil society doesn't exist > there? Or there > are too many people for them to be lonely? Or > they're not > individuals?... > > I'll be blunt with my opinion: if the IGC doesn't > scale in capacity > and diversity it won't be taken seriously. I think > that assessment is > in keeping with the annoyance expressed at the > process of > coordinating our IGF theme proposals. The "working > methods" in place > have not scaled, I don't see how they can be taken > as being > successful or not in need of significant change. > Well, I can see that > if the vision of civil society input into internet > governance is > 30-40 people setting the agenda then things are > fine. But I would > cast people's mind back to the comments by the > Indian delegation at > the presentation of the WGIG report where the > question of CS > legitimacy and representativeness has already been > raised. > > From my point of view those criticisms will best be > addressed by a > strategy of fostering openness and participation - > especially by NGOs > working in the field. After all, NGOs are staffed > and run by > individuals who have gathered resources to further > particular issues. > In the political process they become markers of the > ongoing relevance > of particular issues (e.g. it's not from an > individual who'll change > their mind next week), or in some cases a proxy for > a group of people > interested in those issues. > > You can't write policy based on individuals. Well > you can, when > you're a small group of engineers and enthusiasts > setting up a > network. But to bring up the role of the individual > in global policy > participation (I mean process, not the idea of the > individual in > human rights) is pure ideology when so many of them > are not here. We > are talking about decisions that affect hundreds of > millions of > people! With a background in user experience > testing, I've become > very used to the idea that it's hard to know what > the user is > thinking without testing it. Because users behave > surprisingly > differently to oneself. I don't trust myself - or > anyone on this list > - to represent the rights of the individual user, > whoever they are. > Thus, my previous point about effective mechanisms > for participation > and accountability to our diverse constituency. > "Over-organisation is > counterproductive", it's true, but that statement > also a common > ideology among those who do well out of a > laissez-faire setup and > would prefer to not have to negotiate with different > views. > > I couldn't care less about being an individual in > this process. What > I care about are the issues: human rights, > development, diversity, > etc. I'd be ecstatic if I didn't have to spend my > time working on > them, if there were NGOs on board who could use > their capacity to do > a better job than I do, if the IGC didn't need to > exist because the > issues were always on the table. I don't spend my > time here because I > want to be a part of 30-40 smart and active people: > I am looking for > a productive platform where my contributions can > make a difference - > and where other people working on them can make a > difference. The > combination of individualism and wanting fewer seats > at the table > seems to me to be the largest barrier to this being > the kind of > platform I think CS should represent. > > Regards > > Danny > > On 24/04/2006, at 7:43 PM, Wolfgang Kleinwächter > wrote: > > > > Vittorio: > > > > I personally would be quite disturbed if the > caucus took the road > > of the organizational membership, similarly to the > HR Caucus (which > > however had some specific reasons for that, as > pointed out before). > > I would recommend that caucus members do not wear > hats while > > working here, and do not act as representatives of > this or that > > NGO, but as individual human beings. I think that > we should not > > forget that the Internet, even in the user rights > advocacy field, > > has been up to now very often, if not mostly, > shaped by lonely > > active individuals. I was already concerned by the > idea of > > organizational endorsements in our selection > processes, as if names > > put forward by organizations were for that very > reason more > > deserving of consideration. I would not be able to > recognize myself > > in this caucus any more, if it became practically > dominated by a > > few big NGOs. > > > > > > > > Wolfgang: > > > > I can only support Vittorio. Over-organization is > counter- > > productive, as you can see from the four years of > ICANNs ALAC . > > Vittorio, why you did not argue within ALAC when > you chaired the > > body as you do now? > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > wolfgang > > > > > > > > -- > > Danny Butt > > db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net > > Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com > > Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New > Zealand > > Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200 > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Apr 25 04:36:30 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:36:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: References: <33600.65.173.208.2.1145830809.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> <444C018A.5010406@lists.privaterra.org> <444C80F8.3010005@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <791EC575-FF0C-4DFD-8EE0-135A9DBD2628@ras.eu.org> Hi all, I couldn't agree more with Danny on this issue, specially when it comes to transparency and accountability matters. I would also add a very important point: pushing for individuals rather than for collective positions (coming from structured or loose coalitions this doesn't matter) works towards a vision of CS which is only allowed to bring its expertise, i.e. CS viewed as a (fresh and cheap) bunch of consultants. I'm not saying that CS actors should be seen as 'representative', we all know that this is not the reality (and part of us even think this is not desirable from a democratic point of view). Legitimacy of CS actors maximal participation is multiplefold, but CS actors cannot derive their legitimacy from any 'representativeness'. As a matter of fact, the HR Caucus has also sent its 3 candidates to the MAG directly to the IGF secretariat (as we informed this list), but we have found important to accompany this nomination with comments on the MAG. I personally find amazing that CS groups has rushed into the candidate nomination process, without questioning anything of the MAG definition (very fuzzy, BTW) in its announcement by the IGF secretariat. CS actors who were in favor, during the February consultations, of a very light bureau/programme committee/ steering committee/MAG should at least have naturally questioned this final choice. I some of you did send comments on this to the IGF, I'd be interested in reading them, since I don't know if this will be put on line on the IGF website. I'll send the HR caucus comments to the IGF secretariat in a next message to this list. I wanted to wait until I make a translation of it into French, but unfortunately I've found no time since April 18 for that. Best, Meryem Le 25 avr. 06 à 04:31, Danny Butt a écrit : > > > On 24/04/2006, at 7:40 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> Things could be different if you were to build a global, >> complex representative structure, but as long as this caucus is >> meant to >> be the "think-tank" of that handful of active people in the field, >> all >> of us should be peers; and I think that we should not forget that the >> Internet, even in the user rights advocacy field, has been up to now >> very often, if not mostly, shaped by lonely active individuals. > > > So, for example, the 100million-plus Internet users in China aren't > here because... they're not active? Or that they're not interested in > the rights of users? Or civil society doesn't exist there? Or there > are too many people for them to be lonely? Or they're not > individuals?... > > I'll be blunt with my opinion: if the IGC doesn't scale in capacity > and diversity it won't be taken seriously. I think that assessment is > in keeping with the annoyance expressed at the process of > coordinating our IGF theme proposals. The "working methods" in place > have not scaled, I don't see how they can be taken as being > successful or not in need of significant change. Well, I can see that > if the vision of civil society input into internet governance is > 30-40 people setting the agenda then things are fine. But I would > cast people's mind back to the comments by the Indian delegation at > the presentation of the WGIG report where the question of CS > legitimacy and representativeness has already been raised. > > From my point of view those criticisms will best be addressed by a > strategy of fostering openness and participation - especially by NGOs > working in the field. After all, NGOs are staffed and run by > individuals who have gathered resources to further particular issues. > In the political process they become markers of the ongoing relevance > of particular issues (e.g. it's not from an individual who'll change > their mind next week), or in some cases a proxy for a group of people > interested in those issues. > > You can't write policy based on individuals. Well you can, when > you're a small group of engineers and enthusiasts setting up a > network. But to bring up the role of the individual in global policy > participation (I mean process, not the idea of the individual in > human rights) is pure ideology when so many of them are not here. We > are talking about decisions that affect hundreds of millions of > people! With a background in user experience testing, I've become > very used to the idea that it's hard to know what the user is > thinking without testing it. Because users behave surprisingly > differently to oneself. I don't trust myself - or anyone on this list > - to represent the rights of the individual user, whoever they are. > Thus, my previous point about effective mechanisms for participation > and accountability to our diverse constituency. "Over-organisation is > counterproductive", it's true, but that statement also a common > ideology among those who do well out of a laissez-faire setup and > would prefer to not have to negotiate with different views. > > I couldn't care less about being an individual in this process. What > I care about are the issues: human rights, development, diversity, > etc. I'd be ecstatic if I didn't have to spend my time working on > them, if there were NGOs on board who could use their capacity to do > a better job than I do, if the IGC didn't need to exist because the > issues were always on the table. I don't spend my time here because I > want to be a part of 30-40 smart and active people: I am looking for > a productive platform where my contributions can make a difference - > and where other people working on them can make a difference. The > combination of individualism and wanting fewer seats at the table > seems to me to be the largest barrier to this being the kind of > platform I think CS should represent. > > Regards > > Danny > > On 24/04/2006, at 7:43 PM, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: >> >> Vittorio: >> >> I personally would be quite disturbed if the caucus took the road >> of the organizational membership, similarly to the HR Caucus (which >> however had some specific reasons for that, as pointed out before). >> I would recommend that caucus members do not wear hats while >> working here, and do not act as representatives of this or that >> NGO, but as individual human beings. I think that we should not >> forget that the Internet, even in the user rights advocacy field, >> has been up to now very often, if not mostly, shaped by lonely >> active individuals. I was already concerned by the idea of >> organizational endorsements in our selection processes, as if names >> put forward by organizations were for that very reason more >> deserving of consideration. I would not be able to recognize myself >> in this caucus any more, if it became practically dominated by a >> few big NGOs. >> >> >> >> Wolfgang: >> >> I can only support Vittorio. Over-organization is counter- >> productive, as you can see from the four years of ICANNs ALAC . >> Vittorio, why you did not argue within ALAC when you chaired the >> body as you do now? >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> >> -- >> Danny Butt >> db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net >> Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com >> Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand >> Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200 >> > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Apr 25 04:40:34 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:40:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] HR Caucus comments on the MAG Message-ID: Hi again, As I've said in a previous message, these comments on the MAG have been sent by the HR Caucus to the IGF secretariat, together with its 3 candidates nominations to the MAG, on April 18. Best, Meryem ====== Internet Governance Forum Nomination and comments in relation to the MAG WSIS Civil Society Human Rights Caucus April 18, 2006 Introduction The WSIS Civil Society Human Rights Caucus (HR Caucus) has been active in the WSIS framework since its creation in 2002, and currently consists of more than 65 national and international human rights organizations. As stressed in the HR Caucus contribution to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) of 31 March 2006, the caucus has decided to remain involved in post-WSIS developments. This involvement includes both the IGF activities and the post-WSIS Action lines developments. The baseline of HR Caucus’ work is to secure that any information society policy respect and protect human rights and the rule of law. This includes civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights, and the right to development. Nomination of candidates for the IGF Advisory Group (MAG) As stressed time and again during the WSIS process, and in the WSIS outcomes from both the Geneva and Tunis Summit, human rights are foundational to the development of the information society. It is thus crucial that the WSIS follow up mechanisms address and include human rights expertise and experience. Any information society policy must comply with international human rights standards, and seek to advance the realization of these in order to make the political goals of WSIS a reality for all. In order to secure human rights expertise within the MAG and support for HR Caucus concerns as expressed in its contribution to IGF substantive agenda setting, the HR Caucus would like to nominate the following three candidates, which are all active members of the HR Caucus (in alphabetic order). - Robin D. Gross - Rikke Frank Joergensen - Cedric Laurant The full nomination information is attached to this document. Comments on the mandate and process around the MAG The HR Caucus wishes to point to some critical areas in relation to the mandate and process around the MAG, which should be addressed as soon as possible in order to secure well-defined and transparent modalities for the MAG including its interaction with the IGF. The MAG mandate The precise role and responsibility of the MAG is not clear at the moment. For instance is it unclear to which extent the group will primarily facilitate the convening of the first Internet Governance Forum in terms of process, or whether it will be decisive in selecting and prioritizing issues for the forum. The HR Caucus would like to stress that the existence of the MAG should not prevent the necessary openness of the IGF to potential discussions on all issues that need coordinated governance, through an ongoing process organized around thematic working groups and the holding of dedicated workshops. In other words, the HR Caucus believes that the MAG should by no mean become the central and major place of the IGF activities. Also, the mandate of the members is somewhat unclear. On the one hand it is a group of experts selected in their personal capacity, thus not representing any constituency, on the other hand the members are explicitly said to represent various stakeholder groups, but with no specification on what this implies in terms of coordination and communication to and with this stakeholder group. If not addressed explicitly and up-front, these inaccuracies might lead to failures in transparency and accountability of the MAG and its members, with the risk of undermining their legitimacy. The HR Caucus therefore recommends that a term of reference paper for the MAG and its members, addressing these issues, is conducted and distributed as soon as possible Selection of MAG members In order to secure an open and transparent process, the HR Caucus urges that the nominations received by the IGF and the criteria for selection of MAG members are made public. This is in line with current standards for good governance. Language Information on the IGF and MAG process has so far primarily been carried out in English (see www.intgovforum.gov), leaving aside non- English speakers. The HR Caucus recommends that, as a minimum, information should be provided in other UN languages. Funding There is currently no information available regarding funding to participate in the MAG (travel etc.).This poses a serious problem, especially for less developed countries and for small organizations from around the world. The HR Caucus urge that information on funding is included in the MAG term of reference mentioned above, including some means for assistance for smaller organizations. Information on the WSIS CS HR Caucus and Contact Points Website: http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis Mailing list public archives: http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/ hr-wsis/list/ Co-chairs: - Rikke Frank Joergensen The Danish Institute for Human Rights, Denmark rfj at humanrights.dk - Meryem Marzouki Imaginons un Réseau Internet Solidaire, France Meryem.Marzouki at iris.sgdg.org _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Apr 25 05:08:59 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:08:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] HR Caucus comments on the MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <524D8AA0-0EAB-4A20-8188-126B74B274E3@ras.eu.org> Me again:) I'd like to add that these comments sent to the IGF secretariat are "soft" (since this is kind of an official process) and doesn't address CS internal issues. If you're interested in that, you can refer to some mail exchanges on the HR caucus list, mostly in the following messages: - http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/list/2006/msg00386.html - http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/list/2006/msg00389.html - http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/list/2006/msg00390.html - http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/list/2006/msg00391.html - http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/list/2006/msg00392.html Meryem Le 25 avr. 06 à 10:40, Meryem Marzouki a écrit : > Hi again, > > As I've said in a previous message, these comments on the MAG have > been sent by the HR Caucus to the IGF secretariat, together with its > 3 candidates nominations to the MAG, on April 18. > Best, > Meryem > ====== > Internet Governance Forum > Nomination and comments in relation to the MAG > WSIS Civil Society Human Rights Caucus > April 18, 2006 > > Introduction > The WSIS Civil Society Human Rights Caucus (HR Caucus) has been > active in the WSIS framework since its creation in 2002, and > currently consists of more than 65 national and international human > rights organizations. As stressed in the HR Caucus contribution to > the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) of 31 March 2006, the caucus has > decided to remain involved in post-WSIS developments. This > involvement includes both the IGF activities and the post-WSIS Action > lines developments. > > The baseline of HR Caucus’ work is to secure that any information > society policy respect and protect human rights and the rule of law. > This includes civil and political rights as well as economic, social > and cultural rights, and the right to development. > > Nomination of candidates for the IGF Advisory Group (MAG) > As stressed time and again during the WSIS process, and in the WSIS > outcomes from both the Geneva and Tunis Summit, human rights are > foundational to the development of the information society. > It is thus crucial that the WSIS follow up mechanisms address and > include human rights expertise and experience. Any information > society policy must comply with international human rights standards, > and seek to advance the realization of these in order to make the > political goals of WSIS a reality for all. > > In order to secure human rights expertise within the MAG and support > for HR Caucus concerns as expressed in its contribution to IGF > substantive agenda setting, the HR Caucus would like to nominate the > following three candidates, which are all active members of the HR > Caucus (in alphabetic order). > - Robin D. Gross > - Rikke Frank Joergensen > - Cedric Laurant > The full nomination information is attached to this document. > > Comments on the mandate and process around the MAG > The HR Caucus wishes to point to some critical areas in relation to > the mandate and process around the MAG, which should be addressed as > soon as possible in order to secure well-defined and transparent > modalities for the MAG including its interaction with the IGF. > > The MAG mandate > The precise role and responsibility of the MAG is not clear at the > moment. For instance is it unclear to which extent the group will > primarily facilitate the convening of the first Internet Governance > Forum in terms of process, or whether it will be decisive in > selecting and prioritizing issues for the forum. The HR Caucus would > like to stress that the existence of the MAG should not prevent the > necessary openness of the IGF to potential discussions on all issues > that need coordinated governance, through an ongoing process > organized around thematic working groups and the holding of dedicated > workshops. In other words, the HR Caucus believes that the MAG should > by no mean become the central and major place of the IGF activities. > Also, the mandate of the members is somewhat unclear. On the one hand > it is a group of experts selected in their personal capacity, thus > not representing any constituency, on the other hand the members are > explicitly said to represent various stakeholder groups, but with no > specification on what this implies in terms of coordination and > communication to and with this stakeholder group. If not addressed > explicitly and up-front, these inaccuracies might lead to failures in > transparency and accountability of the MAG and its members, with the > risk of undermining their legitimacy. > The HR Caucus therefore recommends that a term of reference paper for > the MAG and its members, addressing these issues, is conducted and > distributed as soon as possible > > Selection of MAG members > In order to secure an open and transparent process, the HR Caucus > urges that the nominations received by the IGF and the criteria for > selection of MAG members are made public. This is in line with > current standards for good governance. > > Language > Information on the IGF and MAG process has so far primarily been > carried out in English (see www.intgovforum.gov), leaving aside non- > English speakers. The HR Caucus recommends that, as a minimum, > information should be provided in other UN languages. > > Funding > There is currently no information available regarding funding to > participate in the MAG (travel etc.).This poses a serious problem, > especially for less developed countries and for small organizations > from around the world. > The HR Caucus urge that information on funding is included in the MAG > term of reference mentioned above, including some means for > assistance for smaller organizations. > > Information on the WSIS CS HR Caucus and Contact Points > Website: http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis > Mailing list public archives: http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/ > hr-wsis/list/ > Co-chairs: > - Rikke Frank Joergensen > The Danish Institute for Human Rights, Denmark > rfj at humanrights.dk > - Meryem Marzouki > Imaginons un Réseau Internet Solidaire, France > Meryem.Marzouki at iris.sgdg.org > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From nb at bollow.ch Tue Apr 25 04:20:14 2006 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:20:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] HR Caucus comments on the MAG In-Reply-To: (message from Meryem Marzouki on Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:40:34 +0200) References: Message-ID: <20060425082014.862C41FD4E4@quill.bollow.ch> Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Funding > There is currently no information available regarding funding to > participate in the MAG (travel etc.).This poses a serious problem, > especially for less developed countries and for small organizations > from around the world. Switzerland has offered to cover travel expenses for MAG delegates from developing countries if the MAG meetings take place in Geneva. (This was announced at the reception at the consultations in Geneva in February.) > The HR Caucus urge that information on funding is included in the MAG > term of reference mentioned above, including some means for > assistance for smaller organizations. Yes, those are very important points, too. Greetings, Norbert. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Tue Apr 25 06:17:57 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:17:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: References: <33600.65.173.208.2.1145830809.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> <444C018A.5010406@lists.privaterra.org> <444C80F8.3010005@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <444DF755.9070408@bertola.eu.org> Danny Butt ha scritto: > I'll be blunt with my opinion: if the IGC doesn't scale in capacity > and diversity it won't be taken seriously. I think that assessment is > in keeping with the annoyance expressed at the process of > coordinating our IGF theme proposals. The "working methods" in place > have not scaled, I don't see how they can be taken as being > successful or not in need of significant change. I agree with you, especially about the need for working methods that can be more transparent and inclusive, and can spare us criticism by the Indian delegation. At the same time, I think that structure follows reality, and not the opposite. I would be absolutely happy if we started to have 100, 1000, 10000 individuals (either in personal capacity, or representing NGOs - doesn't make a difference to this point) willing to actively contribute. Reality is, we only get 30-40, and so we should create a structure that works fine for that, while being ready to scale up if the group starts to grow, and ensuring that no capture can happen, and that the initial group cannot prevent others from joining. > From my point of view those criticisms will best be addressed by a > strategy of fostering openness and participation - especially by NGOs > working in the field. And on this I disagree; or, at least, it depends on the issue. For example, if you take development issues, then I'm sure that most people active on them will do so through a NGO. On the other hand, if you take spam, I'm sure that most people active on the issue do so as individuals (and often, even when supporting rights-oriented, civil society positions, do so through the private sector). Now one could say that all these engineers working on spam and advocating user rights should go away and leave that activity to the "professionals" finally coming from the NGOs, but I'm sure that such a position wouldn't pass the "giggle test". Nor I don't think anyone is really thinking that. > You can't write policy based on individuals. Well you can, when > you're a small group of engineers and enthusiasts setting up a > network. But to bring up the role of the individual in global policy > participation (I mean process, not the idea of the individual in > human rights) is pure ideology when so many of them are not here. We > are talking about decisions that affect hundreds of millions of > people! Sure, but then, in which sense a NGO that involves 10 or 1000 people is more "representative" of those millions people than individual activists? By definition, civil society groups don't represent people - that is what governments do, at least those who get elected after huge, costly and well defined democratic processes. Civil society groups advocate ideas that many people have, which is a very different thing. You can't weigh civil society, you can only listen to it because it says smart things and also puts them in practice. > and accountability to our diverse constituency. "Over-organisation is > counterproductive", it's true, but that statement also a common > ideology among those who do well out of a laissez-faire setup and > would prefer to not have to negotiate with different views. Uhm, I'm sure you're thinking at someone else here, right? > I couldn't care less about being an individual in this process. What > I care about are the issues: human rights, development, diversity, > etc. I'd be ecstatic if I didn't have to spend my time working on > them, if there were NGOs on board who could use their capacity to do > a better job than I do, if the IGC didn't need to exist because the > issues were always on the table. I don't spend my time here because I > want to be a part of 30-40 smart and active people: I am looking for > a productive platform where my contributions can make a difference - That's my aim as well. That's why I am overly sensitive to this matter: I don't want to be told again "sorry, you can't participate because you're not a member of an NGO", as for part of the Summit. I'm not doing this as a job, I'm doing this for passion in my spare time. I respect those people who do it as a job (also because I'm sure that they do it firstly for passion, and only secondly because it's their job) but I don't want to remain a second class citizen of the caucus. So I think that this caucus must be very clear on whether it wants to be the participation venue for NGOs, or the venue both for NGOs and for us weird people from the "Internet community". I'd love to see people such as, say, Karl Auerbach, or some of the free software / free content / hacktivism bunch, active in our group; without that kind of people, I think that this caucus will only be able to supply a very partial and incomplete view of the "non-private non-governmental" sector out there on the net. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Tue Apr 25 11:29:14 2006 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:29:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] individuals & groups Message-ID: Hi Danny, everyone, Having accomplished the significant administrative task of proving we can still be a mailing list with a coordinator - that only took 6 months : ) - I agree it is time to look to longer term, more fundamental issues. I think we need to step back some and think more about the Internet Governance Forum as a new international institution, other ongoing Internet governance processes, and our individual and collective CS policy goals. And how they relate to this caucus. Personally I will admit to being comfortable in the current non-structure, kind of fun to watch the foodfights if people aren't usually aiming at you. But I also recognize that even non-institutions evolve in response to the changing landscape around them. And here it is starting to feel like a caucus in the political sense, even if by current design it is an extremely amorphous and slow acting politiical animal. Whether it needs to become a different kind of beast, or spawn several new sub-species to deal with additional ongoing Internet governance isssues in a coordinated fashion, is the open question. I list a few more below and my first answers, reserving the right to change my mind : ) Should 'delegates' to the caucus from major NGOs have more formal expectations and privileges? (no, but they're welcome to help as much as they can) Does the caucus need a more formal outreach effort to groups and individuals worldwide? (yes of course - so you Danny & Vittorio should get to work on that asap : ) Can it 'issue' position statements in the name of the collectivity or only for individual members of the IGC? (yes when rough consensus reached, falling back to listed indivudal members being free to ally using the IGCs brand name for identification if not endorsement purposes, when even rough consensus is not reached. I think that actually worked well in retrospect over the past couple years. Formal voting is an option for when suitable tools & issues are present. ) Whether/if budget should be sought, etc etc - (no comment, IGP also has its hand out: ) are some of the agenda items to consider. I have previously argued for the IETF as perhaps the right mental model for comparison. Since we're talking about (re-)fashioning the global political architecture around the Internet. So we're individual members, perhaps backed by organizations. Obviously the analogy breaks down at some point but if you compare the IETF post-commercial Internet launch to its earlier incarnations, the IETF had to scale and deal with many more issues and demands - but also being careful to draw the line at what was not its responsibility. That's the challenge here, to define what the IGC should do versus what others should do. While defining wht the IGF should be. In an 'architectural' way that leaves everyoine flexibility for the future but delineates roles and expectations now. (Then the IGF is more of an 'ICANN-like' structure with governments and business throwing their weight around. And of course the challenge is to exert enough counter-weight to not be crushed as has happened to some on this list more than a few times over the years in other venues. One of whcih I just named) This also suggests that Avri's election by acclimation - and by proving her merit by successfully managing the Nomcom - is perfectly reasonable in an organization in which expertise is a prime currency and source of credibility. Kind of like...how someone gets to lead IETF working groups or the organization itself. A volunteer mailing list can only do so much, but in certain circumstances more than other forms of organization. There's a lot of reasons IETF stayed as squishy and virtual in structure as it has. Is the IGC sustainable as is into an era in which it is interacting with a new UN institution? Avri's answer is no, and on that I think she is right. But what the IGC caucus will look like versus any number of alternatives including new specialized cross-group coordinatinng mechanisms around the issues settled on as part of the IGF's version 1.0 agenda - well that's still a little fuzzy in my crystal ball. During this transition period we should all keep patting Avri on the back - and maybe pitch in with a shoulder or more as Avri does her Sisyphean imitation to get us to a new collective point of rough consensus on the above & more - in a mere few months! : ) Lee PS: Oh yeah in the midst of that we need to be communicating/aiding our 'reps' on the MAG about what CS wants to see at the agenda-setting 1st IGF meeting. One more miinor matter to focus on! Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Danny Butt 4/24/2006 10:31 PM >>> On 24/04/2006, at 7:40 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Things could be different if you were to build a global, > complex representative structure, but as long as this caucus is > meant to > be the "think-tank" of that handful of active people in the field, all > of us should be peers; and I think that we should not forget that the > Internet, even in the user rights advocacy field, has been up to now > very often, if not mostly, shaped by lonely active individuals. So, for example, the 100million-plus Internet users in China aren't here because... they're not active? Or that they're not interested in the rights of users? Or civil society doesn't exist there? Or there are too many people for them to be lonely? Or they're not individuals?... I'll be blunt with my opinion: if the IGC doesn't scale in capacity and diversity it won't be taken seriously. I think that assessment is in keeping with the annoyance expressed at the process of coordinating our IGF theme proposals. The "working methods" in place have not scaled, I don't see how they can be taken as being successful or not in need of significant change. Well, I can see that if the vision of civil society input into internet governance is 30-40 people setting the agenda then things are fine. But I would cast people's mind back to the comments by the Indian delegation at the presentation of the WGIG report where the question of CS legitimacy and representativeness has already been raised. From my point of view those criticisms will best be addressed by a strategy of fostering openness and participation - especially by NGOs working in the field. After all, NGOs are staffed and run by individuals who have gathered resources to further particular issues. In the political process they become markers of the ongoing relevance of particular issues (e.g. it's not from an individual who'll change their mind next week), or in some cases a proxy for a group of people interested in those issues. You can't write policy based on individuals. Well you can, when you're a small group of engineers and enthusiasts setting up a network. But to bring up the role of the individual in global policy participation (I mean process, not the idea of the individual in human rights) is pure ideology when so many of them are not here. We are talking about decisions that affect hundreds of millions of people! With a background in user experience testing, I've become very used to the idea that it's hard to know what the user is thinking without testing it. Because users behave surprisingly differently to oneself. I don't trust myself - or anyone on this list - to represent the rights of the individual user, whoever they are. Thus, my previous point about effective mechanisms for participation and accountability to our diverse constituency. "Over-organisation is counterproductive", it's true, but that statement also a common ideology among those who do well out of a laissez-faire setup and would prefer to not have to negotiate with different views. I couldn't care less about being an individual in this process. What I care about are the issues: human rights, development, diversity, etc. I'd be ecstatic if I didn't have to spend my time working on them, if there were NGOs on board who could use their capacity to do a better job than I do, if the IGC didn't need to exist because the issues were always on the table. I don't spend my time here because I want to be a part of 30-40 smart and active people: I am looking for a productive platform where my contributions can make a difference - and where other people working on them can make a difference. The combination of individualism and wanting fewer seats at the table seems to me to be the largest barrier to this being the kind of platform I think CS should represent. Regards Danny On 24/04/2006, at 7:43 PM, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > > Vittorio: > > I personally would be quite disturbed if the caucus took the road > of the organizational membership, similarly to the HR Caucus (which > however had some specific reasons for that, as pointed out before). > I would recommend that caucus members do not wear hats while > working here, and do not act as representatives of this or that > NGO, but as individual human beings. I think that we should not > forget that the Internet, even in the user rights advocacy field, > has been up to now very often, if not mostly, shaped by lonely > active individuals. I was already concerned by the idea of > organizational endorsements in our selection processes, as if names > put forward by organizations were for that very reason more > deserving of consideration. I would not be able to recognize myself > in this caucus any more, if it became practically dominated by a > few big NGOs. > > > > Wolfgang: > > I can only support Vittorio. Over-organization is counter- > productive, as you can see from the four years of ICANNs ALAC . > Vittorio, why you did not argue within ALAC when you chaired the > body as you do now? > > > > Regards > > > > wolfgang > > > > -- > Danny Butt > db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net > Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com > Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand > Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200 > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Tue Apr 25 11:35:04 2006 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 08:35:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: <444DF755.9070408@bertola.eu.org> References: <33600.65.173.208.2.1145830809.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> <444C018A.5010406@lists.privaterra.org> <444C80F8.3010005@bertola.eu.org> <444DF755.9070408@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: My guess is that we'll see many more individuals interested in IGF than have been interested in ICANN. The scope of the agenda and the potential impact on individuals are both larger than in ICANN, so I expect to see many more people getting active. One thing that ICANN experience tells us though is that most individuals won't pay attention to this until the IGF actually convenes in Greece. When the press starts to cover the event, people will be interested. Our goal should be to have a mechanism for them to receive information, sign- up for participation, and provide input, if they wish, in place by the time the press wave hits in October. If we have resources for individuals when they become interested, we ought to be able to channel them into meaningful participatory roles and keep them interested over the long term. The role of individuals in governance issues is near and dear to my heart, and I'd be willing to volunteer to help with this issue. Bret > I would be absolutely happy if we started to have 100, 1000, 10000 > individuals (either in personal capacity, or representing NGOs - > doesn't > make a difference to this point) willing to actively contribute. > Reality > is, we only get 30-40, and so we should create a structure that works > fine for that, while being ready to scale up if the group starts to > grow, and ensuring that no capture can happen, and that the initial > group cannot prevent others from joining. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Tue Apr 25 11:40:21 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:40:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] individuals Message-ID: >>> Vittorio Bertola 4/25/2006 6:17:57 AM >>> >That's my aim as well. That's why I am overly sensitive to >this matter: I don't want to be told again "sorry, you can't >participate because you're not a member of an NGO" This is the core principle I where agree with Vittorio. It is self-defeating to set up a participation structure that is allegedly "representative," but when real people who want to participate come forward they find themselves blocked out by it. I see no inherent conflict between encouraging involvement by organized NGOs, who _may_ have broader support (or may not), and permitting the participation of motivated individuals. Many formal NGOs are little more than one - 5 motivated individuals anyway. We have to work with what we actually have. I have a very good conception about what we do have to work with, having done fairly systematic social science research on it. At this stage, we have about 500 CS actors who follow this loosely, about 200 who follow it regularly, and about 60 who are active. that's it. I also think we do not need to burden ourselves with the crushing thought that "We are talking about decisions that affect hundreds of millions of people!" Are we? I would say, rather, that we are talking about _participating_ in deliberations and discussions in a highly polycentric system that MAY lead to decisions (note the "s" on the end) by many different decisions makers that MAY affect hundreds of millions of people, but only via influence enacted in many different channels. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Apr 25 12:19:11 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 18:19:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: <444DF755.9070408@bertola.eu.org> References: <33600.65.173.208.2.1145830809.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> <444C018A.5010406@lists.privaterra.org> <444C80F8.3010005@bertola.eu.org> <444DF755.9070408@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: Le 25 avr. 06 à 12:17, Vittorio Bertola a écrit : > Sure, but then, in which sense a NGO that involves 10 or 1000 > people is > more "representative" of those millions people than individual > activists? They are not "representative", but the number of people they represent (i.e. their members, since they cannot claim to represent anyone beyond their membership) may be "significant", which is quite different from being "representative" (i.e. of CS). > By definition, civil society groups don't represent people - > that is what governments do, at least those who get elected after > huge, > costly and well defined democratic processes. Agree. > Civil society groups > advocate ideas that many people have, which is a very different thing. > You can't weigh civil society, you can only listen to it because it > says > smart things and also puts them in practice. No, that's not enough to make the difference (leaving aside the fact that these things may not be that smart, depending on the NGO/CS group:)). Individuals may also say smart things and put them into practice. The difference is elsewhere: NGOs/groups have - normally - a history of positions, actions, acts, etc. Their future positions, actions, acts, etc. are (normally) forseeable, according to their history, their principles, their objectives. And they are (normally) accountable. This is not the case with individuals, as Danny already explained. > That's my aim as well. That's why I am overly sensitive to this > matter: > I don't want to be told again "sorry, you can't participate because > you're not a member of an NGO", as for part of the Summit. That's not the point in this discussion. No one wants to exclude anyone here, and we're not discussing whether this caucus should have only NGOs as membership. > I'm not doing > this as a job, I'm doing this for passion in my spare time. Believe it or not, this is also my case for all my NGO activities, like many other people. We can discuss "professionalized NGOs", which would be a nice (and rather bloody:)) topic for this caucus, but that's not the point here. And there are other ways of being "paid" than earning a salary. Pleasure/passion might be another one, but there are many others ways of gratifications: an additional section on a CV, becoming part of CS jetset (as someone said in the early WSIS time), having a drink with Kofi Annan at a UN cocktail, who knows...: people have different perversions:)). That's simply to say that even doing it as a job or not doesn't necessarily make the difference. > So I think that this caucus must be very clear on whether it wants > to be > the participation venue for NGOs, or the venue both for NGOs and > for us > weird people from the "Internet community". What is this "Internet community"? Why would its supposed members be the only individuals allowed in this caucus? Why wouldn't any interested, or concerned if you prefer, individual (a.k.a. citizen) participate? In summary, is this distinction of "Internet community members" among all individuals introducing a kind of legitimacy, or even, if I might dare, a kind of representativeness? [rhetorically ironic or ironically rhetoric questions, I should better make this clear:))] Cheers, Meryem _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Apr 25 13:38:40 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:38:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: References: <33600.65.173.208.2.1145830809.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> <444C018A.5010406@lists.privaterra.org> <444C80F8.3010005@bertola.eu.org> <444DF755.9070408@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: On 25 apr 2006, at 12.19, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > Le 25 avr. 06 à 12:17, Vittorio Bertola a écrit : > >> Sure, but then, in which sense a NGO that involves 10 or 1000 >> people is >> more "representative" of those millions people than individual >> activists? > > They are not "representative", but the number of people they > represent (i.e. their members, since they cannot claim to represent > anyone beyond their membership) may be "significant", which is quite > different from being "representative" (i.e. of CS). I have occasionally looked at NGO's and tried to put their particpation into perspective. one of the questions I keep running into is how to distinguish between the degrees of NGO (1 person, 5, 100, 1000 people or an NGO of NGOs). And more then distinguishing, how does one give appropriate weight to the ideas of one vis a vis the other. Or are all NGOs equal? and how do universities, or the individuals at universities fit in? Going a step further, if there isn't a way to discriminate between the NGO of many and the NGO of few, then on what basis can one exclude Individuals, each of whom could fill papers and become an NGO (albeit easier in some countries then in others). Or are we looking for certification criteria for NGOs in CS, the way the ITU did in WSIS. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Tue Apr 25 14:27:11 2006 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:27:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c66895$defb8840$0501a8c0@CCKLLP.local> This was the only reason I attended the consultation in Geneva: to try to reserve a seat at the table for individuals. In my intervention, I noted that I was not from any government, not affiliated with any NGO and not part of any official civil society organization. I asked that that the IGF always welcome individuals with something to contribute. I was impressed that Disai, Kummer and a handful of individual from governments all welcomed me and said it was indeed their intention to keep the IGF open to individual participation. Bret -----Original Message----- >That's my aim as well. That's why I am overly sensitive to this matter: >I don't want to be told again "sorry, you can't participate because >you're not a member of an NGO" This is the core principle I where agree with Vittorio. It is self-defeating to set up a participation structure that is allegedly "representative," but when real people who want to participate come forward they find themselves blocked out by it. -----Original Message----- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4057 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Tue Apr 25 14:35:31 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:35:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: <000901c66895$defb8840$0501a8c0@CCKLLP.local> References: <000901c66895$defb8840$0501a8c0@CCKLLP.local> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060425143013.03c96c50@veni.com> At 11:27 AM 25.4.2006 '?.' -0700, Bret Fausett wrote: >This was the only reason I attended the consultation in Geneva: to try to >reserve a seat at the table for individuals. In my intervention, I noted >that I was not from any government, not affiliated with any NGO and not part >of any official civil society organization. Strange I've always thought of you as someone affiliated with some of those :-) I mean - really, I've never thought of you as an individual user. I've always thought of you as a lawyer, working with a private company. I thought you're also afiliated with the At-Large. veni -------------- 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 bfausett at internet.law.pro Tue Apr 25 14:52:17 2006 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:52:17 -0700 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001a01c66899$613adb50$0501a8c0@CCKLLP.local> Rather than finding a way to weigh NGOs/individuals, I'd rather articulate a set of principles by which we can measure whether their contributions benefit the public interest. In other words, can we measure the merit of the contributions rather than the size and legitimacy of the contribitor? -- Bret -----Original Message----- I have occasionally looked at NGO's and tried to put their particpation into perspective. one of the questions I keep running into is how to distinguish between the degrees of NGO (1 person, 5, 100, 1000 people or an NGO of NGOs). And more then distinguishing, how does one give appropriate weight to the ideas of one vis a vis the other. Or are all NGOs equal? and how do universities, or the individuals at universities fit in? Going a step further, if there isn't a way to discriminate between the NGO of many and the NGO of few, then on what basis can one exclude Individuals, each of whom could fill papers and become an NGO (albeit easier in some countries then in others). -----Original Message----- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4057 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 Tue Apr 25 15:45:53 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:45:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: <001a01c66899$613adb50$0501a8c0@CCKLLP.local> References: <001a01c66899$613adb50$0501a8c0@CCKLLP.local> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060425153847.035cef00@veni.com> At 11:52 AM 25.4.2006 '?.' -0700, Bret Fausett wrote: >Rather than finding a way to weigh NGOs/individuals, I'd rather articulate a >set of principles by which we can measure whether their contributions >benefit the public interest. In other words, can we measure the merit of the >contributions rather than the size and legitimacy of the contribitor? That's quite difficult judgement. Sometimes a sentence from here, and a sentence from there is more valualble than a paper from somewhere else. I, for a good known reason, always believed that it's important not to measure contributions, but actual things DONE. My country delegation has stated several times on during the WSIS meetings - before we solve the "global" Internet Governance problem, let's see who did what in their own country. So, will you try to measure ideas, actions, or results? best, Veni p.s. But on a previous topic, generally speaking, if an individual is good, he or she sooner or later will either create an NGO, or will join one. Or a government. Or a private company. Or (s)he has already done so. But, being a Bulgarian lawyer, I wouldn't dare to challenge you - an American (yet an US) lawyer on that ;) As for measuring individuals, I think every individual here is quite a person with great personality! (The author is humble exception, of course). I don't think anyone of us would like to "measure" the others, and the NGOs they work for / created / represent. v. > -- Bret > >-----Original Message----- >I have occasionally looked at NGO's and tried to put their particpation into >perspective. one of the questions I keep running into is how to distinguish >between the degrees of NGO (1 person, 5, 100, 1000 people or an NGO of >NGOs). And more then distinguishing, how does one give appropriate weight >to the ideas of one vis a vis the other. Or are all NGOs equal? and how do >universities, or the individuals at universities fit in? > >Going a step further, if there isn't a way to discriminate between the NGO >of many and the NGO of few, then on what basis can one exclude Individuals, >each of whom could fill papers and become an NGO (albeit easier in some >countries then in others). >-----Original Message----- > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.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 Tue Apr 25 16:11:29 2006 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:11:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: References: <33600.65.173.208.2.1145830809.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> <444C018A.5010406@lists.privaterra.org> <444C80F8.3010005@bertola.eu.org> <444DF755.9070408@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <444E8271.3050909@rits.org.br> My few cents on this, below... Avri Doria wrote: > On 25 apr 2006, at 12.19, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > I have occasionally looked at NGO's and tried to put their > particpation into perspective. one of the questions I keep running > into is how to distinguish between the degrees of NGO (1 person, 5, > 100, 1000 people or an NGO of NGOs). And more then distinguishing, > how does one give appropriate weight to the ideas of one vis a vis > the other. Or are all NGOs equal? and how do universities, or the > individuals at universities fit in? Fascinating question for us in Brazil, where there are more than half a million non-profit civil society organizations formally registered. :) This includes political parties, religious organizations, business associations (yes, these are non-profit too, although their mission is to help their companies make profits), soccer clubs, academic associations, more than 50,000 "social development" organizations (those which act in lobbying, advocacy, and carry out activities in environment, education, health, housing, economic leveraging and so on), many associations of organizations, thousands of associations of individuals etc etc etc. Tremendous diversity indeed. One thing for certain: they do represent people (or ensembles of organizations), be them their own members, or the constituencies they work with and who have legitimized them as such. They represent and have the right to do so by that legitimacy, and are recognized as such by the other instances of organization -- this is how organized civil society participates in governance, in public policy monitoring, in cauci and fora, and so on. This representation takes several forms -- including delegation for particular issues. For example, an association of NGOs might delegate to one of its members representation on a certain specialized issue on which this organization is a recognized expert, and this is quite common. We are talking about representation, not "significance" (whatever this means in this context...). If claims to representation of consituencies may at times be fake or precarious, this does not rule out the legitimacy of civil society representation in general. The quality of this representation (measured by effectiveness in the debates and influencing in decision making, by reporting back timely to their constituencies with transparency etc etc) might vary a lot, but it is still representation. rgds --c.a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Apr 25 16:48:29 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:48:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: References: <33600.65.173.208.2.1145830809.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> <444C018A.5010406@lists.privaterra.org> <444C80F8.3010005@bertola.eu.org> <444DF755.9070408@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <7FC8E94A-6D86-40BB-947B-1D01240DD3FE@ras.eu.org> Avri, Maybe it was not clear, but I think that one of my points in the message you're replying to was indeed that the significance of collective action w.r.t. individual action was not in such criteria. However, one cannot ignore that there is some significance in being 1000 rather than 10. But not that much in terms of legitimacy: some consumer (or other sorts of) organizations, e.g., have thousands of members because they deliver services to those who take their membership cards; however, it doesn't mean much when they speak in their names. The difference is neither in the formal status/structure (as you perfectly said, one person - as a matter of fact, it needs at least two in France to set up a non profit - may fill papers), nor really in the number. Or in saying relevant things. Although each of this criteria may bring some kind of legitimacy. The real difference relies in accountability: one day or another, in some way or another, organizations (groups) acting collectively have to be accountable and to face its own records. You said yourself that you "have occasionally looked at NGO's and tried to put their particpation into perspective." Do you think you could ever say that you "have occasionally looked at individuals and tried to put their particpation into perspective." ? There relies the main difference, in my opinion. I hope - though am not sure of this - that I've made my point clearer. Meryem Le 25 avr. 06 à 19:38, Avri Doria a écrit : > > On 25 apr 2006, at 12.19, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> Le 25 avr. 06 à 12:17, Vittorio Bertola a écrit : >> >>> Sure, but then, in which sense a NGO that involves 10 or 1000 >>> people is >>> more "representative" of those millions people than individual >>> activists? >> >> They are not "representative", but the number of people they >> represent (i.e. their members, since they cannot claim to represent >> anyone beyond their membership) may be "significant", which is quite >> different from being "representative" (i.e. of CS). > > I have occasionally looked at NGO's and tried to put their > particpation into perspective. one of the questions I keep running > into is how to distinguish between the degrees of NGO (1 person, 5, > 100, 1000 people or an NGO of NGOs). And more then distinguishing, > how does one give appropriate weight to the ideas of one vis a vis > the other. Or are all NGOs equal? and how do universities, or the > individuals at universities fit in? > > Going a step further, if there isn't a way to discriminate between > the NGO of many and the NGO of few, then on what basis can one > exclude Individuals, each of whom could fill papers and become an NGO > (albeit easier in some countries then in others). > > Or are we looking for certification criteria for NGOs in CS, the way > the ITU did in WSIS. > > a. > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Apr 25 17:19:00 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:19:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: <7FC8E94A-6D86-40BB-947B-1D01240DD3FE@ras.eu.org> References: <33600.65.173.208.2.1145830809.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> <444C018A.5010406@lists.privaterra.org> <444C80F8.3010005@bertola.eu.org> <444DF755.9070408@bertola.eu.org> <7FC8E94A-6D86-40BB-947B-1D01240DD3FE@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: On 25 apr 2006, at 16.48, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > You said yourself that you "have occasionally looked at NGO's and > tried to put their particpation into perspective." > Do you think you could ever say that you "have occasionally looked at > individuals and tried to put their particpation into perspective." ? well, in a sense yes. when looking at NGOs the perspective i was trying to find, was vis a vis the individual and in comparison to other NGOs. also, with an individual I sometimes find myself trying to understand whether the individual is speaking for themselves as themselves, for themselves from a particular perspective they are putting on the sake of argument or advocacy, or as an individual acting in a role with some organization they may associate with. i have a similar issue when listening to those of us who associate with NGOs. are we speaking as individuals from our personal perspectives, as advocates for the NGO and its goals, as representatives of the NGO, as representatives of the NGO constituency. as members of the IGC and other lists, we belong to many groups and unless we tag every message we write with the hat we are wearing when we speak i think it is difficult to do more then, as i think Bret sort of says, try and determine whether the idea presented is understandable and something we can agree with from our perspective or from what we believe to be a valuable other perspective. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Apr 25 17:36:11 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:36:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] accountabilty In-Reply-To: <7FC8E94A-6D86-40BB-947B-1D01240DD3FE@ras.eu.org> References: <33600.65.173.208.2.1145830809.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> <444C018A.5010406@lists.privaterra.org> <444C80F8.3010005@bertola.eu.org> <444DF755.9070408@bertola.eu.org> <7FC8E94A-6D86-40BB-947B-1D01240DD3FE@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <85476A68-0677-423E-B202-DDFAC16F4D37@psg.com> On 25 apr 2006, at 16.48, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > The real difference relies in accountability: one day or another, in > some way or another, organizations (groups) acting collectively have > to be accountable and to face its own records. i guess i do not understand why an NGO is more accountable then an individual? In many cases given the laws of various lands, corporate/ collective entities can more easily escape accountability then can individuals - though i am sure this is different country by country. and in terms of reputation, one of the major currencies we have in group interactions, individuals seem more susceptible to this form of accountability then are the groups people belong to. if i say something outrageous or lie, isn't it me that suffers the resultant loss of credibility and not the university i work for or the NGO i am principle in? i have a lot of respect for the strength of collective actions, especially when a collective makes a unified front to achieve some purpose. i do not, however, understand it as having any special accountability - except for that attached to its leaders and/or spokespersons. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Apr 25 19:02:41 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 01:02:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: References: <33600.65.173.208.2.1145830809.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> <444C018A.5010406@lists.privaterra.org> <444C80F8.3010005@bertola.eu.org> <444DF755.9070408@bertola.eu.org> <7FC8E94A-6D86-40BB-947B-1D01240DD3FE@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: Le 25 avr. 06 à 23:19, Avri Doria a écrit : > > On 25 apr 2006, at 16.48, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> You said yourself that you "have occasionally looked at NGO's and >> tried to put their particpation into perspective." >> Do you think you could ever say that you "have occasionally looked at >> individuals and tried to put their particpation into perspective." ? > > well, in a sense yes. when looking at NGOs the perspective i was > trying to find, was vis a vis the individual and in comparison to > other NGOs. I meant that you can do (and make public) research and assessment on this or that NGO (or group). You cannot do that on this or that individual (well, if you do, at best s/he will answer that s/he changed his/her mind, and at worst s/he will feel personally attacked and do what s/he has to do). > i have a similar issue when listening to those of us who associate > with NGOs. are we speaking as individuals from our personal > perspectives, as advocates for the NGO and its goals, as > representatives of the NGO, as representatives of the NGO > constituency. We cannot discuss only by way of official press releases:) More seriously, when the situation may create confusion, I think people should make things clear. > as members of the IGC and other lists, we belong to many groups and We belong to many groups but we are not the spokespersons of all these groups. When you proposed yourself to act as chair for IGC, you have said that you were a member of 4 NGOs (and thanks BTW for this much appreciated transparency, specially as regards IGF and GNSO, it is not that common!): ISOC, CPSR, ACLU and AI. But you're not representative of any of them, as far as I know: so, this is different. You also asked many times about universities status, or the status of individuals at universities (I hope you at least meant staff, not students:). I was surprised that you compared NGOs and universities, since this makes no sense to me. I work for the CNRS (the French public scientific research center). It has about 26000 employees, among them approximately 12000 researchers like me, in all scientifc fields, from physics to social sciences: how could I ever think that I represent this structure, which purpose, in addition, has nothing to do with the topic. How could even the CNRS president, or board, claim he/it has a position on Internet governance? This is simply far beyond its mandate. I understand that many individuals has been accredited to WSIS through their universities. But this was only an ad hoc solution to get accredited, since there was no accreditation for individuals. This doesn't mean this is the university speaking as soon as they say a word. Meryem _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Tue Apr 25 21:42:29 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 18:42:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] accountabilty In-Reply-To: <85476A68-0677-423E-B202-DDFAC16F4D37@psg.com> Message-ID: <20060426014229.92243.qmail@web54710.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, Indeed, though I've understood that by accountability Meryem seemed to mean reporting (in its various dimensions), I also miss the difference _in nature_ between individual's and NGO's (or any collective entity, for that matter) accountability. Individuals, "representing" nobody but themselves, are accountable to nobody but themeselves - and they are, as Avri rightly pointed out. The only difference (of scale) is that with NGOs, claiming to be the "meaningful" voice of many, they need continuously to relate the "voice" to "many," in order to ensure that the voice still means that of the many - that "voice" and "many" are and remain the same self, so to speak. Mawaki --- Avri Doria wrote: > > i guess i do not understand why an NGO is more accountable then an > individual? In many cases given the laws of various lands, corporate/ > collective entities can more easily escape accountability then can > individuals - though i am sure this is different country by country. > >>>> > i have a lot of respect for the strength of collective actions, > especially when a collective makes a unified front to achieve some > purpose. i do not, however, understand it as having any special > accountability - except for that attached to its leaders and/or > spokespersons. > > 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 gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Tue Apr 25 22:06:20 2006 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:06:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] individuals Message-ID: Isn't the original issue that Danny raised, whether this group is THE Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus or is it "30-40 self-selected "experts" interested in discussing internet governance at a global level"... Certainly, no one has any objections or queries concerning the latter, but since this group has presented itself, among others, to the organizers of the IGF as the former (and one has the feeling that the folks in the IGF may for their own purposes be only too pleased to accept that self-definition) then one must assume that there are some responsibilities that are attendant on that designation including not simply being the latter. As an example, and as for the significance of some of those responsibilities, I certainly don't claim to "represent" the Global Telecentre Alliance (GTA) but also I could if appropriate (and as I've been asked to do) pass along information concerning Internet Governance issues through the various tiers of the various internetworked organizations that form the GTA and probably get a pretty good sense of what some at least of the folks working in Internet issues on the ground in "developmental" contexts are thinking about some of the upcoming issues--and if we are discussing a network of networks inclusive of say around 10,000 telecenters with say, 1000 people associated in some way with each of these then we may be talking about a fairly significant number of people, certainly enough under some circumstances for some politicians to pay serious attention. Certainly it is the case that the folks I'm in touch with would have little direct interest in some of the issues, passing interest in some, and a direct and even passionate interest in others (and at this point it would be difficult for me to determine which would be which... And while these folks may not have an interest in participating directly or even paying much attention to most of the IGF discussions/issues, at some point they may most usefully be consulted (as for example, when issues of implementation on the ground might be discussed or when some sort of "political" influence might be useful in promoting one or another side of an argument). So while recognizing that the linkages both ways might not be of continuous significance, having them available if and when the need arises is not only desirable it seems to me to be under any possible set of circumstances, a necessity if CS is to be taken seriously at all in forums such as the IGF. What I also know, is that proceeding to present oneself as THE CS-IGC in the absence of including the opportunity for real participation by those folks and the others working in Civil Society and ICTs on the ground as and where they might feel it useful/necessary is an act of significant misrepresentation. So, if, as I think would be broadly desirable, the IGC would like to remain known as the IGC rather than simply Bill, Wolfgang, Vittorio, Avri, Janette, Milton and friends then there are certain prices to be paid which includes a serious attempt at outreach and a broad strategy of inclusion whether or not that outreach or inclusion has any short term or immediate significance in terms of numbers of participants on the email list! That the effort is being made, the channels being created and left open and the welcome being seriously and honestly made available may for all intents and purposes be sufficient if or until issues arise when such channels and welcomes may mean something of significant value for all concerned. In the absence of these initiatives, one can expect a lot more and rather more effective arguments parallel to those of the Indian Ambassador, and quite honestly, I would question the motives of any of those countries/ambassadors who weren't themselves asking precisely those questions. MG -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: April 25, 2006 8:52 PM To: 'Avri Doria'; 'Internet Governance Caucus' Subject: Re: [governance] individuals Rather than finding a way to weigh NGOs/individuals, I'd rather articulate a set of principles by which we can measure whether their contributions benefit the public interest. In other words, can we measure the merit of the contributions rather than the size and legitimacy of the contribitor? -- Bret -----Original Message----- I have occasionally looked at NGO's and tried to put their particpation into perspective. one of the questions I keep running into is how to distinguish between the degrees of NGO (1 person, 5, 100, 1000 people or an NGO of NGOs). And more then distinguishing, how does one give appropriate weight to the ideas of one vis a vis the other. Or are all NGOs equal? and how do universities, or the individuals at universities fit in? Going a step further, if there isn't a way to discriminate between the NGO of many and the NGO of few, then on what basis can one exclude Individuals, each of whom could fill papers and become an NGO (albeit easier in some countries then in others). -----Original Message----- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bda at bazu.org Tue Apr 25 22:47:30 2006 From: bda at bazu.org (Bram Dov Abramson) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:47:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello, I hope you'll forgive the intrusion -- I'm a subscriber but one who allowed the digests to pile up, recently took the plunge to delete all the unread ones, and am now occasionally delving into this very involved organisational discussion. With regard to representing NGOs/CSOs rather than simply acting as a self-selected group of experts with the time and cultural fit to hold a conversation, though, I think that Carlos Afonso's is probably a good point... >One thing for certain: they do represent people (or ensembles >of organizations), be them their own members, or the >constituencies they work with and who have legitimized them as >such. They represent and have the right to do so by that >legitimacy ... as are Meryem Merzouki's re accountability. Which, I suspect, goes also to an organisation's nature as a thing formed for a specific purpose, unlike people who are, one hopes, eclectic. The mission of an NGO does surely impose *some* discipline on its representatives to speak in its best interests, and its failure to do so surely speaks to its credibility generally. An example: >I work for the CNRS (the French public scientific research center). >It has about 26000 employees, among them approximately 12000 >researchers like me, in all scientifc fields, from physics to social >sciences: how could I ever think that I represent this structure, >which purpose, in addition, has nothing to do with the topic. How >could even the CNRS president, or board, claim he/it has a position >on Internet governance? But the CNRS' leadership must nonetheless feel that it must steer it some direction as opposed to another, and that certain policy directions help and hurt those directions. The wide availability of Internet connectivity to research institutions, perhaps. Opposition to any policy which significantly hindered the use of the Internet as a research tool, probably. And so forth. Here in Quebec universities are neutral and certainly do not ascribe particular views to their professors -- but their administrations are nonetheless very active in the policy process, lobbying for increased university funding and so forth. Perhaps there is an analogy there. Michael Gurstein writes: >As an example, and as for the significance of some of those >responsibilities, I certainly don't claim to "represent" the Global >Telecentre Alliance (GTA) but also I could if appropriate (and as I've >been asked to do) pass along information concerning Internet Governance >issues through the various tiers of the various internetworked >organizations that form the GTA and probably get a pretty good sense of >what some at least of the folks working in Internet issues on the >ground in "developmental" contexts are thinking To be an effective representative, though, is surely at least in part to understand clearly what the GTA's interests are, and to advocate on behalf of them? >What I also know, is that proceeding to present oneself as THE >CS-IGC in the absence of including the opportunity for real >participation by those folks and the others working in Civil >Society and ICTs on the ground as and where they might feel it >useful/necessary is an act of significant misrepresentation. Well, to state the obvious, one way in which people delegate authority is by electing representatives. Perhaps this was addressed in one of those e-mails I deleted? But in case not. Imagine if some definition was agreed upon for "civil society organisation"; if any such CSO could submit to the IGF an any-length list of voters; if any voter could appear on, I don't know, zero to two voters' lists; if an election was so convened to represent civil society. The process itself is no doubt clunky and subject to streamlining and tamper-proofing and so forth -- you'd want rules in place that avoided CSOs which simply signed people up in order to give them a vote (or would you?), and there are lots of ways to do that, too -- but that's hardly the point, I think. >So, if, as I think would be broadly desirable, the IGC would like to >remain known as the IGC rather than simply Bill, Wolfgang, Vittorio, >Avri, Janette, Milton and friends then there are certain prices to be >paid which includes a serious attempt at outreach and a broad strategy >of inclusion whether or not that outreach or inclusion has any short >term or immediate significance in terms of numbers of participants on >the email list! Elections are not necessarily antithetical to reasoned thought from a disinterested or thoughtful standpoint, I would add. That's why parliaments have ministries in which live civil servants who do the grunt work. And why organisations often have secretariats. Elections, on the one hand; a staff, on the other. I suspect I'm treading heavily into ICANN territory here -- but, as an non-initiate: why not? cheers Bram _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Wed Apr 26 01:01:02 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 01:01:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] individuals Message-ID: > On 25 apr 2006, at 16.48, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > You said yourself that you "have occasionally looked at NGO's and > tried to put their particpation into perspective." > Do you think you could ever say that you "have occasionally looked at > individuals and tried to put their particpation into perspective." ? Yes, of course, anyone who participates in online or f2f politics stats to learn that there are patterns to individual participation -- some are obviously in it for themselves, others follow the herd, others have peculiar, idiosyncratic dramas that they insist on acting out, etc. >I meant that you can do (and make public) research and assessment on >this or that NGO (or group). You cannot do that on this or that >individual (well, if you do, at best s/he will answer that s/he Your assertion is so obviously not true that you yourself had to immediately backtrack from it. We can and do perform research and assessment on individuals. What are their positions? Where do they get their money? What have they done in the past? >changed his/her mind, and at worst s/he will feel personally attacked >and do what s/he has to do). And you don't think those who run organizations feel personally attacked when you research and assess them? Let me tell you a few stories about our case studies of NGOs involved in transnational cip when we are in private.... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Wed Apr 26 02:11:34 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 02:11:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] individuals Message-ID: >>> "Gurstein, Michael" 04/25/06 10:06 PM >>> >Isn't the original issue that Danny raised, whether this group >is THE Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus or is it "30-40 >self-selected "experts" interested in discussing internet >governance at a global level"... It is both. At the moment, those two categories are, as a matter of fact and necessity, indistinguishable. This whole thing runs on donated time and donated everything else. That means that those who step forward persistently and credibly in this small CS community inevitably gain the status to assume specific roles that the institution's designers set aside for "civil society." At this juncture, therefore, the most "representational" thing we can do is to make participation as easy amd open as possible for those who care enough about this venue to want to affect it. We achieve a foothold in the UN system, encourage others to join us, and grow and build. If you think that's imperfect, you're right. Just tell me what's a better institutional mechanism. A top-down structure imposed on us by governments? No thanks. Assigning people more influence/votes based on how many members they claim to have in their organization? No thanks. What, then? Let me take your own example of the Telecenters, Michael, to explain my perspective. You mention the GTA and that it constitutes a "fairly significant number of people." So the first question is, where are these people? You suggest an answer: >And while these folks may not have an interest in participating directly >or even paying much attention to most of the IGF discussions/issues, at >some point they may most usefully be consulted (as for example, when >issues of implementation on the ground might be discussed or when >some sort of "political" influence might be useful in promoting one or >another side of an argument). And what is your proposed mechanism for achieving this involvement, this consultation? >there are certain prices to be >paid which includes a serious attempt at outreach and a broad strategy >of inclusion whether or not that outreach or inclusion has any short >term or immediate significance in terms of numbers of participants on >the email list! That the effort is being made, the channels being I have a very practical frame of mind, and I read your statement above as calling for work to be done. Outreach is work. Time-consuming, expensive (travel, publicity) work. My question, being a practical sort of person, is who is going to do this work? There are two possible interpretations of your comment. One is that you are volunteering to do that work, in which case I find it a welcome comment. The other is that you are not willing to do it, but you expect others in this group to do it. As you can understand, that comment is not only unwelcome, but part of what seems to me a pointless conversation. The stakes surrounding the answer to this question are raised by your clear implication that you will question the legitimacy of this caucus if that work isn't done. So who should do it? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Apr 26 04:17:24 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:17:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1AD54C78-DDCF-406C-B6F5-F31B1F70C61D@ras.eu.org> Le 26 avr. 06 à 07:01, Milton Mueller a écrit : >> On 25 apr 2006, at 16.48, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >> >> I meant that you can do (and make public) research and assessment on >> this or that NGO (or group). You cannot do that on this or that >> individual (well, if you do, at best s/he will answer that s/he > > Your assertion is so obviously not true that you yourself had to > immediately backtrack from it. We can and do perform research and > assessment on individuals. What are their positions? Where do they > get their money? What have they done in the past? Oh really? I'm eager to read your research and assessment on, let's say, individuals involved in the IGC as individuals, provided that it does look neither like a tabloid (which I'm not interested in), nor like a law suit (which should be sent to someone else). >> changed his/her mind, and at worst s/he will feel personally attacked >> and do what s/he has to do). > > And you don't think those who run organizations feel personally > attacked when you research and assess them? That's not the point since _you_ haven't attacked them personally. It's their problem if they feel they _are_ (or if they actually are) the organization. In any case, they should answer as an organization, i.e. w.r.t. their publicly told purpose and objectives. > Let me tell you a few stories about our case studies of NGOs > involved in transnational cip when we are in private.... What? Some NGO leaders gossip? I assume the NGO research and assessment part has been published, so what remains that could only be told in private must be gossip. More seriously, if you can only tell that in private, aren't you getting to my point on accountability? [BTW, I already know what you'd tell me, at least regarding some of them:)] _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Apr 26 05:23:06 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:23:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Le 26 avr. 06 à 04:47, Bram Dov Abramson a écrit : > ... as are Meryem Merzouki's re accountability. Which, I suspect, > goes > also to an organisation's nature as a thing formed for a specific > purpose, unlike people who are, one hopes, eclectic. Right. > But the CNRS' leadership must nonetheless feel that it must steer it > some direction as opposed to another, and that certain policy > directions > help and hurt those directions. The wide availability of Internet > connectivity to research institutions, perhaps. Opposition to any > policy which significantly hindered the use of the Internet as a > research tool, probably. Yes. A well known example is the "Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities", which has been signed by many universities and research centers all around the world, including the CNRS. However, there is certainly a difference (in scale as well as in nature) between taking a position on a particular issue, directly relevant to the missions, and engage in general public policy process (specially at the UN level, specially on an as broad and as not well defined issue as "internet governance"). And, to come back to the original point: in any case, the position of a university or research center is never represented in such circumstances by any of its professor/researcher (except, obviously, when duly mandated for this). The point would be made clearer if we replace "university" by "big company": the fact that a person is working for this or that company certainly doesn't give her, without specific mandate, any authority to speak in the company's name (and the person would be soon fired if she claims that:)). Meryem _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Wed Apr 26 06:11:36 2006 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 06:11:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] individuals Message-ID: Okay Milton, suppose that I (and a group of my friends and acquaintances) decide that you and your friends and acquaintances are interlopers in thrall to the great deepdishpizza god and that I and mine are the one true followers of the CS faith and thus should be recognized as THE CS-IGC. What do we do then-- a. arm wrestle for the designation, b. wait for the powers that be to decide who are the one true followers of the faith (based on their, of course, completely disinterested criteria). c. leave it for the "marketplace of ideas" to determine--where you folks speak the dominant language (and the various specialized "we group defining" sub-languages/dialects), are well known acquaintances of the powers that be, have access to budgets that allow you to show up as and where necessary to be recognized as the true adherents etc.etc.--all of this of course, taking us immediately back to Danny's question about, what about everybody else who isn't showing up (for whatever reason and certainly just for the moment)...e.g. the 100 million Chinese Internet users, or whomever... d. other And for extra points, explain why the responsibility of coming up with an appropriately inclusive mechanism should not be on those who are making claims of legitimacy (in part on the implied basis that the process is already appropriately inclusive i.e that this is, as you suggest, THE CS-IGC), even though a reasonable number of people observing the process are insisting that it isn't. MG -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller Sent: April 26, 2006 8:12 AM To: Gurstein, Michael; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: gta at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: Re: [governance] individuals >>> "Gurstein, Michael" 04/25/06 10:06 PM >>> >Isn't the original issue that Danny raised, whether this group >is THE Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus or is it "30-40 >self-selected "experts" interested in discussing internet >governance at a global level"... It is both. At the moment, those two categories are, as a matter of fact and necessity, indistinguishable. This whole thing runs on donated time and donated everything else. That means that those who step forward persistently and credibly in this small CS community inevitably gain the status to assume specific roles that the institution's designers set aside for "civil society." At this juncture, therefore, the most "representational" thing we can do is to make participation as easy amd open as possible for those who care enough about this venue to want to affect it. We achieve a foothold in the UN system, encourage others to join us, and grow and build. If you think that's imperfect, you're right. Just tell me what's a better institutional mechanism. A top-down structure imposed on us by governments? No thanks. Assigning people more influence/votes based on how many members they claim to have in their organization? No thanks. What, then? Let me take your own example of the Telecenters, Michael, to explain my perspective. You mention the GTA and that it constitutes a "fairly significant number of people." So the first question is, where are these people? You suggest an answer: >And while these folks may not have an interest in participating >directly or even paying much attention to most of the IGF >discussions/issues, at some point they may most usefully be consulted >(as for example, when issues of implementation on the ground might be >discussed or when some sort of "political" influence might be useful in >promoting one or another side of an argument). And what is your proposed mechanism for achieving this involvement, this consultation? >there are certain prices to be >paid which includes a serious attempt at outreach and a broad strategy >of inclusion whether or not that outreach or inclusion has any short >term or immediate significance in terms of numbers of participants on >the email list! That the effort is being made, the channels being I have a very practical frame of mind, and I read your statement above as calling for work to be done. Outreach is work. Time-consuming, expensive (travel, publicity) work. My question, being a practical sort of person, is who is going to do this work? There are two possible interpretations of your comment. One is that you are volunteering to do that work, in which case I find it a welcome comment. The other is that you are not willing to do it, but you expect others in this group to do it. As you can understand, that comment is not only unwelcome, but part of what seems to me a pointless conversation. The stakes surrounding the answer to this question are raised by your clear implication that you will question the legitimacy of this caucus if that work isn't done. So who should do it? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Apr 26 06:40:32 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:40:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: <000901c66895$defb8840$0501a8c0@CCKLLP.local> References: <000901c66895$defb8840$0501a8c0@CCKLLP.local> Message-ID: <444F4E20.2000100@bertola.eu.org> Bret Fausett ha scritto: > This was the only reason I attended the consultation in Geneva: to try to > reserve a seat at the table for individuals. In my intervention, I noted > that I was not from any government, not affiliated with any NGO and not part > of any official civil society organization. I asked that that the IGF always > welcome individuals with something to contribute. I was impressed that Disai, > Kummer and a handful of individual from governments all welcomed me and said > it was indeed their intention to keep the IGF open to individual > participation. Actually, I purposedly avoided to list any affiliation on the application form (actually I didn't have any suitable one, except "former WGIG member", which was actually used in some past occasions). When I got to Geneva, my badge said "Italian civil society" - I guess they still have to fill up the field in the form with something. In the past, I tried to submit some documents as individual for PrepCom-3, and they were rejected. However, I resubmitted the same documents for the Geneva consultations, and they were accepted without problems, even if they were published on the website at the very end of the list (contributions are still sorted according to the "importance" of submitters, governments first). I think that, in the present situation, it depends on who you are talking to. On another point of yours: > Rather than finding a way to weigh NGOs/individuals, I'd rather articulate a > set of principles by which we can measure whether their contributions > benefit the public interest. In other words, can we measure the merit of the > contributions rather than the size and legitimacy of the contribitor? It depends on what you are seeking measurements for. If it needs to be a threshold for admission, then I think that you should just keep it open for everyone, and, as you pointed out, even encourage new people to participate. Otherwise (e.g. if you want to weigh people, for example to select representatives) I think that each member will do a personal evaluation, and we sum it up by voting. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Apr 26 06:41:55 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:41:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <444F4E73.4080700@bertola.eu.org> Bram Dov Abramson ha scritto: > But in case not. Imagine if some definition was agreed upon for "civil > society organisation"; if any such CSO could submit to the IGF an > any-length list of voters; if any voter could appear on, I don't know, > zero to two voters' lists; if an election was so convened to represent > civil society. This is actually one of the ideas we had in mind for the "ICANN At Large 2.0" effort. However, there are a couple of fundamental problems, since you can't trust all CSOs to produce true lists of voters without cheating, as their weight in the process is directly proportional to how many people they put onto their list. First, it is very difficult to verify that all people on a CSO list are real, and not just fake names and email accounts; and second, they could nonetheless fill up their lists with real individuals that don't even know about being there. (You also have the conceptual issue of individuals being members of more than one CSO and so possibly counting more than once.) So either you centralize the creation of the voters roll, which solves the second problem, but leaves you with the first; or give up on this model altogether, acknowledge that you can't reliably assess the size of NGOs, and go by a "one org one vote" model, which however leaves the way open to the opposite type of cheating, i.e. people forming many fake tiny organizations just to gain votes. For the European At Large, I've been proposing a model (yet to be discussed) which is sort of half and half, e.g. organizations can accredit themselves and appoint one representative each; individuals can accredit themselves (with their identity being verified at random with simple manageable procedures) and appoint one representative every X of them. (If you're really interested, the link is http://bertola.eu.org/euralo_principles.pdf ) However, as I said before, this is a structure conceived for a purely representational model, in which the main objective of the structure is to elect representatives at the topmost level (which would be elected by the council of intermediate reps composed as above). This caucus is very different, as its structure should be more focused on consensus building and position making, rather than on selecting representatives; and as its size is supposed to be (at least for the foreseeable future) much smaller than the At Large. So, personally, I think that we can still get away with the "group of peer individuals" structure, which is the simplest one, and the easiest to manage. > The process itself is no doubt clunky and subject to streamlining and > tamper-proofing and so forth -- you'd want rules in place that avoided > CSOs which simply signed people up in order to give them a vote (or > would you?), and there are lots of ways to do that, too -- but that's > hardly the point, I think. It exactly is the point: the process seems nice and clean in theory, but gets more and more difficult as you get into practicalities, up to the point of becoming almost impossible to implement with the scarce means of civil society. (Sure, if you had access to each country's official population records, or if you had people paid to deal with checking identities, or if you could get all domain resellers of the world to authenticate their customers... but you don't.) -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Wed Apr 26 07:27:16 2006 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 07:27:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] individuals Message-ID: Bram and others, To get a bit theoretical here, I think there are 3 separate models at play... 1. the "representational" model which is inherently centralizing, and top down i.e. top-down institutions set up rules that require others to similarly produce top-down "representatives" (however they are selected) to "speak on behalf" of others i.e. constituencies. 2. the "market" model which is inherently competitive and individualistic i.e. where individuals (or collectivities operating as pseudo individuals) compete in some sort of marketplace for some sort of set of rewards (in this case influence on global public policy) and where "success" in this marketplace depends on access to unequally distributed resources -- e.g. time, travel money, the appropriate language for discourse, "air time", or as folks here seem to be suggesting the inherent value/significance of the ideas or expertise of individuals. 3. the "network" model which is I think the appropriate one here as it allows for (and even enables) cooperation/collaboration/coalition building and is in itself neutral as to whether the participating elements (nodes) are individuals or institutions or collectivities of some other variety... It seems to me that CS must necessarily operate by means of the "network" model as a collectivity of links and nodes sharing some minimal set of common positions and working as the need arises towards some common goals. The problem as I see it is that for whatever reason, CS in this instance is operating on the basis of the second (market) model where "access to influence" i.e. participation in the IGF/designation as THE CS-IGC is a direct product of one's access to the above mentioned resources (time, travel money, ideas etc.). In fact IMHO CS should necessarily be operating on the basis of the third model since this is the means by which a true measure of inclusion and broad based consensus building can be achieved, particularly because as everyone apparently agrees, the first (representational model) is too expensive and cumbersome to work in this context. MG -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Bram Dov Abramson Sent: April 26, 2006 4:48 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] individuals Michael Gurstein writes: >As an example, and as for the significance of some of those >responsibilities, I certainly don't claim to "represent" the Global >Telecentre Alliance (GTA) but also I could if appropriate (and as I've >been asked to do) pass along information concerning Internet Governance >issues through the various tiers of the various internetworked >organizations that form the GTA and probably get a pretty good sense of >what some at least of the folks working in Internet issues on the >ground in "developmental" contexts are thinking To be an effective representative, though, is surely at least in part to understand clearly what the GTA's interests are, and to advocate on behalf of them? >What I also know, is that proceeding to present oneself as THE CS-IGC >in the absence of including the opportunity for real participation by >those folks and the others working in Civil Society and ICTs on the >ground as and where they might feel it useful/necessary is an act of >significant misrepresentation. Well, to state the obvious, one way in which people delegate authority is by electing representatives. Perhaps this was addressed in one of those e-mails I deleted? But in case not. Imagine if some definition was agreed upon for "civil society organisation"; if any such CSO could submit to the IGF an any-length list of voters; if any voter could appear on, I don't know, zero to two voters' lists; if an election was so convened to represent civil society. The process itself is no doubt clunky and subject to streamlining and tamper-proofing and so forth -- you'd want rules in place that avoided CSOs which simply signed people up in order to give them a vote (or would you?), and there are lots of ways to do that, too -- but that's hardly the point, I think. >So, if, as I think would be broadly desirable, the IGC would like to >remain known as the IGC rather than simply Bill, Wolfgang, Vittorio, >Avri, Janette, Milton and friends then there are certain prices to be >paid which includes a serious attempt at outreach and a broad strategy >of inclusion whether or not that outreach or inclusion has any short >term or immediate significance in terms of numbers of participants on >the email list! Elections are not necessarily antithetical to reasoned thought from a disinterested or thoughtful standpoint, I would add. That's why parliaments have ministries in which live civil servants who do the grunt work. And why organisations often have secretariats. Elections, on the one hand; a staff, on the other. I suspect I'm treading heavily into ICANN territory here -- but, as an non-initiate: why not? cheers Bram _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Wed Apr 26 08:09:04 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:09:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Substantive agenda - New entries posted.. Message-ID: <444F62E0.4010702@lists.privaterra.org> The entries below have been posted on the substantive agenda section of the IGF webpage. http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions_sa.htm Quickly going through the documents, it think it might good to get people's comments on the texts. Of particular interest is "matrix of issues" document where CS texts are mentioned - however I think there are gaps. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 -- International Chamber of Commerce/Coordinating Committee of Business Interlocutors (ICC/CCBI) 30 March 2006 [pdf] - http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/CCBIICC31March.pdf 25 April 2006 http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/ICC%20CCBI%20Preliminary%20criteria%20IGF%20topics%2025Apr06.pdf,,- Matrix of issues related to the Internet and organizations dealing with them http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/Updated_matrix_Internet_rel.doc _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Apr 26 08:35:38 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:35:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51B2BEA3-53A0-4C73-BD19-AEC6E5223C63@psg.com> Hi, I think the model breakdown is useful. And i agree with a preference for the network model. The academic and network architect in me, makes it tempting to get theoretical and argue that a network where a node can be either an individual of another node of individuals is a good thing, but I will avoid that. I think it is important though that it is a model that works in that the both the individuals and the NGO have the opportunity to participate and the individual who is part of an NGO can participate both directly and indirectly through the NGO, giving the NGO extra weight by virtue of it multiple levels of participation in the network. I am not sure sure though that I understand how you decide that CS- IGC as currently constituted more as model 2 (market place ruled by the few who control resources) then 3 (cooperation/collaboration/ coalition). While I would not argue that things are perfect, hence my desire to see a bit or reorganization and charter writing, elements of the IGC's actuality lead me to think that at least we are trying to achieve model 3: - Most discussions and decisions are made via email, which for all its clunkiness is as available to everyone as possible in today's world. - often individuals from very different backgrounds and perspectives work together in loose and ad-hoc coalitions to get things done. - travel for many to events in Geneva and elsewhere is subsidized for those from the developing world, though certainly not to the extent one could wish for. In terms of language, yes, English is still the language of least common denominator. The translation service provided for the plenary list is a good addition, and is something we should consider trying to get for this caucus, though finances is an issue in doing so. And to get financing i think we need to define ourselves, our goals and our methods. I personally agree that outreach is a critical function, but argue that it is not something that is ever fully achieved, i.e. we can never do enough. but I think this caucus does do outreach. e.g. without arguing that the IGC was the one true voice of CS, the caucus did do outreach when selecting its nominees for the IGF multistakeholder advisory group. And while not assuming that sending notification to the plenary was enough we sent to many other lists and asked people to pass it on (the network model - i.e. use of broadcast and epidemic routing mechanism). We need to do more and need to do it all the time. I personally think that this conversation on the list on our identity is another form of outreach to the silent members of the list. In my mind it is an attempt to find out what we need to do to be more open to those who had enough interest in the subject to sign up for the list yet who haven't found the way open for their participation - for whatever reasons. but as I said i agree we need to do more outreach, and i think need to have some members who think enough of outreach to put some focus into the ways in which it can be done effectively. having been brought up in the open list world where an open list was considered to be the best way to openness and for reaching out, i have learned since becoming invovled in civil society that this is not adequate. i still don't know what it take to achieve sufficient opennes and outreach and am hoing these conversations brings that out. other then multiple language capability - which is still difficult (either we all learn multiple languages or we need automatic translators), what is needed? a. On 26 apr 2006, at 07.27, Gurstein, Michael wrote: > To get a bit theoretical here, I think there are 3 separate models at > play... > 1. the "representational" model which is inherently > centralizing, and top down i.e. top-down institutions set up rules > that > require others to similarly produce top-down > "representatives" (however > they are selected) to "speak on behalf" of others i.e. constituencies. > > 2. the "market" model which is inherently competitive and > individualistic i.e. where individuals (or collectivities operating as > pseudo individuals) compete in some sort of marketplace for some > sort of > set of rewards (in this case influence on global public policy) and > where "success" in this marketplace depends on access to unequally > distributed resources -- e.g. time, travel money, the appropriate > language for discourse, "air time", or as folks here seem to be > suggesting the inherent value/significance of the ideas or > expertise of > individuals. > > 3. the "network" model which is I think the appropriate one here > as it allows for (and even enables) cooperation/collaboration/ > coalition > building and is in itself neutral as to whether the participating > elements (nodes) are individuals or institutions or collectivities of > some other variety... > > It seems to me that CS must necessarily operate by means of the > "network" model as a collectivity of links and nodes sharing some > minimal set of common positions and working as the need arises towards > some common goals. > > The problem as I see it is that for whatever reason, CS in this > instance > is operating on the basis of the second (market) model where > "access to > influence" i.e. participation in the IGF/designation as THE CS-IGC > is a > direct product of one's access to the above mentioned resources (time, > travel money, ideas etc.). In fact IMHO CS should necessarily be > operating on the basis of the third model since this is the means by > which a true measure of inclusion and broad based consensus > building can > be achieved, particularly because as everyone apparently agrees, the > first (representational model) is too expensive and cumbersome to work > in this context. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Apr 26 08:58:35 2006 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 09:58:35 -0300 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <444F6E7B.5080706@rits.org.br> On a very limited basis, we do operate on the network model. Limited because, although there are no direct barriers to entry in this net, there are de facto barriers or restrictions like: lack of specific interest on the subject (or assumption that an involved CS member who supposedly knows about the subject is representing us well, just because he/she/it is defending positions we seem to agree with); lack of resources to be present (in some cases, we need more than one to handle pressing issues and ensuing hundreds of messages and docs, not to speak of lack of travel money for face-to-face meetings); idiomatic barriers (the Southern hemisphere does not speak English or French etc), and so on. As a result, this net ends up dominated by a relatively small group of regulars who are able to circumvent these and other barriers -- and most of them remain there almost by default because the CS constituencies who have any interest on the subject and cannot participate directly are somehow satisfied with (or at least accepting) what they are doing. So, within this sea of imperfections and limits, we work as a network (the other meaning of an open caucus) and we try to be as transparent as possible (through our electronic list in English)... --c.a. Gurstein, Michael wrote: > Bram and others, > > To get a bit theoretical here, I think there are 3 separate models at > play... > 1. the "representational" model which is inherently > centralizing, and top down i.e. top-down institutions set up rules that > require others to similarly produce top-down "representatives" (however > they are selected) to "speak on behalf" of others i.e. constituencies. > > 2. the "market" model which is inherently competitive and > individualistic i.e. where individuals (or collectivities operating as > pseudo individuals) compete in some sort of marketplace for some sort of > set of rewards (in this case influence on global public policy) and > where "success" in this marketplace depends on access to unequally > distributed resources -- e.g. time, travel money, the appropriate > language for discourse, "air time", or as folks here seem to be > suggesting the inherent value/significance of the ideas or expertise of > individuals. > > 3. the "network" model which is I think the appropriate one here > as it allows for (and even enables) cooperation/collaboration/coalition > building and is in itself neutral as to whether the participating > elements (nodes) are individuals or institutions or collectivities of > some other variety... > > It seems to me that CS must necessarily operate by means of the > "network" model as a collectivity of links and nodes sharing some > minimal set of common positions and working as the need arises towards > some common goals. > > The problem as I see it is that for whatever reason, CS in this instance > is operating on the basis of the second (market) model where "access to > influence" i.e. participation in the IGF/designation as THE CS-IGC is a > direct product of one's access to the above mentioned resources (time, > travel money, ideas etc.). In fact IMHO CS should necessarily be > operating on the basis of the third model since this is the means by > which a true measure of inclusion and broad based consensus building can > be achieved, particularly because as everyone apparently agrees, the > first (representational model) is too expensive and cumbersome to work > in this context. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Bram Dov > Abramson > Sent: April 26, 2006 4:48 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] individuals > > > Michael Gurstein writes: >> As an example, and as for the significance of some of those >> responsibilities, I certainly don't claim to "represent" the Global >> Telecentre Alliance (GTA) but also I could if appropriate (and as I've >> been asked to do) pass along information concerning Internet Governance > >> issues through the various tiers of the various internetworked >> organizations that form the GTA and probably get a pretty good sense of > >> what some at least of the folks working in Internet issues on the >> ground in "developmental" contexts are thinking > > To be an effective representative, though, is surely at least in part to > understand clearly what the GTA's interests are, and to advocate on > behalf of them? > >> What I also know, is that proceeding to present oneself as THE CS-IGC >> in the absence of including the opportunity for real participation by >> those folks and the others working in Civil Society and ICTs on the >> ground as and where they might feel it useful/necessary is an act of >> significant misrepresentation. > > Well, to state the obvious, one way in which people delegate authority > is by electing representatives. Perhaps this was addressed in one of > those e-mails I deleted? > > But in case not. Imagine if some definition was agreed upon for "civil > society organisation"; if any such CSO could submit to the IGF an > any-length list of voters; if any voter could appear on, I don't know, > zero to two voters' lists; if an election was so convened to represent > civil society. > > The process itself is no doubt clunky and subject to streamlining and > tamper-proofing and so forth -- you'd want rules in place that avoided > CSOs which simply signed people up in order to give them a vote (or > would you?), and there are lots of ways to do that, too -- but that's > hardly the point, I think. > >> So, if, as I think would be broadly desirable, the IGC would like to >> remain known as the IGC rather than simply Bill, Wolfgang, Vittorio, >> Avri, Janette, Milton and friends then there are certain prices to be >> paid which includes a serious attempt at outreach and a broad strategy >> of inclusion whether or not that outreach or inclusion has any short >> term or immediate significance in terms of numbers of participants on >> the email list! > > Elections are not necessarily antithetical to reasoned thought from a > disinterested or thoughtful standpoint, I would add. That's why > parliaments have ministries in which live civil servants who do the > grunt work. And why organisations often have secretariats. Elections, > on the one hand; a staff, on the other. I suspect I'm treading heavily > into ICANN territory here -- but, as an non-initiate: why not? > > cheers > Bram > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br ******************************************** * Sacix -- distribuição Debian CDD Linux * * orientada a projetos de inclusão digital * * com software livre e de código aberto, * * mantida pela Rits em colaboração com o * * Coletivo Digital. * * Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br * ******************************************** _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Apr 26 12:57:23 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:57:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <444FA673.5070105@bertola.eu.org> Gurstein, Michael ha scritto: > Okay Milton, suppose that I (and a group of my friends and > acquaintances) decide that you and your friends and acquaintances are > interlopers in thrall to the great deepdishpizza god and that I and mine > are the one true followers of the CS faith and thus should be recognized > as THE CS-IGC. The recognition as "the" civil society venue for participation is something that (as you say in your following message) can only come from the top, e.g. from the entity that needs to recognize someone as "the". However, if you want this designation to be fair, it should bring with itself some requirements, such as open and non-discriminatory access to all potential members of the constituency that it is meant to gather, transparent and democratic internal procedures, anti-capture and pro-balance provisions, etc.; and usually, also the need for neutrality, i.e. "the" civil society venue does not take positions unless they are really and formally agreed by all, or almost all, participants, through well defined, accountable processes. To preempt the issue (and possible bad developments), we might go for b: > b. wait for the powers that be to decide who are the one true > followers of the faith (based on their, of course, completely > disinterested criteria) but at the same time come up in advance with a proposal for a new structure and a set of requirements that can collect broad support by all civil society participants in the process. However, nothing prevents us from going on with the present, multiple voice model - it might even prove better: maybe less compelling towards other stakeholders, but more open and less controversial. Actually, the only part of the story where you might really need "the" civil society entity is when you have to appoint representatives for the entire stakeholder group, while you might still work by ad-hoc coalitions on substance matters. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Wed Apr 26 13:03:15 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:03:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] contribution on substance In-Reply-To: <444FA673.5070105@bertola.eu.org> References: <444FA673.5070105@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060426130057.03f43c20@veni.com> Dear all, ISOC - Bulgaria has sent comments on the substantive agenda. You may read it at http://blog.veni.com Note the remark at the end, and then see it was published on the intgovforum.org - but only in the PDF format :-( best, Veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Apr 26 13:58:30 2006 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:58:30 -0300 Subject: [governance] contribution on substance In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060426130057.03f43c20@veni.com> References: <444FA673.5070105@bertola.eu.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20060426130057.03f43c20@veni.com> Message-ID: <444FB4C6.7010001@rits.org.br> Interesting document, Veni. Topic 2 is of special interest, as it explicitly defends the adoption of FOSS as much as possible as a matter of national policy (incidentally, using the "freedom of choice" argument usually used my M$ :)) -- this seems to be a consensus (please, folks, correct me if I am wrong) in the civil society cauci. I am not sure the IGF should (or could) start right away discussing topics (whatever their number). There is a lot of methodological, procedural issues to be dealt with which will not be solved from now to Athens, and which the IGF itself will have to handle "first thing in the morning". --c.a. Veni Markovski wrote: > Dear all, > ISOC - Bulgaria has sent comments on the substantive agenda. You may > read it at http://blog.veni.com > Note the remark at the end, and then see it was published on the > intgovforum.org - but only in the PDF format :-( > > best, > Veni > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > . > -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br ******************************************** * Sacix -- distribuição Debian CDD Linux * * orientada a projetos de inclusão digital * * com software livre e de código aberto, * * mantida pela Rits em colaboração com o * * Coletivo Digital. * * Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br * ******************************************** _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Wed Apr 26 14:25:50 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:25:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Since Saturday evening, I have been off the grid (rural Virginia, in the US). Upon returning it is clear I was quite mistaken that a partner, in guidance of the caucus through reorganization, would be either welcome or forthcoming. What matters (or at least motivates me) is for the caucus to emerge successfully, outfitted to be the partner that is expected, for IGF and beyond. In that regard. If the situation is gauged, not from the viewpoint of those presently participating, but from that of the governments with which the caucus would partner - Michael Gurstein has pointed the way IMO. At 10:06 PM -0400 4/25/06, Gurstein, Michael wrote: >... So, if ... the IGC would like to remain known as the IGC rather than simply Bill, Wolfgang, Vittorio, Avri, Janette, Milton and friends then there are certain [steps]... a broad strategy of inclusion ... If the caucus emerges as 'thirty or forty people' (Milton says sixty), any brand developed so far will be hard to sustain. Governments of course monitor this list, so they can see. Even among the thirty or forty/sixty, the participants are most lopsidedly from the West. Asia and the rest of the world are not only at least half the rest of the world's population, power centers are shifting in that direction. But bottom line: In a world of billions, a caucus that reflects the views of a tiny handful of individuals - when governments from all over the world will look for their citizens from their civil societies - will not sustain to be a legitimate partner for governments, I am afraid. This of course was Danny Butt's point, originally. Vittorio has, just now, suggested a way to continue with the 'old' model. AFAICS governments simply will not accord that legitimacy, for purposes of partnering in IGF. Lee McKnight raised the IETF as one possible model; I have been tempted there too, as said elsewhere. Lee also goes on, to scalability - a clear necessity, if the caucus is to be home to a larger group. My view is that the historical impossibility to contain net governance within the IETF is what has led to the present impasse, a la ICANN et al. (Your view may be different ...) That is - we have yet to find scalability for governance. So, we may have to look beyond the IETF model, also. Milton asks (paraphrased) the practical question, 'so how do we do the work, to bring in a much wider constituency?' It would seem the beginning of that answer lies in designing a caucus model that indeed will scale, and so be potentially attractive. Michael Gurstein has proposed a network model. Though Avri and Carlos have offered elegant support, I for one do not see any specifics as to what is such a model. What is the structure? Who does what to whom, when? How are practical matters dealt? How does it truly scale and garner legitimacy - certainly, the caucus is not there now ... And so forth. Quite a bit of 'so forth,' to get to sustainable, practicable structure and practice - particularly one that will invite participation by those many who are now absent and the acknowledgement by governments that this is 'legitimate.' Carlos Alfonso has, to my eye, offered the clearest, most particular and most helpful picture, as to how such organizations operate. So much so, that it is reproduced below. David At 5:11 PM -0300 4/25/06, Carlos Afonso wrote: >Fascinating question for us in Brazil, where there are more than half a million non-profit civil society organizations formally registered. :) This includes political parties, religious organizations, business associations (yes, these are non-profit too, although their mission is to help their companies make profits), soccer clubs, academic associations, more than 50,000 "social development" organizations (those which act in lobbying, advocacy, and carry out activities in environment, education, health, housing, economic leveraging and so on), many associations of organizations, thousands of associations of individuals etc etc etc. Tremendous diversity indeed. > >One thing for certain: they do represent people (or ensembles of organizations), be them their own members, or the constituencies they work with and who have legitimized them as such. They represent and have the right to do so by that legitimacy, and are recognized as such by the other instances of organization -- this is how organized civil society participates in governance, in public policy monitoring, in cauci and fora, and so on. This representation takes several forms -- including delegation for particular issues. For example, an association of NGOs might delegate to one of its members representation on a certain specialized issue on which this organization is a recognized expert, and this is quite common. > >We are talking about representation, not "significance" (whatever this means in this context...). > >If claims to representation of consituencies may at times be fake or precarious, this does not rule out the legitimacy of civil society representation in general. The quality of this representation (measured by effectiveness in the debates and influencing in decision making, by reporting back timely to their constituencies with transparency etc etc) might vary a lot, but it is still representation. > >rgds > >--c.a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Wed Apr 26 14:29:07 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:29:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] contribution on substance In-Reply-To: <444FB4C6.7010001@rits.org.br> References: <444FA673.5070105@bertola.eu.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20060426130057.03f43c20@veni.com> <444FB4C6.7010001@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060426142735.03e3b7c8@veni.com> At 02:58 PM 26.4.2006 '?.' -0300, Carlos Afonso wrote: >Interesting document, Veni. Topic 2 is of special interest, as it >explicitly defends the adoption of FOSS as much as possible as a >matter of national policy (incidentally, using the "freedom of >choice" argument usually used my M$ :)) -- this seems to be a >consensus (please, folks, correct me if I am wrong) in the civil society cauci. > >I am not sure the IGF should (or could) start right away discussing >topics (whatever their number). There is a lot of methodological, >procedural issues to be dealt with which will not be solved from now >to Athens, and which the IGF itself will have to handle "first thing >in the morning". Dear Carlos, I will be able to tell you what the IGF will do on November 2nd, 2006. Whether there will be working groups, or similar. What's important for us, as a group, is not to be driven in process, but to produce substance. The rest will come, afterwards. veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From db at dannybutt.net Wed Apr 26 14:30:06 2006 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:30:06 +1200 Subject: [governance] outreach In-Reply-To: <51B2BEA3-53A0-4C73-BD19-AEC6E5223C63@psg.com> References: <51B2BEA3-53A0-4C73-BD19-AEC6E5223C63@psg.com> Message-ID: <4883ACAA-F182-4B73-95B1-9F12E4E11A93@dannybutt.net> I was about to make some more unhelpful comments on individuality, but they've been derailed by people taking the conversation in a constructive direction ;). Just note the bitten tongue and baleful glares :). Avri, I was just writing yesterday that I believe that the morphing of the IETF-style culture of consensus from the technical to the political (not that hard distinctions can be drawn, but you know what I mean) is responsible for the most pressing governance problems faced by the Internet. So I just wanted to acknowledge, given your extensive background in that culture, your willingness to put those methods on the table for discussion without pre-judgement. It's rare that any of us can do that with our habitual methods and I really appreciate it. Here's what I think I know about mailing lists and organisation: * A mailing list is narrow bandwidth for productive conversation. Even though it is slightly asynchronous, it is time-based and can only hold a couple of productive conversations at once (sometimes, not even that ;). I agree with Vittorio's comment that multivocality is desirable. The pressure needs to be taken off this list as the means by which issue contributions to the IGC take place. The list is very important for all the cross-cutting organisational issues like timelines, opportunities, etc. * Specialisation is required given the vast range of topics, expertise and orientations that could be considered "civil society". Having each of us process and agree to every statement is inefficient and doesn't scale. And forced into the narrow bandwidth of the mailing list, disagreements and contests over framing crowd out the content (e.g. "right to development"). The specialisation should be among expertise/interest rather than people - I don't know how formal it needs to be to begin. But I think a coordinator-editor role on each of various issues could be useful as a loose structure. * Consensus can work when the scope is clear and there is broad agreement on what success might look like. That is true for some technical protocols, but it is almost never true for political issues. Again, given the scope of CS, I think we must have a process that can accept tension, conflict, and mutually incompatible positions. These should be resolved only when they are show-stoppers, rather than as part of the process of developing positions. * From my POV, the Wiki is the most promising issue-development platform I've used in that respect, because you can include a range of positions without necessarily having a direct discussion about it. The tendency in reading email messages is to treat text as an utterance, and to hold a person accountable to it. Email lists are intimidating to many. There will be useful contributions to shared texts that would be made by people who for whatever reason don't share our desire to say "Here is what I think". There's more but this is more than enough for now. Danny On 27/04/2006, at 12:35 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > I personally agree that outreach is a critical function, but argue > that it is not something that is ever fully achieved, i.e. we can > never do enough. but I think this caucus does do outreach. e.g. > without arguing that the IGC was the one true voice of CS, the caucus > did do outreach when selecting its nominees for the IGF > multistakeholder advisory group. And while not assuming that sending > notification to the plenary was enough we sent to many other lists > and asked people to pass it on (the network model - i.e. use of > broadcast and epidemic routing mechanism). We need to do more and > need to do it all the time. I personally think that this > conversation on the list on our identity is another form of outreach > to the silent members of the list. In my mind it is an attempt to > find out what we need to do to be more open to those who had enough > interest in the subject to sign up for the list yet who haven't found > the way open for their participation - for whatever reasons. > > but as I said i agree we need to do more outreach, and i think need > to have some members who think enough of outreach to put some focus > into the ways in which it can be done effectively. having been > brought up in the open list world where an open list was considered > to be the best way to openness and for reaching out, i have learned > since becoming invovled in civil society that this is not adequate. > i still don't know what it take to achieve sufficient opennes and > outreach and am hoing these conversations brings that out. other > then multiple language capability - which is still difficult (either > we all learn multiple languages or we need automatic translators), > what is needed? > > a. > On 27/04/2006, at 4:57 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> but at the same time come up in advance with a proposal for a new >> structure and a set of requirements that can collect broad support by >> all civil society participants in the process. >> >> However, nothing prevents us from going on with the present, multiple >> voice model - it might even prove better: maybe less compelling >> towards >> other stakeholders, but more open and less controversial. >> Actually, the >> only part of the story where you might really need "the" civil >> society >> entity is when you have to appoint representatives for the entire >> stakeholder group, while you might still work by ad-hoc coalitions on >> substance matters. > > > > > On 26 apr 2006, at 07.27, Gurstein, Michael wrote: > >> To get a bit theoretical here, I think there are 3 separate models at >> play... >> 1. the "representational" model which is inherently >> centralizing, and top down i.e. top-down institutions set up rules >> that >> require others to similarly produce top-down >> "representatives" (however >> they are selected) to "speak on behalf" of others i.e. >> constituencies. > >> >> 2. the "market" model which is inherently competitive and >> individualistic i.e. where individuals (or collectivities >> operating as >> pseudo individuals) compete in some sort of marketplace for some >> sort of >> set of rewards (in this case influence on global public policy) and >> where "success" in this marketplace depends on access to unequally >> distributed resources -- e.g. time, travel money, the appropriate >> language for discourse, "air time", or as folks here seem to be >> suggesting the inherent value/significance of the ideas or >> expertise of >> individuals. >> >> 3. the "network" model which is I think the appropriate one here >> as it allows for (and even enables) cooperation/collaboration/ >> coalition >> building and is in itself neutral as to whether the participating >> elements (nodes) are individuals or institutions or collectivities of >> some other variety... >> >> It seems to me that CS must necessarily operate by means of the >> "network" model as a collectivity of links and nodes sharing some >> minimal set of common positions and working as the need arises >> towards >> some common goals. >> >> The problem as I see it is that for whatever reason, CS in this >> instance >> is operating on the basis of the second (market) model where >> "access to >> influence" i.e. participation in the IGF/designation as THE CS-IGC >> is a >> direct product of one's access to the above mentioned resources >> (time, >> travel money, ideas etc.). In fact IMHO CS should necessarily be >> operating on the basis of the third model since this is the means by >> which a true measure of inclusion and broad based consensus >> building can >> be achieved, particularly because as everyone apparently agrees, the >> first (representational model) is too expensive and cumbersome to >> work >> in this context. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -- Danny Butt db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Wed Apr 26 15:48:20 2006 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 15:48:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] individuals Message-ID: I must say that I'm not nearly as positive as Carlos or Avri who are making similar points...although the IGC may be "operating on the network model" i.e. using an e-list for communications (and pace Danny's most recent note)... I have seen very little evidence of THE CS-IGC acting like a "network" i.e. making active linkages with like minded "nodes", working towards inclusive consensus, actively seeking to extend the network particularly to fill in gaps and to broaden the network's reach. And further following Milton's admonition concerning the "practical" and "outcomes"; the result of this is that at least to date, the IGC seems for the most part concerned, as I said in a much earlier note, primarily with issues that have to do with ensuring that the Internet remains a venue through which an orderly marketplace may be maintained (i.e. spam, security, network neutrality) rather than with the broader issues raised by the on-rushing inequalities in part enabled by the Internet (certainly of broader interest to the full range of Civil Society) and as presented for example, by the submission of the Group of 77 (let alone having an interest in, dare I say the even more significant IMHO issues and opportunities presented by ICTs for local community based self-development). Again I think it should be said that those who wish to claim the mantle of THE CS-IGC also must accept responsibility for ensuring that the IGC operates in a way which is reflective of the modes of operation and "values" of CS, so it isn't sufficient to say to folks such as myself or others, well if you think it needs to be done then you should do it, since I have no interest personal or institutional in presenting myself as THE CS standard bearer in the IG area. MG -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] Sent: April 26, 2006 2:59 PM To: Gurstein, Michael Cc: Bram Dov Abramson; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] individuals On a very limited basis, we do operate on the network model. Limited because, although there are no direct barriers to entry in this net, there are de facto barriers or restrictions like: lack of specific interest on the subject (or assumption that an involved CS member who supposedly knows about the subject is representing us well, just because he/she/it is defending positions we seem to agree with); lack of resources to be present (in some cases, we need more than one to handle pressing issues and ensuing hundreds of messages and docs, not to speak of lack of travel money for face-to-face meetings); idiomatic barriers (the Southern hemisphere does not speak English or French etc), and so on. As a result, this net ends up dominated by a relatively small group of regulars who are able to circumvent these and other barriers -- and most of them remain there almost by default because the CS constituencies who have any interest on the subject and cannot participate directly are somehow satisfied with (or at least accepting) what they are doing. So, within this sea of imperfections and limits, we work as a network (the other meaning of an open caucus) and we try to be as transparent as possible (through our electronic list in English)... --c.a. Gurstein, Michael wrote: > Bram and others, > > To get a bit theoretical here, I think there are 3 separate models at > play... > 1. the "representational" model which is inherently centralizing, and > top down i.e. top-down institutions set up rules that require others > to similarly produce top-down "representatives" (however they are > selected) to "speak on behalf" of others i.e. constituencies. > > 2. the "market" model which is inherently competitive and > individualistic i.e. where individuals (or collectivities operating as > pseudo individuals) compete in some sort of marketplace for some sort > of set of rewards (in this case influence on global public policy) and > where "success" in this marketplace depends on access to unequally > distributed resources -- e.g. time, travel money, the appropriate > language for discourse, "air time", or as folks here seem to be > suggesting the inherent value/significance of the ideas or expertise > of individuals. > > 3. the "network" model which is I think the appropriate one here as > it allows for (and even enables) cooperation/collaboration/coalition > building and is in itself neutral as to whether the participating > elements (nodes) are individuals or institutions or collectivities of > some other variety... > > It seems to me that CS must necessarily operate by means of the > "network" model as a collectivity of links and nodes sharing some > minimal set of common positions and working as the need arises towards > some common goals. > > The problem as I see it is that for whatever reason, CS in this > instance is operating on the basis of the second (market) model where > "access to influence" i.e. participation in the IGF/designation as THE > CS-IGC is a direct product of one's access to the above mentioned > resources (time, travel money, ideas etc.). In fact IMHO CS should > necessarily be operating on the basis of the third model since this is > the means by which a true measure of inclusion and broad based > consensus building can be achieved, particularly because as everyone > apparently agrees, the first (representational model) is too expensive > and cumbersome to work in this context. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Bram Dov > Abramson > Sent: April 26, 2006 4:48 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] individuals > > > Michael Gurstein writes: >> As an example, and as for the significance of some of those >> responsibilities, I certainly don't claim to "represent" the Global >> Telecentre Alliance (GTA) but also I could if appropriate (and as I've >> been asked to do) pass along information concerning Internet Governance > >> issues through the various tiers of the various internetworked >> organizations that form the GTA and probably get a pretty good sense of > >> what some at least of the folks working in Internet issues on the >> ground in "developmental" contexts are thinking > > To be an effective representative, though, is surely at least in part > to understand clearly what the GTA's interests are, and to advocate on > behalf of them? > >> What I also know, is that proceeding to present oneself as THE CS-IGC >> in the absence of including the opportunity for real participation by >> those folks and the others working in Civil Society and ICTs on the >> ground as and where they might feel it useful/necessary is an act of >> significant misrepresentation. > > Well, to state the obvious, one way in which people delegate authority > is by electing representatives. Perhaps this was addressed in one of > those e-mails I deleted? > > But in case not. Imagine if some definition was agreed upon for > "civil society organisation"; if any such CSO could submit to the IGF > an any-length list of voters; if any voter could appear on, I don't > know, zero to two voters' lists; if an election was so convened to > represent civil society. > > The process itself is no doubt clunky and subject to streamlining and > tamper-proofing and so forth -- you'd want rules in place that avoided > CSOs which simply signed people up in order to give them a vote (or > would you?), and there are lots of ways to do that, too -- but that's > hardly the point, I think. > >> So, if, as I think would be broadly desirable, the IGC would like to >> remain known as the IGC rather than simply Bill, Wolfgang, Vittorio, >> Avri, Janette, Milton and friends then there are certain prices to be >> paid which includes a serious attempt at outreach and a broad strategy >> of inclusion whether or not that outreach or inclusion has any short >> term or immediate significance in terms of numbers of participants on >> the email list! > > Elections are not necessarily antithetical to reasoned thought from a > disinterested or thoughtful standpoint, I would add. That's why > parliaments have ministries in which live civil servants who do the > grunt work. And why organisations often have secretariats. > Elections, on the one hand; a staff, on the other. I suspect I'm > treading heavily into ICANN territory here -- but, as an non-initiate: > why not? > > cheers > Bram > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br ******************************************** * Sacix -- distribuição Debian CDD Linux * * orientada a projetos de inclusão digital * * com software livre e de código aberto, * * mantida pela Rits em colaboração com o * * Coletivo Digital. * * Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br * ******************************************** _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Apr 26 23:34:40 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:34:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] communication methods In-Reply-To: <4883ACAA-F182-4B73-95B1-9F12E4E11A93@dannybutt.net> References: <51B2BEA3-53A0-4C73-BD19-AEC6E5223C63@psg.com> <4883ACAA-F182-4B73-95B1-9F12E4E11A93@dannybutt.net> Message-ID: <53F5F294-A5DD-4929-8933-B3B2D83BD177@psg.com> was: Re: [governance] outreach Hi Danny, I think this message was full of good stuff. I think I agree, to some extent, about the utility of an email list. For a single thread or three it can work fine. but as more and more themes add up and more people get involved, some people's messages, though they contain really good thoughts will often be left behind while people work to keep up with the list. and yes, there may be a tendency for people to put more time into processing the email from the people they know the best. and then people will feel that they are being ignored - and they will be, through the fault may be the medium and not the caucus. I like the idea of wikis and think their use should be explored, though i admit i have never used one in the way you suggested. even when working with others on a plone, i found that it only sort of worked. Some questions I have are: -you mentioned having editors per theme: how does an editor avoid becoming a control/gate on where a theme can go? -and like wise how does a theme reach a conclusion that can move beyond those contributing to the theme? -is there a way to deal with multiple languages effectively? -is there a way to work with one when you only have intermittent access or expensive access. one of the advantages of email is the least common denominator aspect - especially if people use text messages, it is relatively easy to receive and send. what service can be provided for the person who does not have reliable access that would allow them to sit for as much time as needed to read and edit a wiki page? --- can you perhaps subscribe to a theme on a wiki and get email every time there is a change and send email to the wiki in response? - how is the community informed of new topics and of status on themes if they cannot gain access to a wiki? or don't want to check it daily to see if there is a new topic under discussion. As for the mailing list, i do not believe we should give up on it. I think it is a good place for themes to get born. some comments inline below. thanks a. On 26 apr 2006, at 14.30, Danny Butt wrote: > > Avri, I was just writing yesterday that I believe that the morphing > of the IETF-style culture of consensus from the technical to the > political (not that hard distinctions can be drawn, but you know what > I mean) is responsible for the most pressing governance problems > faced by the Internet. So I just wanted to acknowledge, given your > extensive background in that culture, your willingness to put those > methods on the table for discussion without pre-judgement. It's rare > that any of us can do that with our habitual methods and I really > appreciate it. > Well i certainly do not believe that the things that work for one set of circumstances will necessarily work in other circumstances. I tend to look at all of the mechanisms as just components of a tool kit and different tools are necessary for different environments and tasks. i think one of the challenges now is to find the tools that match and enable the desired nature/behavior of the IGC. > Here's what I think I know about mailing lists and organisation: > > * A mailing list is narrow bandwidth for productive conversation. > Even though it is slightly asynchronous, it is time-based and can > only hold a couple of productive conversations at once (sometimes, > not even that ;). I agree with Vittorio's comment that multivocality > is desirable. The pressure needs to be taken off this list as the > means by which issue contributions to the IGC take place. The list is > very important for all the cross-cutting organisational issues like > timelines, opportunities, etc. I tend to agree. but we don't have a proven workable substitute yet. But it is worth looking for one. > > * Specialisation is required given the vast range of topics, > expertise and orientations that could be considered "civil society". > Having each of us process and agree to every statement is inefficient > and doesn't scale. And forced into the narrow bandwidth of the > mailing list, disagreements and contests over framing crowd out the > content (e.g. "right to development"). The specialisation should be > among expertise/interest rather than people - I don't know how formal > it needs to be to begin. But I think a coordinator-editor role on > each of various issues could be useful as a loose structure. I am not sure how much structure we need and i think that themes should be able to come into existence and blink out of existence easily and without a lot of process. in terms of specialization, while it may be good for specialists to focus on their specialties, a lot of us are generalists and i think that we need to be careful not to partition things to the extent that the generalist can not longer participate. another problem with stratification into specialties is that we can lose track of the overall picture and miss the similarities that exist between the seemingly different themes. so yes, the ability to focus is a good thing, but i would worry about to much exclusionary specialization. > > * Consensus can work when the scope is clear and there is broad > agreement on what success might look like. That is true for some > technical protocols, but it is almost never true for political > issues. Again, given the scope of CS, I think we must have a process > that can accept tension, conflict, and mutually incompatible > positions. These should be resolved only when they are show-stoppers, > rather than as part of the process of developing positions. I would argue that it may not even be true for some protocols. but that is a discussion for another time and place. the balance i think we have to find is how we can put out a statement as a caucus without needing consensus. i think there is strength in the united statement and we need to find a way to arrive at such statement on a variety of themes without a great deal of community angst. > > * From my POV, the Wiki is the most promising issue-development > platform I've used in that respect, because you can include a range > of positions without necessarily having a direct discussion about it. > The tendency in reading email messages is to treat text as an > utterance, and to hold a person accountable to it. Email lists are > intimidating to many. There will be useful contributions to shared > texts that would be made by people who for whatever reason don't > share our desire to say "Here is what I think". Althoygh I have questions about how it would work, I am intrigued at the possibility. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From pgo at info.fundp.ac.be Thu Apr 27 03:46:25 2006 From: pgo at info.fundp.ac.be (Philippe Goujon) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:46:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] colloque Information Society Governance, Ethics and Social Consequences namur 22 23 mai Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20060427094417.025c4d00@pop.info.fundp.ac.be> >My apologies if you have already received this announcement >In collaboration with the International Federation for Information >Processing the University of Namur (Facultniversitaires Notre-Dame de la >Paix ) organised an international conference titled: Information Society: >Governance, Ethics and Social Consequences (22 - 23 may 2006). >The full programme details, and information on registration are available >at: >www.info.fundp.ac.be/informationsociety/ > >If you know addresses of people who might be interested, please contact >Isabelle Daelman: ida at info.fundp.ac.be. You also may contact her if you >have any questions or need other information. Please don't hesistate to >help us to diffuse that information. Thnaks in advance >with our best regards, >for the organizing committee >Prof. dr. Ph Goujon Philippe Goujon Professeur Institut d'Informatique-Computer Science Department Cellule Interfacultaire de Technology Assessment FUNDP Rue Grandgagnage, 21- B 5000 NAMUR 32+81 72 5258 - FAX 32+ 81 72 49 67 mail.pgo at info.fundp.ac.be WEB-FUNDP-CITA : http://www.fundp.ac.be/recherche/unites/fr/2990.html personal web page: http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/~pgo/ Philippe Goujon Professeur Institut d'Informatique-Computer Science Department Cellule Interfacultaire de Technology Assessment FUNDP Rue Grandgagnage, 21- B 5000 NAMUR 32+81 72 5258 - FAX 32+ 81 72 49 67 mail.pgo at info.fundp.ac.be WEB-FUNDP-CITA : http://www.fundp.ac.be/recherche/unites/fr/2990.html personal web page: http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/~pgo/ -------------- 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 Thu Apr 27 05:30:09 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:30:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44508F21.8030208@bertola.eu.org> Gurstein, Michael ha scritto: > Danny's most recent note)... I have seen very little evidence of THE > CS-IGC acting like a "network" i.e. making active linkages with like > minded "nodes", working towards inclusive consensus, actively seeking > to extend the network particularly to fill in gaps and to broaden the > network's reach. This is absolutely important, but you should not overestimate the actual capabilities of a group like this one, populated by volunteer people who all do ten or twenty other things, to do regular outreach activities in the long term. I would already be quite happy if we had procedures in place to encourage newcomers and ensure that their opinion isn't overlooked only because they're new. > Again I think it should be said that those who wish to claim the > mantle of THE CS-IGC Beware of the subtle risk of this or any other group *not* claiming that openly, but actually being recognized de facto in that role. That's much worse, since you don't get the public discussion and agreement on "rights and duties" of "the" civil society forum - you only get a group with rights but no established duties. > also must accept responsibility for ensuring > that the IGC operates in a way which is reflective of the modes of > operation and "values" of CS, so it isn't sufficient to say to folks > such as myself or others, well if you think it needs to be done then > you should do it, since I have no interest personal or institutional > in presenting myself as THE CS standard bearer in the IG area. Sure, but you can't expect people who are not into those matters to be able to push them, even if they wish. While you are absolutely right in asking that any representative of civil society commits to understanding and pushing everyone's points and not just his/her personal ones, and also in asking for support to bridge lack of opportunities and resources among different parts of civil society, there is no alternative to people who care about a certain matter actually putting their time and commitment on it. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Thu Apr 27 06:12:18 2006 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:12:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] individuals Message-ID: Vittorio and all those who have made similar points. I don't think that the fact that participants in this enterprise are volunteers relieves them of the responsibilities attendant on participation in this enterprise. It may make fulfilling those responsibilities more difficulty and thus reduce the numbers of those able to fully participate (and thus gain the "benefits" of participation) but otherwise I don't see why or how it changes the requirement for CS to act in a manner consistent with CS if one is going to claim to be (or following your point), accept to be recognized as speaking on behalf of CS. I'm a (voluntary) parent -- with that role goes a variety of responsibilities -- some I'm "into" and find enjoyable and consistent with my other skills and interests and others not so. I became a parent for a complex nest of reasons but in large part because I considered doing so overall of benefit. The fact that my initial decision was voluntary doesn't relieve me of having to execute the various responsibilities attendant on that decision whether or not I happen to be "into them" or wish at any particular moment to "put time and commitment into it"... MG -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: April 27, 2006 11:30 AM To: Gurstein, Michael Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] individuals Gurstein, Michael ha scritto: > Danny's most recent note)... I have seen very little evidence of THE > CS-IGC acting like a "network" i.e. making active linkages with like > minded "nodes", working towards inclusive consensus, actively seeking > to extend the network particularly to fill in gaps and to broaden the > network's reach. This is absolutely important, but you should not overestimate the actual capabilities of a group like this one, populated by volunteer people who all do ten or twenty other things, to do regular outreach activities in the long term. I would already be quite happy if we had procedures in place to encourage newcomers and ensure that their opinion isn't overlooked only because they're new. > Again I think it should be said that those who wish to claim the > mantle of THE CS-IGC Beware of the subtle risk of this or any other group *not* claiming that openly, but actually being recognized de facto in that role. That's much worse, since you don't get the public discussion and agreement on "rights and duties" of "the" civil society forum - you only get a group with rights but no established duties. > also must accept responsibility for ensuring > that the IGC operates in a way which is reflective of the modes of > operation and "values" of CS, so it isn't sufficient to say to folks > such as myself or others, well if you think it needs to be done then > you should do it, since I have no interest personal or institutional > in presenting myself as THE CS standard bearer in the IG area. Sure, but you can't expect people who are not into those matters to be able to push them, even if they wish. While you are absolutely right in asking that any representative of civil society commits to understanding and pushing everyone's points and not just his/her personal ones, and also in asking for support to bridge lack of opportunities and resources among different parts of civil society, there is no alternative to people who care about a certain matter actually putting their time and commitment on it. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Apr 27 08:55:17 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:55:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] communication methods In-Reply-To: <53F5F294-A5DD-4929-8933-B3B2D83BD177@psg.com> References: <51B2BEA3-53A0-4C73-BD19-AEC6E5223C63@psg.com> <4883ACAA-F182-4B73-95B1-9F12E4E11A93@dannybutt.net> <53F5F294-A5DD-4929-8933-B3B2D83BD177@psg.com> Message-ID: <4450BF35.8000107@wz-berlin.de> Hi, > >> * Consensus can work when the scope is clear and there is broad >> agreement on what success might look like. That is true for some >> technical protocols, but it is almost never true for political >> issues. Again, given the scope of CS, I think we must have a process >> that can accept tension, conflict, and mutually incompatible >> positions. These should be resolved only when they are show-stoppers, >> rather than as part of the process of developing positions. > > I would argue that it may not even be true for some protocols. but > that is a discussion for another time and place. the balance i think > we have to find is how we can put out a statement as a caucus without > needing consensus. i think there is strength in the united statement > and we need to find a way to arrive at such statement on a variety of > themes without a great deal of community angst. For me, common positions and "united statements" are the main goal of a restructuring of the caucus. I think of civil society as something that assumes two forms or states: 1. civil society is a heterogeneous, non-governmental space encompassing differing experiences, opinions and aims, and 2. civil society is an actor among other actors such as governments and industry, with a message and the goal to influence political outcomes. The caucus should try to accommodate both functions, that of a space and that of an actor. In my view, it is not sufficient to articulate cultural and political diversity. The caucus' political task is to aggregate opinions and interests and to build common positions. We need a structure that allows for diversity but also enables political impact. jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Thu Apr 27 09:54:55 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:54:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?iso-8859-1?q?Launch/Public_Announcement_-_Civic_Ac?= =?iso-8859-1?q?cess_-_Acc=E8s_Civique?= Message-ID: <4450CD2F.3090708@lists.privaterra.org> (My apologies if you've received this already) I wanted to share the following announcement of a rather interesting and cool initiative some colleagues in Canada have just started. I hope it is of interest to members of the WSIS & Internet Governance community. Indeed, it's a creative way to use Wiki technology to organize and co-ordinate NGO information society activities. Perhaps it will encourage us in the WSIS/IGF space to setup a similar wiki workspace... I wish my fellow Canadian colleagues all the luck and success in the weeks, months and years ahead. Regards Robert ############################# # Launch/PublicAnnouncement # ############################# http://civicaccess.ca/wiki/Launch/PublicAnnouncement Please forward to friends, associates and relevant organizations, send to relevant mailing lists, blog, or pass on to press contacts or your political representatives. We would like to announce the launch of a new online space for Canadian civic engagement - Citizens for Open Access to Civic Information and Data (aka: CivicAccess.ca). CivicAccess is being founded by librarians, civil servants, academics, lawyers, free- and open-source advocates, geomatics professionals and community planners from across Canada. We are motivated by the belief that open civic information and data are necessary for being engaged citizens in an "information society". Our goals are: 1. To encourage all levels of governments (county, municipal, provincial, federal) to make civic data and information available to citizens without restrictions, at no cost, and in useable open formats. 2. To encourage the development of citizen projects using civic data and information Access to civic information and data help us make informed choices as voters. In addition it helps to ensure government transparency and accountability - essential elements of a democracy. These are the bits and bytes required to understand, critically analyze, and re-envision the communities in which we live. As engaged citizens in our neighborhoods, cities, and provinces we are working to develop a community of practice on open civic data in Canada. This is an idea whose time has come. Please join us in making it a reality! Founders: Darin Barney, Marcus Bornfreund, Stéphane Couture, Patrick Dinnen, Daniel Faivre, Michael Geist, Stephane Guidoin, Michael Gurstein, Daniel Haran, Ted Hildebrandt, Alton Hollett, Cory Horner, Tracey Lauriault, Nathalie Leclerc, Michael Lenczner, Graham Longford, Hugh McGuire, Russell McOrmond, Robin Millette, Joe Murray, Michael Pilling, Joel Rivard, Gabe Sawhney, Phillip Smith and Marc Tuters. To find out more: Discussion List - http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca/ Website - http://civicaccess.ca/ [end] _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Thu Apr 27 12:05:43 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:05:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] EU on net governance, next steps Message-ID: The EU has released a statement on Internet governance, following on WSIS et al. http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/542&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en Of interest, it seems to give equal weight to processes in both IGF and 'the mechanism of enhanced cooperation.' (The text detail: "The Commission calls for continuing international talks to improve Internet governance through the two new processes created by the Summit: the multi-stakeholder Internet Governance Forum and the mechanism of enhanced cooperation that will involve all governments on an equal footing.") Seemingly important, the position starts from 'human rights, in particular the freedom to receive and access information.' It even seems to warn companies complicit in restrictions and also commits 'to monitor' against non-neutrality. Those in closer touch in Europe can probably add and amplify. David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 27 12:26:31 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:26:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] individuals Message-ID: >>> David Allen 4/26/2006 2:25 PM >>> >Michael Gurstein has proposed a network model. Though Avri and >Carlos have offered elegant support, I for one do not see >any specifics as to what is such a model. What is the structure? >Who does what to whom, when? How are practical matters dealt? > How does it truly scale and garner legitimacy Yes, David, the "network model" is a purely rhetorical nonsolution to a real problem. Networks are basically about voluntary association with no clearly defined procedures. In fact, we (remnants of WSIS-CS) are already in a network form of organization. We are also very much in the "competitive marketplace" for influence, and anyone who thinks that a network gets you out of that is being quite unrealistic. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Thu Apr 27 12:31:26 2006 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:31:26 -0700 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: <44508F21.8030208@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <002201c66a18$093d27c0$0301000a@CCKLLP.local> With the regard to the current debate on the role of individuals, I'd like to point to the Civil Society Declaration released in December, 2003. http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf One of the first statements in this Declaration is this: "At the heart of our vision of information and communications societies is the human being. The dignity and rights of all peoples and each person must be promoted, respected, protected and affirmed." I have a hard time understanding why we would seek to *represent* individual human beings in our contributions and interventions but not *include* them in our organizations, debate and work. Going back to the point I made earlier, I think we should measure contributions by how well they reflect the values inherent in documents such as the Civil Society Declaration, rather than by the identity of the organization or individual who submitted them. I suppose this is a utopian way of looking at the world, but then again, that's what CS is supposed to do, isn't it? I find myself close to Veni's point about deeds not words. Let's focus on contributions, whether they come from organizations or individuals, and worry less about who is legitimate and who is simply speaking for themselves. ADD: I suppose I have a personal stake in the outcome of this debate. I'm not participating here on behalf of any organization. While I am a member of many organizations, I do not speak for any of them on IGF issues. So, if we narrow the list of people who can participate to only NGOs, I will have to leave. -- Bret -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4057 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Apr 27 13:48:17 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:48:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Le 27 avr. 06 à 18:26, Milton Mueller a écrit : >>>> David Allen 4/26/2006 2:25 >>>> PM >>> >> Michael Gurstein has proposed a network model. Though Avri and >> Carlos have offered elegant support, I for one do not see >> any specifics as to what is such a model. What is the structure? >> Who does what to whom, when? How are practical matters dealt? >> How does it truly scale and garner legitimacy > > Yes, David, the "network model" is a purely rhetorical nonsolution > to a real problem. Networks are basically about voluntary > association with no clearly defined procedures. In fact, we > (remnants of WSIS-CS) are already in a network form of > organization. We are also very much in the "competitive > marketplace" for influence, and anyone who thinks that a network > gets you out of that is being quite unrealistic. ... specially since one is consubstantial to the other, as perfectly described by Boltanski and Chiapello in "The new spirit of capitalism". In fact, Michael Gurstein's three models are actually only two models ("network" and "representational"). Meryem _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Apr 27 13:54:50 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:54:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: <002201c66a18$093d27c0$0301000a@CCKLLP.local> References: <002201c66a18$093d27c0$0301000a@CCKLLP.local> Message-ID: <4451056A.7060609@wz-berlin.de> > ADD: I suppose I have a personal stake in the outcome of this debate. I'm > not participating here on behalf of any organization. While I am a member of > many organizations, I do not speak for any of them on IGF issues. So, if we > narrow the list of people who can participate to only NGOs, I will have to > leave. Hi Bret, aren't most participants contributing on this list in an individual capacity? Has anybody seriously suggested to restrict the caucus to organizational members? I guess I don't understand what all this debate on individuals is about. What did I miss? thx, jeanette > > -- Bret > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Thu Apr 27 17:57:05 2006 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:57:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] individuals Message-ID: Hmmm, Models are meant to provide a way of abstracting so as to identify an underlying structure or consistency of behaviour/structure/action...and usually they are created in relation to some specific set of conditions/contexts (from the specific to the general and then back to the specific)... In this case my casual attempt at suggesting models was to see whether one could understand the different approaches that were underlying the different positions/perspectives concerning the organization of CS in relation to its broader tasks of influencing policy. I think anyone familiar with the evolution of Civil Society particularly in relation to having an influence in and through UN processes will recognize the evolution from representational structures to network structures (the outcome of the most recent Summits for example from the CS side have all been characterized as being enhanced "networks"... And the reason this is the case is that networks allow for inclusion of a range of individuals, organizations, coalitions, special interest groups through which consensus can be developed and "political" influence can be mobilized/exerted... The introduction of a "market" model where influencing policy is not a matter of creating coalitions and "politiking" but rather where policy entrepreneurs identify an idea, marshall resources around the idea (access grant funds for example) and then market the Heck out of it with the "winner" taking the "prizes" and everybody else licking their wounds is I think, something new on the international scene (and particularly for CS) but of course it is precisely how the game is played in the US policy (including both the for and not for profit lobbyist) marketplace. MG -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Meryem Marzouki Sent: April 27, 2006 7:48 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] individuals Le 27 avr. 06 à 18:26, Milton Mueller a écrit : >>>> David Allen 4/26/2006 2:25 PM >>>> >>> >> Michael Gurstein has proposed a network model. Though Avri and >> Carlos have offered elegant support, I for one do not see any >> specifics as to what is such a model. What is the structure? Who >> does what to whom, when? How are practical matters dealt? How does >> it truly scale and garner legitimacy > > Yes, David, the "network model" is a purely rhetorical nonsolution to > a real problem. Networks are basically about voluntary > association with no clearly defined procedures. In fact, we > (remnants of WSIS-CS) are already in a network form of > organization. We are also very much in the "competitive > marketplace" for influence, and anyone who thinks that a network > gets you out of that is being quite unrealistic. ... specially since one is consubstantial to the other, as perfectly described by Boltanski and Chiapello in "The new spirit of capitalism". In fact, Michael Gurstein's three models are actually only two models ("network" and "representational"). Meryem _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Thu Apr 27 18:17:48 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:17:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Global Internet Task Force Message-ID: <4451430C.4010107@lists.privaterra.org> I'm not sure if this has been mentioned on the list already. If not, might be worthwhile to review information on and about the (GIFT) and the recently released EU position.. regards Robert -- Media Note Office of the Spokesman Washington, DC April 5, 2006 Global Internet Task Force Meeting Focuses on Advancing Freedom on Web http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2006/64149.htm The second meeting of the Global Internet Freedom Task Force (GIFT) "discussed practical and constructive strategies to advance Internet freedom," said Under Secretary for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs Josette Shiner, who chaired the April 3 meeting. "The Internet, a powerful force for advancing knowledge and spreading information, is increasingly a target for censors," Shiner said. The multidisciplinary U.S. State Department group reviewed issues, including increased monitoring of Internet censorship, discussions with U.S. businesses, NGOs and academics on the challenges overseas and technologies that help break down barriers to Internet access. "In particular, we focused on challenges to Internet freedom in Iran, Cuba and China," Shiner added. "This is an issue that resonates all over the globe – from individuals who depend on information from the Internet to connect them to what is happening in the rest of the world to businesses that contribute to the world economy through e-enterprise. I’ve been very impressed with the ideas emerging from the private sector and the nongovernmental community as they think through these issues. This thinking will help us as we develop the best strategy to maximize access to information over the Internet and minimize the success of repressive regimes in using the Internet to censor debate and silence dissidents." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice established the Global Internet Freedom Task Force (GIFT) on February 14, 2006. It is chaired by Under Secretary for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs Josette Shiner and Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky. For more information on the GIFT, please go to www.state.gov/e. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Apr 27 19:51:25 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 01:51:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Le 27 avr. 06 à 23:57, Gurstein, Michael a écrit : > The introduction of a "market" model where influencing policy is > not a matter of creating coalitions and "politiking" but rather > where policy entrepreneurs identify an idea, marshall resources > around the idea (access grant funds for example) and then market > the Heck out of it with the "winner" taking the "prizes" and > everybody else licking their wounds is I think, something new on > the international scene (and particularly for CS) but of course it > is precisely how the game is played in the US policy (including > both the for and not for profit lobbyist) marketplace. Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing.. Are you referring here to what Phil Agre calls "issue entrepreneurship" ? If so, then it's different from what "The new spirit of capitalism" analyzes, which is the new forms of work organization and management, and their isomorphisms with new forms of activism. I wouldn't call the former a "model" (I would be tempted to call it an - unfortunately unavoidable - parasitic epiphenomenon, if only it wasn't less and less "epi": increasing, yet not becoming a "model" only because of that... Game of the day: identify at least three internet governance entrepreneurs on this list:)). The latter is indeed a model which organizational form is the network (though not characterized only by its form of organization). Meryem _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Thu Apr 27 20:57:08 2006 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 20:57:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] individuals Message-ID: Meryem, Google.com has 50,000 + references to "policy entrepreneurs"! ... The first two of which provide the following definitions... The policy community has seen the gradual development of a third dimension, composed of non-academic and even some academic experts, former government employees, journalists and lobbyists. Unlike the academics, the policy entrepreneurs' interest in the issue is not intellectual, nor is their objective the advancement of knowledge. They are primarily driven by a policy preference, which they seek to impose on the policy-making process. They bring a composite of concern, professionalism and ideological activism to bear on this task. M. A. Muqtedar Khan, Policy Entrepreneurs: The Third Dimension in American Foreign-policy Culture Policy entrepreneurs can be defined as organisations that take advantage of windows of opportunity opened by other policy actors, for instance specific policy programmes. They are in constant search for possible problems for which they can offer a solution (Kingdon 1984; Majone, Tame et al. 1996). Markus Perkmann, Policy entrepreneurs, multilevel governance and policy networks in the European polity: The case of the EUREGIO. MG -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Meryem Marzouki Sent: April 28, 2006 1:51 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] individuals Le 27 avr. 06 à 23:57, Gurstein, Michael a écrit : > The introduction of a "market" model where influencing policy is > not a matter of creating coalitions and "politiking" but rather > where policy entrepreneurs identify an idea, marshall resources > around the idea (access grant funds for example) and then market > the Heck out of it with the "winner" taking the "prizes" and > everybody else licking their wounds is I think, something new on > the international scene (and particularly for CS) but of course it > is precisely how the game is played in the US policy (including > both the for and not for profit lobbyist) marketplace. Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing.. Are you referring here to what Phil Agre calls "issue entrepreneurship" ? If so, then it's different from what "The new spirit of capitalism" analyzes, which is the new forms of work organization and management, and their isomorphisms with new forms of activism. I wouldn't call the former a "model" (I would be tempted to call it an - unfortunately unavoidable - parasitic epiphenomenon, if only it wasn't less and less "epi": increasing, yet not becoming a "model" only because of that... Game of the day: identify at least three internet governance entrepreneurs on this list:)). The latter is indeed a model which organizational form is the network (though not characterized only by its form of organization). Meryem _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Apr 28 04:20:59 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:20:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9ACD559B-A352-4F86-AE6F-D30D49DF9E9E@ras.eu.org> Ah. Google.com has spoken. Let me shut up then, and apologize if citing one name was actually a swearword:) Not to mention that Googlefight(.com too) declares the policy entrepreneurship as the winner (with 44,200,000 results) over the issue entrepreneurship (with only 17,000,000 results). Despite its numerous references, it hasn't been shown yet that the issue/policy entrepreneurship is a model of CS collective organization (which is the one discussed here re: IGC organizational form), rather than a concept identifying very small, niche market oriented, particular kind of businesses. Best, Meryem Le 28 avr. 06 à 02:57, Gurstein, Michael a écrit : > > Meryem, > > Google.com has 50,000 + references to "policy entrepreneurs"! ... > The first two of which provide the following definitions... > > The policy community has seen the gradual development of a third > dimension, composed of non-academic and even some academic experts, > former government employees, journalists and lobbyists. Unlike the > academics, the policy entrepreneurs' interest in the issue is not > intellectual, nor is their objective the advancement of knowledge. > They are primarily driven by a policy preference, which they seek > to impose on the policy-making process. They bring a composite of > concern, professionalism and ideological activism to bear on this > task. M. A. Muqtedar Khan, Policy Entrepreneurs: The Third > Dimension in American Foreign-policy Culture > > Policy entrepreneurs can be defined as organisations that take > advantage of windows of opportunity opened by other policy actors, > for instance specific policy programmes. They are in constant > search for possible problems for which they can offer a solution > (Kingdon 1984; Majone, Tame et al. 1996). Markus Perkmann, Policy > entrepreneurs, multilevel governance and policy networks in the > European polity: The case of the EUREGIO. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance- > bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Meryem Marzouki > Sent: April 28, 2006 1:51 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] individuals > > > > Le 27 avr. 06 à 23:57, Gurstein, Michael a écrit : > >> The introduction of a "market" model where influencing policy is >> not a matter of creating coalitions and "politiking" but rather >> where policy entrepreneurs identify an idea, marshall resources >> around the idea (access grant funds for example) and then market >> the Heck out of it with the "winner" taking the "prizes" and >> everybody else licking their wounds is I think, something new on >> the international scene (and particularly for CS) but of course it >> is precisely how the game is played in the US policy (including >> both the for and not for profit lobbyist) marketplace. > > Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing.. > Are you referring here to what Phil Agre calls "issue > entrepreneurship" ? If so, then it's different from what "The new > spirit of capitalism" analyzes, which is the new forms of work > organization and management, and their isomorphisms with new forms of > activism. > I wouldn't call the former a "model" (I would be tempted to call it > an - unfortunately unavoidable - parasitic epiphenomenon, if only it > wasn't less and less "epi": increasing, yet not becoming a "model" > only because of that... Game of the day: identify at least three > internet governance entrepreneurs on this list:)). The latter is > indeed a model which organizational form is the network (though not > characterized only by its form of organization). > > Meryem > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/ > governance > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Apr 28 04:41:27 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:41:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: <9ACD559B-A352-4F86-AE6F-D30D49DF9E9E@ras.eu.org> References: <9ACD559B-A352-4F86-AE6F-D30D49DF9E9E@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <4451D537.9080309@bertola.eu.org> Meryem Marzouki ha scritto: > Despite its numerous references, it hasn't been shown yet that the > issue/policy entrepreneurship is a model of CS collective > organization (which is the one discussed here re: IGC organizational > form), rather than a concept identifying very small, niche market > oriented, particular kind of businesses. Well, if you go this way, then NGOs are policy businesses all the same, right? Simply they don't pay dividends, they pay salaries and reimbursements, but the principle is potentially the same: if someone wants to make a living out of policy activities, the form of incorporation is a secondary issue. (In Italy - don't know about elsewhere - many, perhaps most, businesses that operate e.g. in the health sector are converting themselves into NGOs - this way, they pay less taxes, can get grants and donations, and even a share of your annual income tax if you want. Then, the NGO usually decides to use surplus money to buy houses, cars, boats that are given as "instrumental means" to the Chairman and Councillors... Of course none of the NGOs involved here is of this type, but this is just to illustrate my point, which by the way is drifting towards off topic.) -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Apr 28 04:44:06 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:44:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Next steps Message-ID: <4451D5D6.1070204@bertola.eu.org> Just to be practical, can we try to focus back on next steps for the caucus? There was ample support for Avri to coordinate the caucus for process matters towards the establishment of a new formal structure, with some people opposing the idea of a single coordinator and asking we continue to have two. Then I tried to propose a compromise, to appoint Avri not as coordinator but as chair of an open "chartering group" that would get back to the caucus with a draft of a charter. I don't know whether my middle ground is reasonable, but I think that some consensus was emerging and we should try not to lose it. So what do we do? -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From db at dannybutt.net Fri Apr 28 06:13:48 2006 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:13:48 +1200 Subject: [governance] Next steps and communication methods In-Reply-To: <4451D5D6.1070204@bertola.eu.org> References: <4451D5D6.1070204@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <1BA5287E-6131-4EB4-92DF-BA58F87CDCC5@dannybutt.net> On 28/04/2006, at 8:44 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Just to be practical, can we try to focus back on next steps for > the caucus? > There was ample support for Avri to coordinate the caucus for process > matters towards the establishment of a new formal structure, with some > people opposing the idea of a single coordinator and asking we > continue > to have two. I said before that I think that if Avri's role is to lead us through developing a structure then I support having her there and think there is little risk involved. This process will also involve discussion about what coordination structure is required for the IGC going forward. So I think the "one or two coordinators" discussion preempts this process. If Avri wants to add Bill or anyone else to help I think that's fine - it's not an ongoing structure. To Avri's comments and questions - can I open this by saying that I am not trying to put forward a complete solution. Part of the reason poor governance structures continue is because the put the burden of coherence is placed on any alternative proposal. I think we would be well served by prototyping or testing-out improvements (where there is a reasonable level of support) without worrying about how they fit into an entire system or trying to forecast every conceivable implication. Reservations about new processes should definitely be documented, but can be logged as "issues to watch" during a prototyping phase (fixed duration?), at the end of which we can look at them and see whether they've come to pass or whether other ones have. Make our "coding" more iterative. I've tried to articulate some general principles that I think would make the work of the IGC more effective: 1) some issue-based specialisation or multivocality; 2) ways to incorporate the work of collectives as well as individuals (more on that in another message); 3) most importantly, some allowance for tension and lack of complete consensus. I think these are realistic when I think about the groups I work with in "real life", and the diversity of this list. I'm not particularly attached to any implementation of these principles, but without improvement in these areas the IGC isn't somewhere I can work. With those out of the way, here are my thoughts on your questions Avri. I'm using the term editor but it could be editor / working group chair / coordinator - sort out the terminology later. > -you mentioned having editors per theme: how does an editor avoid > becoming a control/gate on where a theme can go? They don't. They have to accept that responsibility (which will involve making some kind of commitment to being more facilitative than participatory), and collectively we need to find a way to ensure that the people in IGC who are interested in an issue are reasonably happy with the people who have that leadership role. Personally, I think we could start with having people propose themes they're interested in leading a group toward, and people can freely decide or not to join in with them -maybe on a sub-list or something. I expect most of us who talk a lot will want to join more than one issue group. Let those who ride decide. It will be a good way of sorting out the very interested from the mildly interested but vocal. If there are particular issues where there are contests over leadership, then we can have a conversation about it (rotating or shared editing?), find a compromise. I also don't think it matters if the issues overlap - they do in real life part of the broader IGC group's coordination work will be about aligning these. If there are serious areas of conflict then that's the kind of work this list can do. > -and like wise how does a theme reach a conclusion that can move > beyond those contributing to the theme? From what I've seen from this list, there are two types of work that happen. Mostly, it's statement development in relation to a particular opportunity: "comments required by forum X in official consultation process". So the group gets to work, shares their statement with the broader list a week or two out, any serious issues get talked about. The second type is when opportunities come up at particular events - I think here the editor will need to be given some latitude to make statements on behalf of their working group. I think any finished work comes out to the list for a temperature reading (even for a few hours - you never know when someone has some critical information) before going into a public forum. > > -is there a way to deal with multiple languages effectively? Not really, but I think we can set up testbeds. There is value in having those on the list who speak other languages set up working groups or similar under the IGC umbrella. If a list and website is provided it costs next-to-nothing and if it turns into a group of 5 or 1000 conversing in Chinese, Hindi or French then I think we're making great progress compared to where we are now. > -is there a way to work with one when you only have intermittent > access or expensive access. one of the advantages of email is the > least common denominator aspect - especially if people use text > messages, it is relatively easy to receive and send. what service > can be provided for the person who does not have reliable access that > would allow them to sit for as much time as needed to read and edit a > wiki page? I think the editor takes responsibility for their group having effective access. If I was chairing a group I'd be happy to take responsibility for including the email content from anyone who really couldn't access a website. The most critical aspect is the speed of page loading - text only. When I've been on an unreliable connection I'd copy stuff and edit it in a text editor. I think this is within the realms of most people. I just think a lot of people (including myself ;) are used to email. > --- can you perhaps subscribe to a theme on a wiki and get email > every time there is a change and send email to the wiki in response? RSS is better for this, but Mediawiki for example can do email http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Enotif > - how is the community informed of new topics and of status on themes > if they cannot gain access to a wiki? or don't want to check it > daily to see if there is a new topic under discussion. Again, I think the responsibility of the editors is to keep the broader community informed. This is part of the scaling feature. I don't want to read every contribution this group would make on privacy, but I'd definitely be interested in reading a summary. We could do a temporal thing like monthly updates to the list, but as mentioned before I think most of the work gets done when there's a specific reason to do it, so as above we're sharing work before it goes into an official forum. Quite honestly, I don't think this is a huge issue. If I can keep track of everything that civil society is doing on Internet governance, it's not doing enough work ;) . > > As for the mailing list, i do not believe we should give up on it. I > think it is a good place for themes to get I agree - I wasn't suggesting ditching the list or a central forum. I just want to see it freed up to work on emerging issues, areas of deep conflict, and how the processes are going. That's enough for one list! And that's enough for one message. Danny -- Danny Butt db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Fri Apr 28 06:28:37 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 03:28:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Next steps In-Reply-To: <4451D5D6.1070204@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <20060428102837.33543.qmail@web54708.mail.yahoo.com> Thanks God you're around, Vittorio! I was wondering if that long, long thread about "individuals," while "accountability" and "outreach" run short, was symptomatic of something else beyond naming. Mawaki --- Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Just to be practical, can we try to focus back on next steps for the caucus? > > There was ample support for Avri to coordinate the caucus for process > matters towards the establishment of a new formal structure, with some > people opposing the idea of a single coordinator and asking we continue > to have two. Then I tried to propose a compromise, to appoint Avri not > as coordinator but as chair of an open "chartering group" that would get > back to the caucus with a draft of a charter. I don't know whether my > middle ground is reasonable, but I think that some consensus was > emerging and we should try not to lose it. > > So what do we do? > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Apr 28 06:35:52 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:35:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] individuals (and next steps) In-Reply-To: <4451D537.9080309@bertola.eu.org> References: <9ACD559B-A352-4F86-AE6F-D30D49DF9E9E@ras.eu.org> <4451D537.9080309@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: Le 28 avr. 06 à 10:41, Vittorio Bertola a écrit : > Meryem Marzouki ha scritto: >> Despite its numerous references, it hasn't been shown yet that the >> issue/policy entrepreneurship is a model of CS collective >> organization (which is the one discussed here re: IGC organizational >> form), rather than a concept identifying very small, niche market >> oriented, particular kind of businesses. > > Well, if you go this way, then NGOs are policy businesses all the > same, > right? Simply they don't pay dividends, they pay salaries and > reimbursements, but the principle is potentially the same: if someone > wants to make a living out of policy activities, the form of > incorporation is a secondary issue. No. What you describe is a drift of NGOs, highly encouraged when they are professionalized (which doesn't mean at all that all NGO which have staff are drifting this way). What was discussed, I think, is the NGO model as opposed to the network model for activism. It's obvious that the IGC (and CS at WSIS as a whole) is in network form. The main (recurrent) question, which the IGC asks for itself from the beginning (like many other, some more mature, networks like e.g. the social forums), that we discussed some weeks ago in early March with the IGC status quo/status quo plus/etc. questions (in summary, the role of the IGC), and that is now again on the table with Avri proposal to act as chair for a transitional period (which is most welcome) is simple to understand, though very difficult to resolve in practice: should this network remains "simply" a common space or should it become a "movement" able to make emerging collective actions? As for now, what we have observed on the ground for IGC is that it is indeed a common "space" (which is in itself an important and precious achievement) but it has failed till now to become a "movement", if only for producing common substantive positions, like the recent days have shown. My opinion is that, before asking ourselves if this profund change of nature is feasible and how, we should better ask ourselves if it is desirable: is really this what we want? My answer would be, as I've proposed in the early March discussions on this list, that: (1) IGC should remain a common space (and should really work on outreach to, as a start, the whole CS @WSIS). i.e. be the "CS plenary" for governance issues (IGF and maybe others). AND (2) Already existing or yet o be formed coalitions (call it caucus, NGO, group of NGOs, group of individuals, whatever), including non permanent one, should be the "movements", i.e. develop substantive contributions, undertake collective actions, etc. There is a full range of such kinds of coalitions that should be accomodated by the IGC as a "plenary" space: the simplest, very basic form of such a coalition could be a list of signatories (be they individuals or big NGOs) of a given statement. Elaborated forms could be similar to caucus like the HRC. The most elaborated form could be the big NGO. And yes, the individual (issue entrepreneur or not) also has his place here. Here I think Avri's role would be prominent, as: - facilitator/chair of this discussion, where this proposal above is only one of the many people may express here, - provider of syntheses of these discussions - facilitator of (hopefully) reaching a decision - proposer/facilitator of adequate processes (that would be eventually written down in a common charter) to allow us collectively dealing with practical matters, how we accomodate different structures/coalitions, different positions, etc. I'm sure we should learn from social forums experience here in terms of processes. Quite a task! Best, Meryem _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Fri Apr 28 06:52:01 2006 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 06:52:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] Next steps and communication methods Message-ID: I think that overall Danny's proposals are excellent ones and move us forward towards an inclusive process of network (and consensus) building around IG thematic issues of significance to broad CS. I was also struck in reviewing the various proposals concerning themes for IGF discussion how many (and of course particularly those from LDC's and the Group of 77) were concerning ICT4D related matters and thus were (among others) potentially of direct interest to community based technology (including telecenter) folks. Following Danny's suggestion I would be willing to work as part of an IG CS thematic cluster dealing with those issues and undertake to make outreach to the variety of mostly practitioner networks with a likely interest in that theme. MG -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Danny Butt Sent: April 28, 2006 12:14 PM To: Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Next steps and communication methods On 28/04/2006, at 8:44 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Just to be practical, can we try to focus back on next steps for > the caucus? > There was ample support for Avri to coordinate the caucus for process > matters towards the establishment of a new formal structure, with some > people opposing the idea of a single coordinator and asking we > continue > to have two. I said before that I think that if Avri's role is to lead us through developing a structure then I support having her there and think there is little risk involved. This process will also involve discussion about what coordination structure is required for the IGC going forward. So I think the "one or two coordinators" discussion preempts this process. If Avri wants to add Bill or anyone else to help I think that's fine - it's not an ongoing structure. To Avri's comments and questions - can I open this by saying that I am not trying to put forward a complete solution. Part of the reason poor governance structures continue is because the put the burden of coherence is placed on any alternative proposal. I think we would be well served by prototyping or testing-out improvements (where there is a reasonable level of support) without worrying about how they fit into an entire system or trying to forecast every conceivable implication. Reservations about new processes should definitely be documented, but can be logged as "issues to watch" during a prototyping phase (fixed duration?), at the end of which we can look at them and see whether they've come to pass or whether other ones have. Make our "coding" more iterative. I've tried to articulate some general principles that I think would make the work of the IGC more effective: 1) some issue-based specialisation or multivocality; 2) ways to incorporate the work of collectives as well as individuals (more on that in another message); 3) most importantly, some allowance for tension and lack of complete consensus. I think these are realistic when I think about the groups I work with in "real life", and the diversity of this list. I'm not particularly attached to any implementation of these principles, but without improvement in these areas the IGC isn't somewhere I can work. With those out of the way, here are my thoughts on your questions Avri. I'm using the term editor but it could be editor / working group chair / coordinator - sort out the terminology later. > -you mentioned having editors per theme: how does an editor avoid > becoming a control/gate on where a theme can go? They don't. They have to accept that responsibility (which will involve making some kind of commitment to being more facilitative than participatory), and collectively we need to find a way to ensure that the people in IGC who are interested in an issue are reasonably happy with the people who have that leadership role. Personally, I think we could start with having people propose themes they're interested in leading a group toward, and people can freely decide or not to join in with them -maybe on a sub-list or something. I expect most of us who talk a lot will want to join more than one issue group. Let those who ride decide. It will be a good way of sorting out the very interested from the mildly interested but vocal. If there are particular issues where there are contests over leadership, then we can have a conversation about it (rotating or shared editing?), find a compromise. I also don't think it matters if the issues overlap - they do in real life part of the broader IGC group's coordination work will be about aligning these. If there are serious areas of conflict then that's the kind of work this list can do. > -and like wise how does a theme reach a conclusion that can move > beyond those contributing to the theme? From what I've seen from this list, there are two types of work that happen. Mostly, it's statement development in relation to a particular opportunity: "comments required by forum X in official consultation process". So the group gets to work, shares their statement with the broader list a week or two out, any serious issues get talked about. The second type is when opportunities come up at particular events - I think here the editor will need to be given some latitude to make statements on behalf of their working group. I think any finished work comes out to the list for a temperature reading (even for a few hours - you never know when someone has some critical information) before going into a public forum. > > -is there a way to deal with multiple languages effectively? Not really, but I think we can set up testbeds. There is value in having those on the list who speak other languages set up working groups or similar under the IGC umbrella. If a list and website is provided it costs next-to-nothing and if it turns into a group of 5 or 1000 conversing in Chinese, Hindi or French then I think we're making great progress compared to where we are now. > -is there a way to work with one when you only have intermittent > access or expensive access. one of the advantages of email is the > least common denominator aspect - especially if people use text > messages, it is relatively easy to receive and send. what service can > be provided for the person who does not have reliable access that > would allow them to sit for as much time as needed to read and edit a > wiki page? I think the editor takes responsibility for their group having effective access. If I was chairing a group I'd be happy to take responsibility for including the email content from anyone who really couldn't access a website. The most critical aspect is the speed of page loading - text only. When I've been on an unreliable connection I'd copy stuff and edit it in a text editor. I think this is within the realms of most people. I just think a lot of people (including myself ;) are used to email. > --- can you perhaps subscribe to a theme on a wiki and get email every > time there is a change and send email to the wiki in response? RSS is better for this, but Mediawiki for example can do email http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Enotif > - how is the community informed of new topics and of status on themes > if they cannot gain access to a wiki? or don't want to check it daily > to see if there is a new topic under discussion. Again, I think the responsibility of the editors is to keep the broader community informed. This is part of the scaling feature. I don't want to read every contribution this group would make on privacy, but I'd definitely be interested in reading a summary. We could do a temporal thing like monthly updates to the list, but as mentioned before I think most of the work gets done when there's a specific reason to do it, so as above we're sharing work before it goes into an official forum. Quite honestly, I don't think this is a huge issue. If I can keep track of everything that civil society is doing on Internet governance, it's not doing enough work ;) . > > As for the mailing list, i do not believe we should give up on it. I > think it is a good place for themes to get I agree - I wasn't suggesting ditching the list or a central forum. I just want to see it freed up to work on emerging issues, areas of deep conflict, and how the processes are going. That's enough for one list! And that's enough for one message. Danny -- Danny Butt db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.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 Apr 28 06:56:31 2006 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:56:31 +1200 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: <4451056A.7060609@wz-berlin.de> References: <002201c66a18$093d27c0$0301000a@CCKLLP.local> <4451056A.7060609@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: On 28/04/2006, at 5:54 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Bret, aren't most participants contributing on this list in an > individual capacity? Has anybody seriously suggested to restrict the > caucus to organizational members? I guess I don't understand what all > this debate on individuals is about. What did I miss? > thx, jeanette Thanks Jeanette! Seeing as I've spent an hour trying to be constructive, please allow me a letting off steam email, with the qualification that I believe this discussion is actually very important for the future of the IGC, and some of the more controversial aspects of Internet Governance more generally. Bret's email, and Vittorio's that I originally responded to, is a vivid example of why this group has not been a welcoming environment for new expertise during the time I've been on it. No one ever suggested not having individuals here. But the mere mention of the word "NGO" raises a kneejerk response, as if you stepped into the offices of Wired magazine and mentioned the word "government" in the 90s. It's a particularly individualistic philosophy and culture, not everyone shares it, and this culture needs to become optional rather than mandatory for participation, because civil society is broader than that. Please leave the declarations of cyberspace independence at the door. The anti-immigration provisions haven't aged well. The phrase "individual capacity" captures the problem of the discussion. The idea seems to be that if you aren't being paid for it, you're free from "interest" and some kind of anonymous individual. It's an economistic view of people, identifiably US- centric, and one that's not congruent with reality. The reality is that if I am a native english-speaking male working in media organisations in the West all day, my capacity to and reasons for contributing to this group are very different from most of the people who use the internet. If I work for Intel all day, that doesn't stop when I walk in the door and open my email on my home computer. Similarly if a person for whom English is a second or third lanugage works all day in ICT development projects in Jakarta, they don't become the same person as me when they sign up for this email list. People do not have the same cultural assumptions, so whoever assesses their "contributions" might not think they're that hot. And that's the political question - who does the assessment? You can talk about the "legitimacy" of the individual versus the NGO - but I can list a number of occasions here where individuals were essentially made to feel illegitimate because they didn't share the dominant culture of this group. To me, this is a serious problem, and the hysterical defenses of indivdualism from those who do well in the current regime are a symptom. Look - I don't participate in any NGOs in the technology field. If anyone suggested it's NGO-only, I couldn't be here either. I also have enough experience and know enough jokes about NGOs to have a good laugh with Meryem if we met. But NGOs are about scaling capacity to work on issues, and about collective action. We should be able to make use of their work instead of resisting it for ideological reasons. I'm not interested in policing legitimacy. But I also know that the "democratic gathering of disinterested individuals" rhetoric is just that. We're all interested. We all have different agendas and capacities. And we need to mediate the agendas and pool the capacities, wherever they come from. Danny -- http://www.dannybutt.net _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Fri Apr 28 07:48:00 2006 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 07:48:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] individuals (and next steps) Message-ID: I think it is important that we get our terminology (and thus to a degree our mental models) clarified and articulated. I do not think, for reasons I've already outlined that the IGC is a "network" (and certainly not an "open network") except in the crudest possible form i.e. it is based (in part) on a many to many email list. Rather it is currently (and I think that these are mutually exclusive) an electronic "market space" where various folks as policy entrepreneurs have used access to resources (language, personal contacts, access to travel funds) to ensure the success of their "product" in this space to the exclusion of their competitors. MG -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Meryem Marzouki Sent: April 28, 2006 12:36 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] individuals (and next steps) Le 28 avr. 06 à 10:41, Vittorio Bertola a écrit : > Meryem Marzouki ha scritto: >> Despite its numerous references, it hasn't been shown yet that the >> issue/policy entrepreneurship is a model of CS collective >> organization (which is the one discussed here re: IGC organizational >> form), rather than a concept identifying very small, niche market >> oriented, particular kind of businesses. > > Well, if you go this way, then NGOs are policy businesses all the > same, > right? Simply they don't pay dividends, they pay salaries and > reimbursements, but the principle is potentially the same: if someone > wants to make a living out of policy activities, the form of > incorporation is a secondary issue. No. What you describe is a drift of NGOs, highly encouraged when they are professionalized (which doesn't mean at all that all NGO which have staff are drifting this way). What was discussed, I think, is the NGO model as opposed to the network model for activism. It's obvious that the IGC (and CS at WSIS as a whole) is in network form. The main (recurrent) question, which the IGC asks for itself from the beginning (like many other, some more mature, networks like e.g. the social forums), that we discussed some weeks ago in early March with the IGC status quo/status quo plus/etc. questions (in summary, the role of the IGC), and that is now again on the table with Avri proposal to act as chair for a transitional period (which is most welcome) is simple to understand, though very difficult to resolve in practice: should this network remains "simply" a common space or should it become a "movement" able to make emerging collective actions? As for now, what we have observed on the ground for IGC is that it is indeed a common "space" (which is in itself an important and precious achievement) but it has failed till now to become a "movement", if only for producing common substantive positions, like the recent days have shown. My opinion is that, before asking ourselves if this profund change of nature is feasible and how, we should better ask ourselves if it is desirable: is really this what we want? My answer would be, as I've proposed in the early March discussions on this list, that: (1) IGC should remain a common space (and should really work on outreach to, as a start, the whole CS @WSIS). i.e. be the "CS plenary" for governance issues (IGF and maybe others). AND (2) Already existing or yet o be formed coalitions (call it caucus, NGO, group of NGOs, group of individuals, whatever), including non permanent one, should be the "movements", i.e. develop substantive contributions, undertake collective actions, etc. There is a full range of such kinds of coalitions that should be accomodated by the IGC as a "plenary" space: the simplest, very basic form of such a coalition could be a list of signatories (be they individuals or big NGOs) of a given statement. Elaborated forms could be similar to caucus like the HRC. The most elaborated form could be the big NGO. And yes, the individual (issue entrepreneur or not) also has his place here. Here I think Avri's role would be prominent, as: - facilitator/chair of this discussion, where this proposal above is only one of the many people may express here, - provider of syntheses of these discussions - facilitator of (hopefully) reaching a decision - proposer/facilitator of adequate processes (that would be eventually written down in a common charter) to allow us collectively dealing with practical matters, how we accomodate different structures/coalitions, different positions, etc. I'm sure we should learn from social forums experience here in terms of processes. Quite a task! Best, Meryem _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Fri Apr 28 11:50:45 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:50:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] for those concerned with network models Message-ID: For those concerned with network models. (And very much: _only_ in parallel with the other threads currently alive in the caucus space.) If you have not found already, there is a burgeoning body of work on the subject. I happen to be familiar with one 'node' where is a trove on the subject: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/netgov/ Immediately available are a raft of recent events - various streams, some video, some audio, also ppt, Podcasts, animations, etc, from those events. On the main page, that section is titled Highlights of past events & news. The most recent are under Upcoming Events. It is also worth exploring the link to Cambridge Colloquium on Complexity and Social Networks (CCCSN). Particularly there, you will find an 'event archive.' This includes, from the last few years, talks by numerous leading figures in the field. In some cases, papers and the like are available for download. This can serve as some introduction to the breadth. For a treasure of resources on what is really the core subject - Social Network Analysis - click the link with that name. You may also want to go to The Trans-Atlantic Initiative on Complex Organizations and Networks (TAICON). Through TAICON, a regular series of trans-Atlantic video conferences bring together work from both sides of the Atlantic. If you would like an introduction that is more than accessible, also comprehensive and helpful in getting hands around where the field is now, let me suggest to start Albert-Laszlo Barabasi's book Linked (available among others from Amazon). Barabasi's presentation was one of the recent TAICON video conferences. There are of course other books and papers, as you see. For practical application. You will find that practical application is just beginning. The blog on the Netgov web site (to which you can subscribe - there are subscribers from all over the world / I believe one blog entry even graphically displays that set of 'nodes' ...) occasionally discusses application. So do several of the presentations. There are of course a number of sources of such work, often available on the site, one way or the other. For purposes of the caucus, it is clear just how much serious work would be necessary to specify any sort of efficacious, operational model. I can report that several years of the opportunity to avail oneself of this remarkable resource unveils an exciting new discipline-in-the-making, albeit one rather on the upslope of its development (though with roots back a century and more, you will see) - and looking for able contributions from those who may! What is especially exciting is the fashion in which this begins to shed light that neither market nor hierarchy have been able. The most interesting work seems to lie ahead. On the list I hope we have those familiar with other such 'nodes' on the subject of social network analysis - will be looking forward to hear. David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Fri Apr 28 15:32:57 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:32:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] individuals Message-ID: >>> Danny Butt 4/28/2006 6:56 AM >>> >No one ever suggested not having individuals here. >But the mere mention of the word "NGO" raises a kneejerk >response I think you may have misunderstood the responses, just as some probably misunderstood your own intervention. You say: >NGOs are about scaling capacity to work on issues, and >about collective action. We should be able to >make use of their work instead of resisting it for ideological >reasons. Echoing your own statement, no one ever suggested not having NGOs here. I am part of an NGO. APC is here, IT4Change, ACSIS, CPSR. The HR organizations that Meryem lobbies for (quick, how many HR entrepreneurs are there on this list?) are NGOs. Who is "resisting making use of their work?" Thus, if no one ever suggesting not having individuals or NGOs here, I think Jeanette's intervention was quite appropriate: > aren't most participants contributing on this list in an > individual capacity? Has anybody seriously suggested to restrict the > caucus to organizational members? I guess I don't understand what all > this debate on individuals is about. What did I miss? > thx, jeanette If this is to be a constructive conversation, we have to have some kind of a proposal or poposition on the table. I liked the one Avri put forward. Can we move forward with that? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Fri Apr 28 15:52:35 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:52:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Next steps and communication methods Message-ID: Danny Butt: >I've tried to articulate some general principles that I think would >make the work of the IGC more effective: 1) some issue-based >specialisation or multivocality; If this means forming separate working groups on specific policy issues, etc., this concept has been part of the proposals of MMWG and IGP as to how we would like the whole Forum to work. And I think it is more productive for caucus members to do their issue-based specialization in the Forum rather than as part of the caucus per se. But that's debatable. So here -- as in so many of the false debates that have been taking place on this list -- the problem is not agreement on what to do, but the _doing_ of it. >2) ways to incorporate the work of >collectives as well as individuals (more on that in another message); To repeat, I feel like this is a non-issue. We already do try to incorporate the work of organizations. NGOs are part of this caucus and some of us arew working hard to get them involved in the Forum; e.g., those of us involved in developing themes worked with numerous organizations to get support, and will continue to do so. >3) most importantly, some allowance for tension and lack of complete >consensus. There has been some disagreement on this, but I have been completely comfortable with this principle for a long time. I wonder, however, whether you are aware of the tension between 3) and 2). _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sun Apr 30 06:20:32 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:20:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] individuals In-Reply-To: References: <002201c66a18$093d27c0$0301000a@CCKLLP.local> <4451056A.7060609@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <44548F70.5060406@bertola.eu.org> Danny Butt ha scritto: > Bret's email, and Vittorio's that I originally responded to, is a > vivid example of why this group has not been a welcoming environment > for new expertise during the time I've been on it. No one ever > suggested not having individuals here. But the mere mention of the > word "NGO" raises a kneejerk response, I'm not sure why you think so, but I want to put to the records that my feeling is the exact opposite: I've found this caucus increasingly unwelcoming for those who are not members of any of the biggest NGOs of this sector (excluding the Internet Society, which seems to be quite unpopular). But perhaps, as a second thought, it is just the absence of established common criteria to define what is or is not "fair" in terms of process, that leave everyone with the feeling of having received less attention than they ought have. > You can talk about the "legitimacy" of the individual versus the NGO > - but I can list a number of occasions here where individuals were > essentially made to feel illegitimate because they didn't share the > dominant culture of this group. To me, this is a serious problem, and > the hysterical defenses of indivdualism from those who do well in the > current regime are a symptom. Then I'm not sure why you're mentioning me, given that I'm the only member of this caucus who underwent a sort of public trial for heresy at a caucus meeting by (part of) the caucus leadership... I was very very near to be flamed away by the caucus at that time. Actually, I still have my farewell message draft (keep it handy, you never know). To me, however, there's more: I'm still wondering how this caucus can claim to represent the civil society of the Internet when, just to make an example, the single biggest lobbying victory for civil society in Europe was the rejection of the software patents directive by the European Parliament, and absolutely no one from that campaign is active here. The "individualistic philosophy and culture" you refer to has been able to shape the Internet and the information society in deep, not just by talking, but also by changing reality. I still have to see any significant practical impact of the actions of any of us who are involved here, doesn't matter if individuals or NGOs. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Sun Apr 30 13:05:38 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:05:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Transition Message-ID: Hi, First I want to indicate how grateful i am for the conversations that have been going on for last weeks on this list. I especially appreciate the statements of support that I got from so many of you. However, i do not feel that we have consensus on my proposal despite the degree of support. The strongest issue, in email i received privately as well as on the list, seems to be a discomfort with the idea of one coordinator. and since I believe that this can't work without consensus, i do not feel i can go forward as a single coordinator. If, however, we are going to have 2 coordinator (we could have more, but 2 seems to be what people are calling for) i believe, as a member of the caucus, that they should represent, to some extent the diversity in the group as much as possible when talking about 2 people. There had been suggestions of Bill and I. I was against that and still am. I think Bill would make a fine coordinator, as i believe i might. But we are both from the US and while he spends more time residing in Europe then I do, I beleive we both tend to view the world through the eyes of USians with Eurocentric lenses (however much we may sometime disagree on other things and i do hope he forgives me for characterizing his viewpoint). If the IGC wants two coordinators and wants diversity (gender as well as developing/ developed world - or any other criteria someone may suggest) then i see us as possible candidates who could not be chosen to serve together. so again, i appreciate the consideration my suggestion got, and appreciate the great discussions it seemed to initiate, but i do not feel that i have the consensus i need to put it into effect and therefore suggest that we begin to figure out what it is we want to do. anyone have a idea? thanks a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sun Apr 30 13:29:05 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 19:29:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Transition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4454F3E1.4020104@bertola.eu.org> Avri Doria ha scritto: > anyone have a idea? Sure - why don't we just freeze the caucus, start up an open working group, including whoever wants to join, to draft a charter, and see whether we can reach consensus on the practicalities of a revised structure? If we do, we might get out of this deadlock. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Sun Apr 30 13:38:20 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:38:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] Transition In-Reply-To: <4454F3E1.4020104@bertola.eu.org> References: <4454F3E1.4020104@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <2ED52320-26A2-48E6-8D8C-4CA0118AFA1C@acm.org> Hi, i think it might mean the loss of the IGC and its history and the role it has been able to achieve. or what might happen, is that some people will go off and start working on the new working group, while the rest of the people stay on IGC and eventually figure it out. but of course, someone can do this anytime, it does not take a decision of the IGC for someone to go off and start something new. a. On 30 apr 2006, at 13.29, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Avri Doria ha scritto: >> anyone have a idea? > > Sure - why don't we just freeze the caucus, start up an open working > group, including whoever wants to join, to draft a charter, and see > whether we can reach consensus on the practicalities of a revised > structure? If we do, we might get out of this deadlock. > -- > 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 mueller at syr.edu Sun Apr 30 17:13:27 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:13:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Transition Message-ID: Problem with your response, Avri, is that there was as much or more support for a single coordinator than there was for 2 co-coordinators, as far as I could tell. Frankly I won't support another co-coordinator proposal, if it means that 2 coordinators are simply plucked from the air without a process and without the establishment of a charter and some formalization of the grounds for participation, as was proposed. We can't keep ducking that problem. The virtue of your single coord. proposal was not that it was a single person, but that it was a purely transitional strategy that put a single, proven, trustworthy, accountable person in place to accomplish a transition so that we can have a real process down the road. If what you are saying is that you will do the same thing, but add another name to the "accountable person" category then I might accept it. But I don't think the problem people had was with the single coordinator. I think there were all kinds of other little dramas being acted out, which I could not attempt to describe without getting myself and the caucus into hot water, and besides it doesn't matter. Looking forward, rather than backwards or sideways as so many seem prone to do, would you please re-iterate the basic elements of your proposal in a bulleted list and show how the selection of 2 rather than one Avris would or would not affect the substance of the proposal. --MM >>> Avri Doria 4/30/2006 1:05 PM >>> Hi, First I want to indicate how grateful i am for the conversations that have been going on for last weeks on this list. I especially appreciate the statements of support that I got from so many of you. However, i do not feel that we have consensus on my proposal despite the degree of support. The strongest issue, in email i received privately as well as on the list, seems to be a discomfort with the idea of one coordinator. and since I believe that this can't work without consensus, i do not feel i can go forward as a single coordinator. If, however, we are going to have 2 coordinator (we could have more, but 2 seems to be what people are calling for) i believe, as a member of the caucus, that they should represent, to some extent the diversity in the group as much as possible when talking about 2 people. There had been suggestions of Bill and I. I was against that and still am. I think Bill would make a fine coordinator, as i believe i might. But we are both from the US and while he spends more time residing in Europe then I do, I beleive we both tend to view the world through the eyes of USians with Eurocentric lenses (however much we may sometime disagree on other things and i do hope he forgives me for characterizing his viewpoint). If the IGC wants two coordinators and wants diversity (gender as well as developing/ developed world - or any other criteria someone may suggest) then i see us as possible candidates who could not be chosen to serve together. so again, i appreciate the consideration my suggestion got, and appreciate the great discussions it seemed to initiate, but i do not feel that i have the consensus i need to put it into effect and therefore suggest that we begin to figure out what it is we want to do. anyone have a idea? 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 rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sun Apr 30 17:39:16 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:39:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] A Survey of DNS Security Message-ID: <44552E84.9070006@lists.privaterra.org> A reference to this message just appeared on Dave Farber's IP list. Thought that it would of interest to share with this list given that cybersecurity is being raised as a key issue for the IGF. regards Robert -- http://www.cs.cornell.edu/people/egs/beehive/dnssurvey.html A Survey of DNS Security: Most Vulnerable and Valuable Assets It is well-known that nameservers in the Domain Name System are vulnerable to a wide range of attacks. We recently performed a large scale survey to answer some basic questions about the legacy DNS: * Which domain names are the most vulnerable? * Which servers control the largest portion of the namespace and are thus likely to be attacked? * Are there any servers with known security holes, and which domain names do they affect? We present the results from this survey below in the hope of identifying problem spots in the Internet and thus improving the security of our common cyberinfrastructure. This study is based entirely on public data - all information available on these pages is also available to others with less-than-honorable intentions. Survey Methodology We collected 593160 unique webserver names from the Yahoo! and DMOZ.org web directories. Since the names were extracted from web directories instead of being generated automatically, they have been filtered through a preliminary level of human scrutiny. Though it is clear that the level of scrutiny is not extremely high (i.e. there are some spam hostnames in the survey), we believe that these names are representative of the sites people actually care about. We then queried the legacy DNS for these names and recorded the chain of nameservers that are involved in their resolution. We thus obtained a snapshot of the dependencies in the DNS system. A total of 166771 nameservers were discovered in this process. The survey was performed on July 22, 2004. The name delegation data enabled us to answer some basic questions about DNS security. [snipped..] -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra 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 Sun Apr 30 18:20:51 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 18:20:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] Transition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30 apr 2006, at 17.13, Milton Mueller wrote: > Looking forward, rather than backwards or sideways as so many seem > prone to do, would you please re-iterate the basic elements of your > proposal in a bulleted list and show how the selection of 2 rather > than one Avris would or would not affect the substance of the > proposal. The proposal I made, which was contingent on consensus. the basics: - i become a single coordinator of the caucus with a 1 yr term - we decide on a working charter that included a process for picking coordinators (i suggested a nomcom - but that was not well accepted, so it needs more discussion) - we then picked a second coordinator for 2 year term as soon as we have the working charter and the process for picking - as my 1 year term was ending, we picked a second coordinator for a 2 year term. with mentions about finding new collaborative methods for getting things done etc... My main concerns, other then getting a charter that gets moving again, are for a finding a reliable and acceptable method for choosing coordinators given the nature of the caucus, and for that methodology to be a staggered method, so we are never without continuity of coordination. so I think having 2 coordinators to start the transition means: - we have a choosing at some point to replace one or both of them - some have suggested privately that the act of being the transition coordinator burns the coordinators so they can't continue as coordinators after the transition. i think this is possibly true. and was certainly expecting my one year term to be non renewable (though i did not explicitly include that in the description - though i could if we thought it was necessary). so if we have two, and the theory that working the transition burns the coordinator is correct, then we burn two instead of one. - in that case we could follow the steps above with the variation - pick 2 - charter with picking method - pick 1, burn 1 (by flipping a coin or some other selection method) - after a year pick 2nd, burn the 2nd transition coordinator alternatively - pick 2 - charter with picking method - pick 1 for 2 year term, retain transition 2 for the rest of year (gives total of 3 for the balance of the year) - at the year mark pick a new one and burn the 2 transition coordinators. or ... a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From db at dannybutt.net Sun Apr 30 20:56:48 2006 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 10:56:48 +1000 Subject: [governance] Transition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <907FA4E4-F9C9-4A73-B3AC-4AC0E0333542@dannybutt.net> I fully agree with Milton. Danny On 01/05/2006, at 7:13 AM, Milton Mueller wrote: > The virtue of your single coord. proposal was not that it was a > single person, but that it was a purely transitional strategy that > put a single, proven, trustworthy, accountable person in place to > accomplish a transition so that we can have a real process down the > road. If what you are saying is that you will do the same thing, > but add another name to the "accountable person" category then I > might accept it. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance