From vb at bertola.eu.org  Tue Aug  1 03:58:14 2006
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 09:58:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF registration is open
In-Reply-To: <3AD2F9CC-1296-4C91-BF10-188008499F79@acm.org>
References: <3AD2F9CC-1296-4C91-BF10-188008499F79@acm.org>
Message-ID: <44CF0996.5020903@bertola.eu.org>

Avri Doria ha scritto:
> http://www.intgovforum.org/register/index.php

As I've noticed that the form is the usual U.N. one, which gives for 
granted that participants represent entities of some kind, I was 
wondering whether those of us who participate in this effort mostly as 
individuals should not clearly say so in their registration. Just leave 
empty the "Delegation" field and indicate "Other: Internet user" as the 
type of entity. Wouldn't that be a good idea?
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Aug  1 04:23:12 2006
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 11:23:12 +0300
Subject: [governance] IGF registration is open
In-Reply-To: <44CF0996.5020903@bertola.eu.org>
References: <3AD2F9CC-1296-4C91-BF10-188008499F79@acm.org>
	 <44CF0996.5020903@bertola.eu.org>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0608010123h1cb73293rcd46ab226da803e2@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/1/06, Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org> wrote:

> empty the "Delegation" field and indicate "Other: Internet user" as the
> type of entity. Wouldn't that be a good idea?

Works for me!

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From pouzin at well.com  Tue Aug  1 04:40:55 2006
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:40:55 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] ICANN Studienkreis
Message-ID: <200608010840.k718etld000255@ares.enst.fr>

Sorry to use the list for a personal msg, but it seems to be the only way.

Dear Wolfgang,

Three times I answered you with the same failure diag. Do you have another mail address ?

<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>: host
    mailgate2.urz.uni-halle.de[141.48.3.8] said: 451 Could not complete sender
    verify callout (in reply to RCPT TO command)

What's the problem with mailgate2.urz.uni-halle.de ?
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From peter at echnaton.serveftp.com  Tue Aug  1 05:02:54 2006
From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:02:54 +0200
Subject: [governance] US/ICANN agreement to be over
In-Reply-To: <9ea79150607311928m32c35b07u892c7b05018f312c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9ea79150607311928m32c35b07u892c7b05018f312c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <44CF18BE.4020107@echnaton.serveftp.com>

Marouen MRAIHI wrote:
> The two most important news in this article in french is that
> http://www.silicon.fr/getarticle.asp?ID=16191 :
> - The US/ICANN agreement will be over on september 30
> - Mr John Kneuer from the DoC said that they want to "give up" some of
> the controls over internet to the private sector or the international
> community. No more details on that.
> 
> The writer is wondering about the when/how and if the root servers
> will be included in this transfer.
> 
> Marouen

As far as I know the rootsevers belong to their operators, not to anybody
else, not to ICANN.


host_name("198.41.0.2","core-fo-sw1-rb1-vlan11.verisign-grs.net").
host_name("198.41.0.4","a.root-servers.net").

Looks like verisign.


host_name("192.228.79.200","b1.ip4.int").
host_name("192.228.79.201","b.root-servers.net").

Looks like ITU.

host_name("128.8.10.90","d.root-servers.net").
host_name("128.8.10.92","ads.umd.edu").

Looks like umd.edu.


host_name("192.203.230.1","e-router.arc.nasa.gov").
host_name("192.203.230.2","norad.arc.nasa.gov").

Looks like NASA.


host_name("128.63.2.53","h.root-servers.net").
host_name("128.63.2.54","h1.arl.army.mil").

Looks like US army.


host_look("198.32.64.12","l.root-servers.net","3324002316").
host_name("198.32.64.12","AS-20144-has-not-REGISTERED-the-use-of-this-prefix").

Looks like NSA or another secret service, MI5 ???


Some of the rootservers are anycasted - means you see only one of
them but there can be a lot of them behind a single ip. Each of
them belongs to his own independant organisation.


This one is owned already by ITU. No need to give it up.

host_name("192.228.79.200","b1.ip4.int").
host_name("192.228.79.201","b.root-servers.net").

ITU has to decide what to do with it.



Those belong to US taxpayers. They are forced by law never to listen
to aliens.

host_name("128.8.10.90","d.root-servers.net").
host_name("128.8.10.92","ads.umd.edu").

host_name("192.203.230.1","e-router.arc.nasa.gov").
host_name("192.203.230.2","norad.arc.nasa.gov").

host_name("128.63.2.53","h.root-servers.net").
host_name("128.63.2.54","h1.arl.army.mil").


This one is a u-boat dont expect anything of him.

host_look("198.32.64.12","l.root-servers.net","3324002316").
host_name("198.32.64.12","AS-20144-has-not-REGISTERED-the-use-of-this-prefix").


The rest - ask them to listen to

host_name("192.228.79.200","b1.ip4.int").
host_name("192.228.79.201","b.root-servers.net").

And tell the operator of the ITU server what to do.


By the way those rootservers are not really that important.
There must exist domestic rootservers in several countries already
because those TLD servers are not associated in the least with
the ICANNed root


Status China Root

soa("XN--55QX5D.","2006080109","CDNS3.CNNIC.NET.CN","210.52.214.86").
soa("XN--55QX5D.","2006080109","CDNS4.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.145.114.120").
soa("XN--55QX5D.","2006080109","CDNS5.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.139.76.55").
soa("XN--55QX5D.","2006080109","HAWK2.CNNIC.NET.CN","159.226.6.185").

soa("XN--FIQS8S.","2006080109","CDNS3.CNNIC.NET.CN","210.52.214.86").
soa("XN--FIQS8S.","2006080109","CDNS4.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.145.114.120").
soa("XN--FIQS8S.","2006080109","CDNS5.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.139.76.55").
soa("XN--FIQS8S.","2006080109","HAWK2.CNNIC.NET.CN","159.226.6.185").

soa("XN--IO0A7I.","2006080109","CDNS3.CNNIC.NET.CN","210.52.214.86").
soa("XN--IO0A7I.","2006080109","CDNS4.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.145.114.120").
soa("XN--IO0A7I.","2006080109","CDNS5.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.139.76.55").
soa("XN--IO0A7I.","2006080109","HAWK2.CNNIC.NET.CN","159.226.6.185").

Status Arab Root

soa("XN--IGBHZH7GPA.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12").
soa("XN--LGBBAT1AD8J.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12").
soa("XN--MGB2DDES.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12").
soa("XN--MGBA3A5AZCI.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12").
soa("XN--MGBA5B5CCEU.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12").
soa("XN--MGBAH1A3HJKRD.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12").
soa("XN--MGBAXP8FPL.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12").
soa("XN--MGBB7FJB.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12").
soa("XN--MGBB7FYAB.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12").
soa("XN--MGBC0A9AZCG.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12").
soa("XN--MGBCPQ6GPA1A.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12").
soa("XN--MGBERP4A5D4AR.","2006061211","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12").
soa("XN--MGBG8EDVM.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12").
soa("XN--MGBU4CHG.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12").
soa("XN--NGBEE7IID.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12").
soa("XN--WGBL6A.","4","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12").
soa("XN--YGBI2AMMX.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12").

soa("XN--MGBAAM7A8H.","12652","NS1.UAENIC.AE","213.42.0.226").
soa("XN--MGBAAM7A8H.","12652","NS2.UAENIC.AE","195.229.0.186").

soa("XN--PGBS0DH.","2005062700","NS.ATI.TN","193.95.66.10").
soa("XN--PGBS0DH.","2005062700","NS2.ATI.TN","193.95.67.22").

Status I-DNS.NET

soa("XN--3RC8E2BB9H.","2006073108","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131").
soa("XN--81B8B9A9C.","2006080108","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131").
soa("XN--C1AVG.","2006073108","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131").
soa("XN--E1APQ.","2006073108","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131").
soa("XN--G2B9A1A.","2006073108","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131").
soa("XN--I1B6B7E.","2006073108","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131").
soa("XN--J1AEF.","2006073108","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131").
soa("XN--P1AG.","2006073108","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131").
soa("XN--P1AI.","2006073108","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131").
soa("XN--QLC9A5A.","2006073108","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131").
soa("XN--USC8B9A.","2006073108","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131").
soa("XN--USCN1BV9BH3H.","2006073108","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131").
soa("XN--VF4B131B.","2006073108","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131").
soa("XN--ZB0BNW.","2006073108","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131").
soa("XN--ZV4B74Y.","2006073108","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131").


So the non ASCII poisoned countries have already decided to
go their own way. I am shure they are ready to participate
in a ITU organized root.


Just in case you want to try those domains using arab or chinese
letters

http://www.cesidianroot.com/

will tell you how it is implemented and how you can use it.
I am shure there are other sources as.

Please feel free to ask me personally or on the list.

Please feel free to ask me in french or spanish or italian
although my command of english is much better :)

Kind regards
Peter and Karin Dambier

-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
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/


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Tue Aug  1 05:16:53 2006
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 11:16:53 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN Studienkreis
In-Reply-To: <200608010840.k718etld000255@ares.enst.fr>
References: <200608010840.k718etld000255@ares.enst.fr>
Message-ID: <20060801091653.GA23185@nic.fr>

On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 10:40:55AM +0200,
 Louis Pouzin <pouzin at well.com> wrote 
 a message of 20 lines which said:

> What's the problem with mailgate2.urz.uni-halle.de ?

[Yet another so called anti-spam protection, but uninformed people.]

It calls back your email server, to check that the return address is
valid. If you use greylisting (ENST does) or similar techniques, it
will fail. Check your logs. When you write to Wolfgang, you get the
callback:

Aug  1 11:14:30 ariane postfix/smtpd[29714]: connect from mailgate.urz.uni-halle.de[141.48.3.51]

and possibly a refusal:

Aug  1 11:14:30 ariane postfix/smtpd[29714]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from mailgate.urz.uni-halle.de[141.48.3.51]: 450 <stephane at bortzmeyer.org>: Recipient address rejected: Greylisted for 300 seconds (see http://isg.ee.ethz.ch/tools/postgrey/help/bortzmeyer.org.html); from=<> to=<stephane at bortzmeyer.org> proto=SMTP helo=<mailgate.urz.uni-halle.de>
Aug  1 11:14:30 ariane postfix/smtpd[29714]: disconnect from mailgate.urz.uni-halle.de[141.48.3.51]
Aug  1 11:14:30 ariane postfix/smtp[29738]: 90FEC240814: host mailgate.urz.uni-halle.de[141.48.3.51] said: 451 Could not complete sender verify callout (in reply to RCPT TO command)
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From wnew at ip-watch.ch  Tue Aug  1 05:50:50 2006
From: wnew at ip-watch.ch (William New)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 11:50:50 +0200
Subject: [governance] US/ICANN agreement to be over
In-Reply-To: <9ea79150607311928m32c35b07u892c7b05018f312c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <44B3612F0045F691@mail17.bluewin.ch> (added by postmaster@bluewin.ch)

I just wanted to add that I have covered the so-called "end of the US-ICANN
agreement" every time it has come up since the agreement was created, and
will be very surprised if it is not renewed yet again. In the past, the US
always has said that is "wants to give up" the controls vis a vis the MOU,
but then says that just a few more things must be accomplished first,
thereby renewing it. Maybe it's different this time! William New,
Intellectual Property Watch Geneva
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Marouen MRAIHI [mailto:mr.marouen at gmail.com] 
Sent: mardi, 1. août 2006 04:28
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: [governance] US/ICANN agreement to be over

The two most important news in this article in french is that
http://www.silicon.fr/getarticle.asp?ID=16191 :
- The US/ICANN agreement will be over on september 30
- Mr John Kneuer from the DoC said that they want to "give up" some of the
controls over internet to the private sector or the international community.
No more details on that.

The writer is wondering about the when/how and if the root servers will be
included in this transfer.

Marouen
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Aug  1 06:31:39 2006
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 13:31:39 +0300
Subject: [governance] US/ICANN agreement to be over
In-Reply-To: <44CF18BE.4020107@echnaton.serveftp.com>
References: <9ea79150607311928m32c35b07u892c7b05018f312c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <44CF18BE.4020107@echnaton.serveftp.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0608010331t4d40e3d5gdb885a241889b531@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/1/06, Peter Dambier <peter at echnaton.serveftp.com> wrote:
All,

For those who aren't familiar with Peter and Karen's sense of humor, a
list of which organisations are responsible for which root nameserver
can find the authoritative list @ http://www.root-servers.org/


> Marouen MRAIHI wrote:
> > The two most important news in this article in french is that
> > http://www.silicon.fr/getarticle.asp?ID=16191 :
> > - The US/ICANN agreement will be over on september 30
> > - Mr John Kneuer from the DoC said that they want to "give up" some of
> > the controls over internet to the private sector or the international
> > community. No more details on that.
> >
> > The writer is wondering about the when/how and if the root servers
> > will be included in this transfer.
>
> As far as I know the rootsevers belong to their operators, not to anybody
> else, not to ICANN.


This is correct, except for "L", which is operated by ICANN.

>
>
> host_name("192.228.79.200","b1.ip4.int").
> host_name("192.228.79.201","b.root-servers.net").
>
> Looks like ITU.

It's Information Sciences Institute.  Do they have a contract with ITU
to run "B"?? If so, that would be news to me.

>
> host_look("198.32.64.12","l.root-servers.net","3324002316").
> host_name("198.32.64.12","AS-20144-has-not-REGISTERED-the-use-of-this-prefix").


ASNs do NOT register the use of prefixes.  Organizations enter data in
registry whois databases.  This prefix is entered in whois and
associated with the ASN in a Routing Registry.

PrefixinUse (http://www.ris.ripe.net/perl-risapp/prefixinuse.html) shows:

198.32.64.0/24 was last announced on 2006-08-01 05:09:15Z. 1 entries
are found for 198.32.64.0/24.
Prefix    	Last announced    	Origin AS
198.32.64.0/24 	2006-08-01 05:09:15Z	20144

whois tells me:

NetRange:   198.32.0.0 - 198.32.255.255
CIDR:       198.32.0.0/16
NetName:    NET-EP-1
NetHandle:  NET-198-32-0-0-1
Parent:     NET-198-0-0-0-0
NetType:    Direct Assignment
NameServer: DOT.EP.NET
NameServer: FLAG.EP.NET
Comment:
RegDate:    1997-06-09
Updated:    2001-12-17


>
> Looks like NSA or another secret service, MI5 ???

ICANN for those not getting the joke.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Tue Aug  1 06:44:25 2006
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:44:25 +0200
Subject: [governance] Who manages the root nameservers (Was: US/ICANN agreement to be over
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0608010331t4d40e3d5gdb885a241889b531@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9ea79150607311928m32c35b07u892c7b05018f312c@mail.gmail.com> <44CF18BE.4020107@echnaton.serveftp.com> <f65fb55e0608010331t4d40e3d5gdb885a241889b531@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060801104425.GA5504@nic.fr>

On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 01:31:39PM +0300,
 McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote 
 a message of 85 lines which said:

> a list of which organisations are responsible for which root
> nameserver can find the authoritative list @
> http://www.root-servers.org/

No, not authoritative (although quite comprehensive and certainly
useful). There is no structure which supervises all the root
nameservers so the information about them entirely depends on the good
will if their administrators and the good relations between them. See
how some root nameservers are better documented than other.

Bill Manning, manager of B-root, often complains publically about
http://www.root-servers.org/ and that's may be why information about
B-root is limited.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Tue Aug  1 07:06:26 2006
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 13:06:26 +0200
Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root
In-Reply-To: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043568@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <0J3200DB79D5AG@mail.uni-halle.de>
	 <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043568@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <954259bd0608010406q6a01424bwfe2d2d0a646599db@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Wolfgang is right : the challenge we all are confronted with is to invent a
new type of multi-stakeholder structure (whatever that is) that can be
established directly at the international level and is not a traditional
intergovernmental organization.

As far as I know, there is no possibility today to create entities directly
at the international level, apart from intergovernmental organizations (and
this requires very complex and lengthy negotiations and treaties) : you
cannot create for instance a global company or a global NGO right away, able
to operate (and be recognized) in all countries on the basis of their
website.

ICANN was incorporated as a US non-profit corporation for many reasons. But
one of them is that there was no way to do anything else directly at the
international level. The World Wide Web Consortium had chosen a different
approach and was never formally incorporated : it instead relies upon simple
Host agreements with institutions such as MIT, Keio University and
(initially) INRIA. For those who do not know the story, this lack of formal
incorporation prevented them to be accredited to the WSIS process.

When thinking about the future of ICANN - and other multi-stakeholder
mechanisms -, this question of new type(s) of international structure(s) -
and its (their) internal governance charter(s) - is the core nut that we are
all afraid to crack.

The "seat agreement" notion that Wolfgang is talking about is a key issue :
the Internet is a global network; its governance structure can and should
only be global. As the traditional mechanism of a pure intergovernmental
organization is obviously not appropriate, what status could be created
so for a new type of international, multi-stakeholder structure ? And what
law would apply, irrespective of the place its "offices" are located in ?

Bertrand






On 7/27/06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>
> Parminder:
>
>
> A self declaration of adherence is not enough. ICANN is incorporated under
> US law and that law alone is enforceable on it. ICANN is not incorporated
> under international law. And international law doesn't apply except by a US
> executive or judicial interpretation of it, that too in all cases
> subordinate to the US law.
>
>
>
> Wolfgang:
>
>
>
> One of the option would be to have something like a "seat agreement" like
> the UN has in NYC. This is one option, but normally not the practice for
> non-govenrmental or private organisaitons but only for intergovernmental
> organisaiton operating under the Vienna Convention (which guarantees also
> diplomatic status to its employees). If you would prefer such a solution,
> you have to change ICANN into an intergovernmentl body. I would prefer to
> "invent" something which creates new procedures and practices, based on
> (good and bad) existing experiences from the 20st century diplomacy.
>
> ________________________________________________
>
> Parminder Jeet Singh
>
> IT for Change, Bangalore
>
> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
>
> 91-80-26654134
>
> www.ITforChange.net
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter [mailto:
> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-
>
> > halle.de]
>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 4:42 PM
>
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org;
>
> > Milton Mueller; apeake at gmail.com
>
> > Subject: AW: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-
>
> > lateral oversight of the root
>
> >
>
> > Dear list,
>
> >
>
> > a lot of this debate is hot air. The concept of ICANN was never to be
>
> > above or outside international (governmental)  law. Magaziner made this
>
> > clear after the EU asked some sharp questions in March 1998. This is
>
> > reflected in Article 4 of the "Articles of Incorporation", still the
> main
>
> > legal basis for ICANN (can not be changed like bylaws) which reads as
>
> > follows:
>
> >
>
> > "Article 4: The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the
> Internet
>
> > community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with
>
> > relevant principles of international law and applicable international
>
> > conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent
>
> > with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent
> processes
>
> > that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To
>
> > this effect, the Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with
> relevant
>
> > international organizations."
>
> >
>
> > There is space for interpretation
>
> > * what the "relevant principles of internationa law" means (obviously
> jus
>
> > cogens, including sovereign equality),
>
> > *  what "applicable internaitonal conventions" are (cybercrime
> convention,
>
> > ITU regulation, WIPO treaties, GATS, TRIPS, UNESCO Convention on
> Cultural
>
> > Diversity?) and
>
> > * what relevant internaitonal organisaitons are (IETF, RIR, CENTR, ITU,
>
> > UNESCO, UN. OECD?)
>
> >
>
> > But regardless of all interpretations, ICANN was never "putside"
>
> > inernational law and althougn governments got nothign more than an
>
> > "avisory role", ICANN was and is legally obliged to carry out its
>
> > activities in conformity with the law (and this includes also the "local
>
> > l,aw", that is "national jurisdictions" a formula which gave DENIC and
>
> > other a lot of power in their struggle to avoid a top down PDP for
> ccTLDs
>
> > and should be also more used in the WHOIS debate).
>
> >
>
> > With principle 2 (2005) the US Govenrment recognized de facto the
>
> > sovereignty of governments over the national domain name space which is
>
> > reflected in.Para 63 of the Tunis Agenda and reads as follows:
> "Countries
>
> > should not be involved in decisions regarding another country´s ccTLD.
>
> > Their legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by each country in
>
> > diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs need to be
>
> > respected, upheld and addressed via a flexible and improved framework
> and
>
> > mechanisms".
>
> >
>
> > This is clear language, supported and accepted by the US govenrment. The
>
> > eIANA project by NASK translates this words partly into action. It can
> be
>
> > speculated whether this was the price the USG paid to China to remove
>
> > Bejings opposition against the  ICANN controlled DNS, but as I said,
> this
>
> > is speculation. If you check recent polica decisions in China, also with
>
> > regad to iDNS, than you will recognoze that the agenda has been chnged.
> We
>
> > do nt have 1998 anymore.
>
> >
>
> > However, as long as I can remember, no case is known where a ccTLD
> became
>
> > the subject of a (dirty) political game (even the .ly or .iq or .af
> cases
>
> > had no political but commercial or procedural backgrounds).
>
> >
>
> > Insofar Becky Burrs proposal should be seen as more general idea to find
> a
>
> > way to satisfy the wish of governments to play a role (elsewhere in the
>
> > sky or, as the EU have proposed on an undefined "level of principle"). I
>
> > made a similar proposal already during the UNICTTF Internet Governance
>
> > meeting in New York in March 2004, proposing something like an "Internet
>
> > Convention" for the establishment of an "Internet Security Council",
> only
>
> > for cases where the "security and stability of the Internet" is affected
>
> > (with 15 member states). In my proposal I said that such a committee
>
> > should work only as an adhoc Sub-Committee of the  GAC, should have no
>
> > authorization function but should be activated only in cases where "the
>
> > security and stability of the Internet" is affected. For such a
> procedure
>
> > there would have been a need to define clear criteria to find out
> whether
>
> > a case is indeed a case threatening the stbaility and security of the
>
> > Internet. The criteria would be the result of a multistakeholder
>
> > negotations process. You would need an additonal committee, which would
>
> > check applications of governments to start the procedure in ther adHoc
>
> > Committee.With other words you would intriduce a "procedural buffer" to
>
> > reduce misuse or capture of the governmental procedure.
>
> >
>
> > To have such an intergovernmental adHoc Internet Security Council  under
>
> > the GAC would have been included the need to settle the Taiwan question
> in
>
> > GAC to enable China to join. The reaction to my rather detailed proposal
>
> > (quated also in the Washington Internet Daily) was rather mixed and I
> got
>
> > applause also from suspicious corners. During WGIG we discussed this
> again
>
> > and again. No consensus. Some WGIG members, including me, opted at the
> end
>
> > for a "status quo minus", that is that USG should terminate its
> historical
>
> > grown role and should trust the global Internet Community and ICANN (and
>
> > not become replace by an "internationalzed oversight mechanism) under
> the
>
> > condition that ICANN is embedded into a system of accountability, checks
>
> > and balances and that government have "on the level of principle
> elsewhere
>
> > in the sky" a more general role which they have already now according to
>
> > the rights under the Charter of the United Nations. .
>
> >
>
> > How such an approach could be translated into working mechanisms is the
>
> > one million dollar question. Para 63 (WSIS II) calls for "a flexible and
>
> > improved framework and mechanisms". One interpretation is that
> "improved"
>
> > implies that no new body is needed but you have to develop further
>
> > existing mechanisms. This is the same what Kofi Annan called for in New
>
> > York in March 2004, when he called for "political innovations".
>
> >
>
> > ICANN 1.0 was a "political innovation" but went too far by excluding
>
> > governments from decision making and giving nine voting board seats to
>
> > individual Internet users. After September 11, 2001 (and the crash of
> the
>
> > .com hype)  Stuart Lynn wanted to change this but the result was nothing
>
> > more than a "de facto veto right" of the GAC and the exlcusion of At
> Large
>
> > from the decision making process. ALAC got a voice, no vote. No
> government
>
> > opposed the reduction of At Large. Later in the WSIS context, Paul
> Twomey
>
> > re-discovered the role of the users" as a shield against governmental
>
> > efforts to push ICANN away. Sith the Tunis summit ICANN got what it
>
> > wanted: Its inernational recognition as a multistakeholder organisation
>
> > but with the burden to finish its hom,ework and to move foreward in an
>
> > undifend process of "enhanced cooperation".  And this is what is now
>
> > happening. Moving forward into unknow territory.
>
> >
>
> > My understanding of the recent establishment of the joint GAC-Board
>
> > working group is that the key players realize and understand what to do
>
> > but have not yet a clue how to formalize this in a way which would avoid
>
> > going back to the traditional international law making on the one hand
> but
>
> > respecting also de jure the sovereignty of nations on the other hand by
>
> > having a mechanism in place for govenrmental actions if issues appear
>
> > which go beyond the DNS and Root Server management and affect "world
>
> > peace".
>
> >
>
> > Sofar I am still in favour of an enhanced joint cooperative mechanism
>
> > between GAC and the Board. My innovation would be to include the ALAC
> (as
>
> > the other non-technical advisory board with no voting powers in the
> Board)
>
> > in such a group. This would create a new triangular "Internet Security
>
> > body" where you could give "veto rights" to a stakeholder group (and not
>
> > to single UN member states). But I am afaid that this will take more
> time
>
> > than one hearing at Capitol Hill and another Forum close the the
>
> > Acropolis.
>
> >
>
> > Best wishes
>
> >
>
> > wolfgang
>
> >
>
> > Yuthe conclusion w
>
> >
>
> > to this proposal - this was before WGIG - n  with
>
> >
>
> > ________________________________
>
> >
>
> > Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
>
> > Gesendet: Mi 26.07.2006 12:01
>
> > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton Mueller'; apeake at gmail.com
>
> > Betreff: RE: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-
>
> > lateral oversight of the root
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Milton wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Another problem with this debate I have noticed is a confusion between
>
> > two
>
> >
>
> > > distinct things:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 1. The importance of Internet policies and the need, or even the
>
> >
>
> > > inevitability, of governments playing a role in how those policies are
>
> >
>
> > > rules are made.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 2. Control over modifications of the Root Zone File (RZF).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Let's create a sharp distinction between the two.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On the contrary, my opinion is that the sharp connection between the two
>
> > is obvious.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > For example, is it at all difficult to see why US refuses to relinquish
>
> > control over RZF? And this even at the risk of courting considerable
>
> > international ill-will for sticking to a very illogical and untenable
>
> > stand of unilateralism. Is it only because US is concerned about
> technical
>
> > stability and security of the Internet, and others may not be? Others
> are
>
> > equally concerned, and there cannot be any real difference of opinion on
>
> > this issue. It is so obvious that if the issue was only technical it
> wont
>
> > be difficult to reach an arrangement for supervisor of RTZ under a team
> of
>
> > international experts or some other expertise based
> arrangement.  Everyone
>
> > knows that behind the control of RTZ is hidden the issue of wider
>
> > political control over the Internet. And RTZ control is one way to
>
> > exercise such political control over Internet. US government has other
>
> > controls as well through its legal relationship with some IG related
>
> > bodies.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >Since ICANN is a global organization and needs to be
>
> >
>
> > > accountable, governments can and should establish global rules that
> help
>
> >
>
> > > to make it accountable. For example, if ICANN or its successor abuses
>
> > its
>
> >
>
> > > authority, breaks its own rules, cheats, steals, etc. it needs to be
>
> >
>
> > > accountable. Governments need to work out how to apply competition
>
> > policy
>
> >
>
> > > and law, and trade rules to ICANN. That's all legitimate government
>
> >
>
> > > business.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I have heard a lot about how ICANN should be obligated to observe
>
> > international law, should stick to all new and old international
> treaties
>
> > etc, but not much on how this can be ensured. Shall it be left to
> ICANN's
>
> > interpretation and its goodwill? Or to US government which has all kinds
>
> > of control over ICANN? Every higher political power exercises its
>
> > political authority through reserving some powers of last resort. (ICANN
>
> > being incorporated under US law makes its subject to so many of these
>
> > powers of US gov which can kick in during an emergency - emergency for
> the
>
> > US - that this fact itself is scary for non US citizens). It is more
>
> > important to have these powers in reserve, than use them often. Control
>
> > over RTZ is seen as one of such powers that enable exercise of political
>
> > authority. Whoever has legitimate political power over public policy
>
> > issues related to Internet can only enforce it by having some powers of
>
> > last resort over the actual running of the infrastructure. This much is
>
> > obvious, even if we may still debate which body or arrangement should
>
> > exercise political oversight over Internet.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >  >Governments can have 1
>
> >
>
> > > without 2.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Maybe they can. I do not insist that formal process of authentication of
>
> > RTZ modification is the only 'control lever' available for enforcing
>
> > political oversight. There can be others, but this lever is being used
> at
>
> > present by US, and others see it as one of the main levers as well. One
> or
>
> > the other such lever will be needed for 'enforcing' political oversight.
>
> > So if one agrees with the need for political oversight, then one may
> have
>
> > to see RTZ control as a connected issue.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 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, July 24, 2006 8:59 PM
>
> >
>
> > > To: apeake at gmail.com; Governance
>
> >
>
> > > Subject: Re: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-
>
> >
>
> > > lateral oversight of the root
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >>> apeake at gmail.com 7/20/2006 10:12 AM >>>
>
> >
>
> > > >Thanks to Brenden Kuerbis and IGP for pointing to an interesting
>
> >
>
> > > >proposal from Becky Burr and Marilyn Cade on oversight of the root
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > A bit behind the traffic here, but please note that the proposal is
>
> >
>
> > > Burr's.
>
> >
>
> > > Marilyn Cade has simply endorsed it.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Another problem with this debate I have noticed is a confusion between
>
> > two
>
> >
>
> > > distinct things:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 1. The importance of Internet policies and the need, or even the
>
> >
>
> > > inevitability, of governments playing a role in how those policies are
>
> >
>
> > > rules are made.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 2. Control over modifications of the Root Zone File (RZF).
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Let's create a sharp distinction between the two. Governments can have
> 1
>
> >
>
> > > without 2. Since ICANN is a global organization and needs to be
>
> >
>
> > > accountable, governments can and should establish global rules that
> help
>
> >
>
> > > to make it accountable. For example, if ICANN or its successor abuses
>
> > its
>
> >
>
> > > authority, breaks its own rules, cheats, steals, etc. it needs to be
>
> >
>
> > > accountable. Governments need to work out how to apply competition
>
> > policy
>
> >
>
> > > and law, and trade rules to ICANN. That's all legitimate government
>
> >
>
> > > business.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > But that does not mean that governments need to have or should have
> some
>
> >
>
> > > kind of veto power over modifications of the root zone file. It seems
> to
>
> >
>
> > > me that giving governments*any one or any collection of them*some kind
>
> > of
>
> >
>
> > > final veto power over the RZF is just asking for trouble. The Burr
>
> >
>
> > > proposal tries to deal with this by saying that governments can
>
> > intervene
>
> >
>
> > > only to protect technical stability and security. But this is like
>
> > telling
>
> >
>
> > > a fox he can only eat one of the chickens he is guarding when the
>
> >
>
> > > stability and security of the farm is threatened. The fox will always
>
> > want
>
> >
>
> > > to eat the chickens, and will use any excuse he can to define
> something
>
> > as
>
> >
>
> > > a threat to the farm's stability and security.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Governments and their representatives are not likely to have any clue
> as
>
> >
>
> > > to what RZF changes affect the technical security and stability of the
>
> >
>
> > > Internet. But they will know how their political interests are
> affected.
>
> >
>
> > > They will want to control or affect the RZF for political reasons, not
>
> >
>
> > > technical ones.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > ____________________________________________________________
>
> >
>
> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>
> >
>
> > >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>
> >
>
> > > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>
> >
>
> > >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > For all list information and functions, see:
>
> >
>
> > >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> >
>
> > ____________________________________________________________
>
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> >
>
> > For all list information and functions, see:
>
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060801/afcd25e3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060801/afcd25e3/attachment.txt>

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Aug  1 07:25:18 2006
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 14:25:18 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: Who manages the root nameservers (Was: US/ICANN agreement to be over
In-Reply-To: <20060801104425.GA5504@nic.fr>
References: <9ea79150607311928m32c35b07u892c7b05018f312c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <44CF18BE.4020107@echnaton.serveftp.com>
	 <f65fb55e0608010331t4d40e3d5gdb885a241889b531@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20060801104425.GA5504@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0608010425i7b863772x52b74d75ac3d91c1@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/1/06, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at internatif.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 01:31:39PM +0300,
>  McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote
>  a message of 85 lines which said:
>
> > a list of which organisations are responsible for which root
> > nameserver can find the authoritative list @
> > http://www.root-servers.org/
>
> No, not authoritative (although quite comprehensive and certainly
> useful).

Perhaps I should have said "most authoritative".  A list maintained by
an association of root server operators is going to be the
authoritative one in my book.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Tue Aug  1 08:36:36 2006
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 14:36:36 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root
In-Reply-To: <954259bd0608010406q6a01424bwfe2d2d0a646599db@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0J3200DB79D5AG@mail.uni-halle.de> <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043568@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0608010406q6a01424bwfe2d2d0a646599db@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060801123636.GA20751@nic.fr>

On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 01:06:26PM +0200,
 Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote 
 a message of 1421 lines which said:

> As far as I know, there is no possibility today to create entities
> directly at the international level,

It is indeed a big problem. Do note that, even inside the European
Union only, the problem exists: none of the contenders for the
management of ".eu" was "european" for that reason.

> ICANN was incorporated as a US non-profit corporation for many
> reasons. But one of them is that there was no way to do anything
> else directly at the international level.

This is a very weak argument. Because, if it were a real reason, ICANN
could have been incorporated anywhere in the world.

> As the traditional mechanism of a pure intergovernmental
> organization is obviously not appropriate, what status could be
> created so for a new type of international, multi-stakeholder
> structure ? And what law would apply, irrespective of the place its
> "offices" are located in ?

A realistic and short-term solution, which I suggested at the WSIS, is
simply to host the new structure in an "innocent country", a small and
quite neutral country which, unlike the USA or China or France, seems
safe for everyone. Costa-Rica or Finland are two typical examples (and
they have good Internet connectivity).

But the hosting country is typically a detail: noone complains that
the RIPE-NCC is a Dutch organization (because it cannot be
european). That is because there is no MoU between the RIPE-NCC and
the Dutch governement and no claims from the Dutch governement that it
owns the Internet.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From vb at bertola.eu.org  Tue Aug  1 08:53:01 2006
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:53:01 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN Studienkreis
In-Reply-To: <20060801091653.GA23185@nic.fr>
References: <200608010840.k718etld000255@ares.enst.fr> <20060801091653.GA23185@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <44CF4EAD.9070902@bertola.eu.org>

Stephane Bortzmeyer ha scritto:
> [Yet another so called anti-spam protection, but uninformed people.]
> 
> It calls back your email server, to check that the return address is
> valid. If you use greylisting (ENST does) or similar techniques, it
> will fail.

By the way, greylisting (or other similar "anti-spam" devices that only 
a nerd could conceive, and that make sane people like Louis go mad) 
would be an interesting subject for discussion in Athens...
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Tue Aug  1 09:02:56 2006
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 15:02:56 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Re: ICANN Studienkreis
In-Reply-To: <44CF4EAD.9070902@bertola.eu.org>
References: <200608010840.k718etld000255@ares.enst.fr> <20060801091653.GA23185@nic.fr> <44CF4EAD.9070902@bertola.eu.org>
Message-ID: <20060801130256.GA27452@nic.fr>

On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 02:53:01PM +0200,
 Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org> wrote 
 a message of 21 lines which said:

> By the way, greylisting [off-topic and untrue remarks deleted] would
> be an interesting subject for discussion in Athens...

Why? What's the connection with Internet governance? AOL bullying
against small email providers, OK, I understand but should the IGF
discuss of every anti-spam technique?


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Tue Aug  1 09:35:11 2006
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 09:35:11 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN Studienkreis
In-Reply-To: <44CF4EAD.9070902@bertola.eu.org>
References: <200608010840.k718etld000255@ares.enst.fr>
	<20060801091653.GA23185@nic.fr> <44CF4EAD.9070902@bertola.eu.org>
Message-ID: <20060801093511.xcyru7fn404004gg@secure.privaterra.org>

The whole issue of - SPAM - how to deal with it from a technical 
perspective and the policy issues involved likely would be a good idea 
for a workshop and/or panel at Athens.

An idea would be to have a panel with these different perspectives:

- technologists and/or engineers : explaining the issue and the 
numerous methods used to combat spam

- Consumer protection and/or developping country perspective : 
Desribing the costs, damages and harm SPAM does..

- Govt/ policy experts : describing an overview of the protocols and/or 
frameworks in place to deal with spam

- NGO/digital rights experts : describing the rights implications of 
spam filtering. Unintended consequeces and implications for free speech


There was a panel recently at the 2006 NTEN NTC conference titled -  
The Future of Email Delivery - that would be good to replicate somehow. 
Refs are below.

http://nten.org/conferences-2006-ntc
http://stream.luxmedia.com/?file=clients/nten/ntc06_EmailForum.rm 
(video archive)

I hope this idea proves useful. Would be good to collaboratively 
develop it further.

regards

Robert




Quoting Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org>:

> Stephane Bortzmeyer ha scritto:
>> [Yet another so called anti-spam protection, but uninformed people.]
>>
>> It calls back your email server, to check that the return address is
>> valid. If you use greylisting (ENST does) or similar techniques, it
>> will fail.
>
> By the way, greylisting (or other similar "anti-spam" devices that only
> a nerd could conceive, and that make sane people like Louis go mad)
> would be an interesting subject for discussion in Athens...
> -- 
> vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Aug  1 10:07:10 2006
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:07:10 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for
	introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root
Message-ID: <s4cf27f5.098@gwia202.syr.edu>


Canada?

>>> bortzmeyer at internatif.org 8/1/2006 8:36:36 AM >>>
A realistic and short-term solution, which I suggested at the WSIS, is
simply to host the new structure in an "innocent country", a small and
quite neutral country which, unlike the USA or China or France, seems
safe for everyone. Costa-Rica or Finland are two typical examples (and
they have good Internet connectivity).


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Aug  1 10:11:15 2006
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:11:15 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] US/ICANN agreement to be over
Message-ID: <s4cf28da.051@gwia202.syr.edu>

Unfortunately, this report is in error. And can probably be blamed on
Kieren McCarthy's innaccurate and sensationalistic headline in his
report (are you here, Kieren? See what happens?) 

For an accurate report, see
http://internetgovernance.org/news.html#ntiahearing_072706 

>>> mr.marouen at gmail.com 7/31/2006 10:28:06 PM >>>
>The two most important news in this article in french is that
>http://www.silicon.fr/getarticle.asp?ID=16191 :
>- The US/ICANN agreement will be over on september 30
>- Mr John Kneuer from the DoC said that they want to "give up" some
of
>the controls over internet to the private sector or the international
>community. No more details on that.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From LMcKnigh at syr.edu  Tue Aug  1 10:20:01 2006
From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:20:01 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for
	introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root
Message-ID: <s4cf2ae7.085@gwia202.syr.edu>

Following this logic, next we suggest the UN leave NYC, and of course
the World Bank & IMF depart DC.  

There, we've solved the world's problems ; (

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> mueller at syr.edu 8/1/2006 10:07 AM >>>

Canada?

>>> bortzmeyer at internatif.org 8/1/2006 8:36:36 AM >>>
A realistic and short-term solution, which I suggested at the WSIS, is
simply to host the new structure in an "innocent country", a small and
quite neutral country which, unlike the USA or China or France, seems
safe for everyone. Costa-Rica or Finland are two typical examples (and
they have good Internet connectivity).


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org 
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From baptista at cynikal.net  Tue Aug  1 10:30:59 2006
From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:30:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for	introducingmulti-lateral
 oversight of the root
In-Reply-To: <s4cf27f5.098@gwia202.syr.edu>
References: <s4cf27f5.098@gwia202.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0608011026260.19764@ruby.cynikal.net>


This whole idea for creating a new root fiasco is a bit simple minded.
Every country should have their own root system.  In some places it should
even be legislated into place to ensure privacy of root transactions.

http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/papers/Root_Server_Privacy_Complaint.pdf

To start creating a new root corporation with all the bells and whisles is
just miltons way of sayig - keep the free lunch boxes coming.

To gurantee independence of the root infrastructure the best means of
assuring that is by running your own.  When sufficient countries are doing
so then it will become critical to co-ordinate the labels - but for now a
simple sync between the new root and the iana root will suffice.

No need for more simple minded wsis or icann meetings that no one much
cares to attend, except the free lunch crowd.

cheers
joe

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Milton Mueller wrote:

>
> Canada?
>
> >>> bortzmeyer at internatif.org 8/1/2006 8:36:36 AM >>>
> A realistic and short-term solution, which I suggested at the WSIS, is
> simply to host the new structure in an "innocent country", a small and
> quite neutral country which, unlike the USA or China or France, seems
> safe for everyone. Costa-Rica or Finland are two typical examples (and
> they have good Internet connectivity).
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From nyangkweagien at gmail.com  Tue Aug  1 10:29:17 2006
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:29:17 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root
In-Reply-To: <20060801123636.GA20751@nic.fr>
References: <0J3200DB79D5AG@mail.uni-halle.de>
	 <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043568@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	 <954259bd0608010406q6a01424bwfe2d2d0a646599db@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20060801123636.GA20751@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <a6bc8cb30608010729s18018f47s2926837957a35493@mail.gmail.com>

Forumists should strive at fostering credible Journalism



One thing that I beckon people, at the IGF and particularly active
participants on this forum, to understand is that their inputs are
sources for news articles. And when a Journalist uses such material,
he or she needs to provide the source or see the article thrown to the
dust bin or if published, he/she queues up for a plagiarism case. The
source here means who said what and why and MOST IMPORTANTLY, who is
that person that said what and where is the person from. This enables
(what we refer to as) attribution to be credible so that the reader
trusts the information since the source could be traced.
Unfortunately, most people at this forum do not sign their inputs with
theirs name plates as Professor Lee and Mr Singh does. When
resourceful persons like Adams Pearke, Milton Mueller, Avri Doria etc,
conceal their identification, they render the task of the Journalist
difficult and reporting on IGF poor. The end result being that the
important work being done here end up not being well known by the
public. And Reporters' articles end up in the bottom "page" of the
Editor's dust bin. A frustrating thing isn't it?
My appeal is that, forumist should henceforth let their name plate
appear at the end of their contributions. This should be in manner of
Professor Lee, Dr Jean Louis Fullsack and Mr Singh. They all score
high marks from the journalism milieu!!!.
So doing, you would be fostering credible Journalism. I know that the
big brains at IGF want but just that.
OR DO YOU LIKE TO SEE MY PAPER BEING DUMPED AT THE BOTTOM "PAGE" OF MY
EDITOR'S DUSTBIN?

Kudos, for the rich inputs on the various agendas

Forumly yours
NAA


On 8/1/06, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at internatif.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 01:06:26PM +0200,
>  Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote
>  a message of 1421 lines which said:
>
> > As far as I know, there is no possibility today to create entities
> > directly at the international level,
>
> It is indeed a big problem. Do note that, even inside the European
> Union only, the problem exists: none of the contenders for the
> management of ".eu" was "european" for that reason.
>
> > ICANN was incorporated as a US non-profit corporation for many
> > reasons. But one of them is that there was no way to do anything
> > else directly at the international level.
>
> This is a very weak argument. Because, if it were a real reason, ICANN
> could have been incorporated anywhere in the world.
>
> > As the traditional mechanism of a pure intergovernmental
> > organization is obviously not appropriate, what status could be
> > created so for a new type of international, multi-stakeholder
> > structure ? And what law would apply, irrespective of the place its
> > "offices" are located in ?
>
> A realistic and short-term solution, which I suggested at the WSIS, is
> simply to host the new structure in an "innocent country", a small and
> quite neutral country which, unlike the USA or China or France, seems
> safe for everyone. Costa-Rica or Finland are two typical examples (and
> they have good Internet connectivity).
>
> But the hosting country is typically a detail: noone complains that
> the RIPE-NCC is a Dutch organization (because it cannot be
> european). That is because there is no MoU between the RIPE-NCC and
> the Dutch governement and no claims from the Dutch governement that it
> owns the Internet.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>


-- 
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist/Outcome Mapper
Special Assistant To The President
ASAFE
Tel. 237 337 50 22
Fax. 237 342 29 70
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at psg.com  Tue Aug  1 10:31:16 2006
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:31:16 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root
In-Reply-To: <s4cf2ae7.085@gwia202.syr.edu>
References: <s4cf2ae7.085@gwia202.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <6A1B2E4D-1998-439F-ACBA-1481F0BBE280@psg.com>

<personal opinion>

Hi,

where a country resides if it has a host country agreement is  
irrelevant.

my assumption has always been that ICANN could stay right were is was  
as long it changed from being a US corporation to having a host  
country agreement with the US, Belgium and whereever it was based.  
just as the UN, world bank and IMF are only accountable to the local  
ordinances pre-agreed upon, so to could be the case with ICANN.  why  
should they have to incur the expense of moving operations?  isn't it  
the governance regime that matters, not the location.

a.

On 1 aug 2006, at 10.20, Lee McKnight wrote:

> Following this logic, next we suggest the UN leave NYC, and of course
> the World Bank & IMF depart DC.
>
> There, we've solved the world's problems ; (
>
> Lee
>
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
>
>>>> mueller at syr.edu 8/1/2006 10:07 AM >>>
>
> Canada?
>
>>>> bortzmeyer at internatif.org 8/1/2006 8:36:36 AM >>>
> A realistic and short-term solution, which I suggested at the WSIS, is
> simply to host the new structure in an "innocent country", a small and
> quite neutral country which, unlike the USA or China or France, seems
> safe for everyone. Costa-Rica or Finland are two typical examples (and
> they have good Internet connectivity).
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Tue Aug  1 10:34:23 2006
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:34:23 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for 	introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root
In-Reply-To: <s4cf2ae7.085@gwia202.syr.edu>
References: <s4cf2ae7.085@gwia202.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20060801143423.GA10132@nic.fr>

On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 10:20:01AM -0400,
 Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu> wrote 
 a message of 41 lines which said:

> Following this logic, next we suggest the UN leave NYC,

This is completely unrelated. UN does not operate under a MoU with the
US government. And it has a "host country agreement", it is not an US
organization.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From jam at jacquelinemorris.com  Tue Aug  1 10:49:07 2006
From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:49:07 -0400
Subject: [governance] US/ICANN agreement to be over
In-Reply-To: <9ea79150607311928m32c35b07u892c7b05018f312c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9ea79150607311928m32c35b07u892c7b05018f312c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <131293a20608010749m3b63d52j9f6eedc0e7396200@mail.gmail.com>

Where did this come from - yes, the  MoU will expire, but more likely
than not it will be renewed.
There was no consensus at the meeting to transfer anything away from
the USG, rather the consensus among the panelists asked was to renew
the MoU and the US DoC didn't make any commitment.

Jacqueline

On 7/31/06, Marouen MRAIHI <mr.marouen at gmail.com> wrote:
> The two most important news in this article in french is that
> http://www.silicon.fr/getarticle.asp?ID=16191 :
> - The US/ICANN agreement will be over on september 30
> - Mr John Kneuer from the DoC said that they want to "give up" some of
> the controls over internet to the private sector or the international
> community. No more details on that.
>
> The writer is wondering about the when/how and if the root servers
> will be included in this transfer.
>
> Marouen
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>


-- 
Jacqueline Morris
www.carnivalondenet.com
T&T Music and videos online
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From LMcKnigh at syr.edu  Tue Aug  1 10:51:23 2006
From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:51:23 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for
		introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root
Message-ID: <s4cf323a.083@gwia202.syr.edu>

We agree, the matters addressed in a host country agreement (or whatever
specifically comes next) for ICANN is (or should be) unrelated to the
physical location of its headquarters.

Lee 

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> bortzmeyer at internatif.org 8/1/2006 10:34 AM >>>
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 10:20:01AM -0400,
 Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu> wrote 
 a message of 41 lines which said:

> Following this logic, next we suggest the UN leave NYC,

This is completely unrelated. UN does not operate under a MoU with the
US government. And it has a "host country agreement", it is not an US
organization.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org 
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Tue Aug  1 11:04:27 2006
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:04:27 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for
	introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root
In-Reply-To: <s4cf27f5.098@gwia202.syr.edu>
References: <s4cf27f5.098@gwia202.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20060801110427.sw4jxum7vggk0w4c@secure.privaterra.org>



I'd go along with Canada. Then again, i'm from there. However don't 
think there's any political nor policy interest (1) to bring it across 
the border.

Let me suggest another possible country, one that's not based in the 
developped North .. Uruguay.

Raul did mention earlier that international ngos based there are able 
to get diplomatic status. No doubt that would be of interest..

regards

Robert


Ref:
1. Canadian Telecommunications Policy Review
http://www.telecomreview.ca/epic/internet/intprp-gecrt.nsf/en/Home


Quoting Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:

>
> Canada?
>
>>>> bortzmeyer at internatif.org 8/1/2006 8:36:36 AM >>>
> A realistic and short-term solution, which I suggested at the WSIS, is
> simply to host the new structure in an "innocent country", a small and
> quite neutral country which, unlike the USA or China or France, seems
> safe for everyone. Costa-Rica or Finland are two typical examples (and
> they have good Internet connectivity).

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Tue Aug  1 11:10:10 2006
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:10:10 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for
	introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root
In-Reply-To: <s4cf2ae7.085@gwia202.syr.edu>
References: <s4cf2ae7.085@gwia202.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20060801111010.wc0nbshd8gc0go8g@secure.privaterra.org>

Hey - moving all UN agencies to Canada wouldn't be a bad idea. After 
all, we are way friendly to the organization then is the US...

Is that realistic - well, no.

Getting back to the discussion....

Has the idea of creating a host country agreement with the US been 
proposed, one that keeps ICANN in Marina del Rey, but not operating 
under California law..

regards

Robert


Quoting Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu>:

> Following this logic, next we suggest the UN leave NYC, and of course
> the World Bank & IMF depart DC.
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Tue Aug  1 11:22:31 2006
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:22:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for
	introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root
Message-ID: <s4cf3989.091@gwia202.syr.edu>



Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org


>>> rguerra at lists.privaterra.org 8/1/2006 11:10 AM >>>
>Has the idea of creating a host country agreement with the US been 
>proposed, one that keeps ICANN in Marina del Rey, but not operating 
>under California law..

Calfiornia law is not the problem. In fact, California Nonprofit Public
Benefit Corp. law is quite good for public interest, and helps keep
ICANN accountable. E.g., when ICANN refused to turn over its financial
records to a dissident Board member they were sued under that law and
ICANN lost. 

By way of contrast, international organizations are often immune from
accountability because of their special status. We DON'T want that.

Let's keep our eye on the ball: the problem is the MoU with the
Commerce Dept. (which they promise would expire and still nominally say
will) and the USG's control of IANA (which they say they will never let
go of). 

Both instruments give the US too much political control over ICANN and
the policies it sets. 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From froomkin at law.miami.edu  Tue Aug  1 12:04:41 2006
From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:04:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [governance] host country agreements considered dangerous
In-Reply-To: <20060801110427.sw4jxum7vggk0w4c@secure.privaterra.org>
References: <s4cf27f5.098@gwia202.syr.edu> <20060801110427.sw4jxum7vggk0w4c@secure.privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608011159290.25854@osaka.law.miami.edu>

I wish someone would explain to me in simple words why on earth one would 
want ICANN to have the sort of status implied by a host country agreement.

The history of ICANN is replete with examples of its misbehavior, and lack 
of budget discipline.  It suffers deeply from a lack of accountability. 
Giving it protection from law -- which is what host country agreements 
mostly do -- hardly seems like the right reaction unless we first craft an 
alternate accountability mechanism.

Has everyone forgotten that until the US Government stopped it by amending 
the MoU, ICANN was refusing to process zone file changes for ccTLDs that 
had not signed agreements promising to obey ICANN, pay its levies, and 
allowing ICANN to raise the fees by 15% per year?

Adult supervision is essential.  Or at least the threat of it.

I fully understand why people might think the current arrangement is 
deficient: the US has been an erratic steward at best, and the current 
administration does not inspure trust.  But the alterantive being proposed 
does not seem any better, and in fact is worse in that if things go badly 
wrong at ICANN some day there will be darn little we can do about it.

-- 
http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From kwgr at gmx.de  Tue Aug  1 12:54:32 2006
From: kwgr at gmx.de (klaus grewlich)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 18:54:32 +0200
Subject: [governance] host country agreements considered dangerous
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608011159290.25854@osaka.law.miami.edu>
References: <s4cf27f5.098@gwia202.syr.edu>
 <20060801110427.sw4jxum7vggk0w4c@secure.privaterra.org>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608011159290.25854@osaka.law.miami.edu>
Message-ID: <20060801165432.105810@gmx.net>


What course of action to follow? Greetings Klaus W. Grewlich

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 12:04:41 -0400 (EDT)
Von: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin at law.miami.edu>
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: [governance] host country agreements considered dangerous

> I wish someone would explain to me in simple words why on earth one would 
> want ICANN to have the sort of status implied by a host country agreement.
> 
> The history of ICANN is replete with examples of its misbehavior, and lack
> of budget discipline.  It suffers deeply from a lack of accountability. 
> Giving it protection from law -- which is what host country agreements 
> mostly do -- hardly seems like the right reaction unless we first craft an
> alternate accountability mechanism.
> 
> Has everyone forgotten that until the US Government stopped it by amending
> the MoU, ICANN was refusing to process zone file changes for ccTLDs that 
> had not signed agreements promising to obey ICANN, pay its levies, and 
> allowing ICANN to raise the fees by 15% per year?
> 
> Adult supervision is essential.  Or at least the threat of it.
> 
> I fully understand why people might think the current arrangement is 
> deficient: the US has been an erratic steward at best, and the current 
> administration does not inspure trust.  But the alterantive being proposed
> does not seem any better, and in fact is worse in that if things go badly 
> wrong at ICANN some day there will be darn little we can do about it.
> 
> -- 
> http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                         -->It's warm here.<--
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-- 
Botschafter Prof. Dr. Klaus W. Grewlich
Deutsche Botschaft
ul. Razzakova 28
720040 Bishkek
Republic of Kyrgyzstan
(Privatpost: Diplo-Kurier
Botschaft Bischkek
11020 Berlin)
Tel: (996) (312) 905000
e-mail: kwgr at gmx.de



Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft für 0,- Euro*. Nur noch kurze Zeit!
"Feel free" mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From kwgr at gmx.de  Tue Aug  1 12:56:31 2006
From: kwgr at gmx.de (klaus grewlich)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 18:56:31 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for
	introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root
In-Reply-To: <s4cf3989.091@gwia202.syr.edu>
References: <s4cf3989.091@gwia202.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20060801165631.105800@gmx.net>


Next step? Greetings KLaus W. Grewlich


-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:22:31 -0400
Von: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu>
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for	introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root

> 
> 
> Dr. Milton Mueller
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> http://www.digital-convergence.org
> http://www.internetgovernance.org
> 
> 
> >>> rguerra at lists.privaterra.org 8/1/2006 11:10 AM >>>
> >Has the idea of creating a host country agreement with the US been 
> >proposed, one that keeps ICANN in Marina del Rey, but not operating 
> >under California law..
> 
> Calfiornia law is not the problem. In fact, California Nonprofit Public
> Benefit Corp. law is quite good for public interest, and helps keep
> ICANN accountable. E.g., when ICANN refused to turn over its financial
> records to a dissident Board member they were sued under that law and
> ICANN lost. 
> 
> By way of contrast, international organizations are often immune from
> accountability because of their special status. We DON'T want that.
> 
> Let's keep our eye on the ball: the problem is the MoU with the
> Commerce Dept. (which they promise would expire and still nominally say
> will) and the USG's control of IANA (which they say they will never let
> go of). 
> 
> Both instruments give the US too much political control over ICANN and
> the policies it sets. 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-- 
Botschafter Prof. Dr. Klaus W. Grewlich
Deutsche Botschaft
ul. Razzakova 28
720040 Bishkek
Republic of Kyrgyzstan
(Privatpost: Diplo-Kurier
Botschaft Bischkek
11020 Berlin)
Tel: (996) (312) 905000
e-mail: kwgr at gmx.de



Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft für 0,- Euro*. Nur noch kurze Zeit!
"Feel free" mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From kwgr at gmx.de  Tue Aug  1 12:59:42 2006
From: kwgr at gmx.de (klaus grewlich)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 18:59:42 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for	
	introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root
In-Reply-To: <s4cf323a.083@gwia202.syr.edu>
References: <s4cf323a.083@gwia202.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20060801165942.105780@gmx.net>

Dear Lee,
what do You propose?
Klaus

 -------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:51:23 -0400
Von: "Lee McKnight" <LMcKnigh at syr.edu>
An: bortzmeyer at internatif.org, governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for		introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root

> We agree, the matters addressed in a host country agreement (or whatever
> specifically comes next) for ICANN is (or should be) unrelated to the
> physical location of its headquarters.
> 
> Lee 
> 
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
> 
> >>> bortzmeyer at internatif.org 8/1/2006 10:34 AM >>>
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 10:20:01AM -0400,
>  Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu> wrote 
>  a message of 41 lines which said:
> 
> > Following this logic, next we suggest the UN leave NYC,
> 
> This is completely unrelated. UN does not operate under a MoU with the
> US government. And it has a "host country agreement", it is not an US
> organization.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org 
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-- 
Botschafter Prof. Dr. Klaus W. Grewlich
Deutsche Botschaft
ul. Razzakova 28
720040 Bishkek
Republic of Kyrgyzstan
(Privatpost: Diplo-Kurier
Botschaft Bischkek
11020 Berlin)
Tel: (996) (312) 905000
e-mail: kwgr at gmx.de



Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft für 0,- Euro*. Nur noch kurze Zeit!
"Feel free" mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Aug  1 15:13:00 2006
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:13:00 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] host country agreements considered dangerous
References: <s4cf27f5.098@gwia202.syr.edu>
 <20060801110427.sw4jxum7vggk0w4c@secure.privaterra.org>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608011159290.25854@osaka.law.miami.edu>
Message-ID:  <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043593@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

A host agreement does not solve the problem. It creates also some legal difficulties. While the US government acts as a subject under international law, ICANN is not a subject under internaitonal law. 
 
For me it makes not sense to look for a "model" like the "Internaitonal Red Cross", the "International Olympic Committee" or the FIFA, the world soccer organisation. There is no model, ICANN itself is (or can become) the "model" for a new subject in international politics, a hybrid organisation which allows both governmental and non-governmental stakeholders input according to specific procedures. The only way forward is to improve the relevant procedures and policy development processes in a transparent and bottom up way so that this is so attractiv and effective that all other solutions (from governmental take over until further privatization) would be seen by a majority of stakeholder as a "step backwards". Unfortunately ICANN missed a lot of chances to demonstrate that it represent this new quality of a truely multistakeholder organisation of the 21st century so far. It is late now but not too late.  
 
BTW, the FIFA, which organizes the World Championship and attracts with more than 4 billion fans more people in the world than we have Internet users today is registered under the Swiss Civil Code (Article 60 ff.) and headquartered in Zürich. There is no MoU with the Swiss government. FIFA respects the national jurisdiction of Switzerland but has nearly nothing to do with the country. FIFA enters into agreements with host countries and national governments - like the German government did recently during the World Cup in June/July 2006 - hand over to FIFA a number of responsibilities, work together with FIFA if it comes to security issues and accept minimum standards set by FIFA for organizing the Championship. Even more, governmental officials - from presidents to prime ministers - are accepting invitations to sit in a FIFA lounge and are proud to be close to the "heros" of the game. 
 
The IOC has  developed a similar "reputation" which is accepted by governments and no government intervenes into the internal affairs of FIFA and IOC. The problem, why this are "bad cases" is that both FIFA and IOC are totally intransparent, undemocratic and they do not have any accountability mechanism. IOC members are the "Lord of the Rings" and it needs big scandals and criminal behaviour to get rid of IOC members. After the Samaranch Scandal around the Salt Lake City Winter Games the US Congress organized a hearing and invited IOC members, which did appear at the Hill. Legally this was an extraordinary case that a US parliament intervened into the business of a Swiss based NGO, but it was related to a US problem and the SLC winter games. 
 
But anyhow as I said above, there is no model. ICANN is the model and the only way forward is to improve and to implement the basic principles (and/or) to add more principles, as proposed, inter alia, by Milton in his reply to the NTIA Inquiry. 
 
Best wishes
 
wolfgang         

________________________________

Von: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law [mailto:froomkin at law.miami.edu]
Gesendet: Di 01.08.2006 18:04
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: [governance] host country agreements considered dangerous



I wish someone would explain to me in simple words why on earth one would
want ICANN to have the sort of status implied by a host country agreement.

The history of ICANN is replete with examples of its misbehavior, and lack
of budget discipline.  It suffers deeply from a lack of accountability.
Giving it protection from law -- which is what host country agreements
mostly do -- hardly seems like the right reaction unless we first craft an
alternate accountability mechanism.

Has everyone forgotten that until the US Government stopped it by amending
the MoU, ICANN was refusing to process zone file changes for ccTLDs that
had not signed agreements promising to obey ICANN, pay its levies, and
allowing ICANN to raise the fees by 15% per year?

Adult supervision is essential.  Or at least the threat of it.

I fully understand why people might think the current arrangement is
deficient: the US has been an erratic steward at best, and the current
administration does not inspure trust.  But the alterantive being proposed
does not seem any better, and in fact is worse in that if things go badly
wrong at ICANN some day there will be darn little we can do about it.

--
http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Tue Aug  1 15:52:51 2006
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 15:52:51 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: host country agreements considered dangerous
In-Reply-To:   <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043593@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <s4cf27f5.098@gwia202.syr.edu>
 <20060801110427.sw4jxum7vggk0w4c@secure.privaterra.org>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608011159290.25854@osaka.law.miami.edu> 
 <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043593@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <a0623090ec0f5604edeba@[192.168.0.105]>

At 9:13 PM +0200 8/1/06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
>ICANN is the model and the only way forward is to improve and to implement the basic principles (and/or) to add more principles ...

It is a strong statement, to say that there is only one way forward.  Seems likely there will be a good bit more than just one model proposed.  Indeed, the good function of IGF can be to bring those out and to test and compare them, one with another, in dialog.  As Klaus Grewlich has encouraged.

David
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From froomkin at law.miami.edu  Tue Aug  1 16:34:19 2006
From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:34:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: AW: [governance] host country agreements considered dangerous
In-Reply-To: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043593@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <s4cf27f5.098@gwia202.syr.edu> <20060801110427.sw4jxum7vggk0w4c@secure.privaterra.org>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608011159290.25854@osaka.law.miami.edu>
 <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043593@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608011633560.25854@osaka.law.miami.edu>

But are IOC and FIFA -- which have had to deal with corruption problems -- 
really the sort of models we want?


On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:

> A host agreement does not solve the problem. It creates also some legal difficulties. While the US government acts as a subject under international law, ICANN is not a subject under internaitonal law.
>
> For me it makes not sense to look for a "model" like the "Internaitonal Red Cross", the "International Olympic Committee" or the FIFA, the world soccer organisation. There is no model, ICANN itself is (or can become) the "model" for a new subject in international politics, a hybrid organisation which allows both governmental and non-governmental stakeholders input according to specific procedures. The only way forward is to improve the relevant procedures and policy development processes in a transparent and bottom up way so that this is so attractiv and effective that all other solutions (from governmental take over until further privatization) would be seen by a majority of stakeholder as a "step backwards". Unfortunately ICANN missed a lot of chances to demonstrate that it represent this new quality of a truely multistakeholder organisation of the 21st century so far. It is late now but not too late.
>
> BTW, the FIFA, which organizes the World Championship and attracts with more than 4 billion fans more people in the world than we have Internet users today is registered under the Swiss Civil Code (Article 60 ff.) and headquartered in Zürich. There is no MoU with the Swiss government. FIFA respects the national jurisdiction of Switzerland but has nearly nothing to do with the country. FIFA enters into agreements with host countries and national governments - like the German government did recently during the World Cup in June/July 2006 - hand over to FIFA a number of responsibilities, work together with FIFA if it comes to security issues and accept minimum standards set by FIFA for organizing the Championship. Even more, governmental officials - from presidents to prime ministers - are accepting invitations to sit in a FIFA lounge and are proud to be close to the "heros" of the game.
>
> The IOC has  developed a similar "reputation" which is accepted by governments and no government intervenes into the internal affairs of FIFA and IOC. The problem, why this are "bad cases" is that both FIFA and IOC are totally intransparent, undemocratic and they do not have any accountability mechanism. IOC members are the "Lord of the Rings" and it needs big scandals and criminal behaviour to get rid of IOC members. After the Samaranch Scandal around the Salt Lake City Winter Games the US Congress organized a hearing and invited IOC members, which did appear at the Hill. Legally this was an extraordinary case that a US parliament intervened into the business of a Swiss based NGO, but it was related to a US problem and the SLC winter games.
>
> But anyhow as I said above, there is no model. ICANN is the model and the only way forward is to improve and to implement the basic principles (and/or) to add more principles, as proposed, inter alia, by Milton in his reply to the NTIA Inquiry.
>
> Best wishes
>
> wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law [mailto:froomkin at law.miami.edu]
> Gesendet: Di 01.08.2006 18:04
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: [governance] host country agreements considered dangerous
>
>
>
> I wish someone would explain to me in simple words why on earth one would
> want ICANN to have the sort of status implied by a host country agreement.
>
> The history of ICANN is replete with examples of its misbehavior, and lack
> of budget discipline.  It suffers deeply from a lack of accountability.
> Giving it protection from law -- which is what host country agreements
> mostly do -- hardly seems like the right reaction unless we first craft an
> alternate accountability mechanism.
>
> Has everyone forgotten that until the US Government stopped it by amending
> the MoU, ICANN was refusing to process zone file changes for ccTLDs that
> had not signed agreements promising to obey ICANN, pay its levies, and
> allowing ICANN to raise the fees by 15% per year?
>
> Adult supervision is essential.  Or at least the threat of it.
>
> I fully understand why people might think the current arrangement is
> deficient: the US has been an erratic steward at best, and the current
> administration does not inspure trust.  But the alterantive being proposed
> does not seem any better, and in fact is worse in that if things go badly
> wrong at ICANN some day there will be darn little we can do about it.
>
> --
> http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                        -->It's warm here.<--
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>

-- 
http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

From peter at echnaton.serveftp.com  Tue Aug  1 18:50:25 2006
From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 00:50:25 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] host country agreements considered dangerous
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608011633560.25854@osaka.law.miami.edu>
References: <s4cf27f5.098@gwia202.syr.edu> <20060801110427.sw4jxum7vggk0w4c@secure.privaterra.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608011159290.25854@osaka.law.miami.edu> <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043593@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608011633560.25854@osaka.law.miami.edu>
Message-ID: <44CFDAB1.1020302@echnaton.serveftp.com>

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> But are IOC and FIFA -- which have had to deal with corruption problems 
> -- really the sort of models we want?
> 

I can add Public-Root and Unified Root. The power to control a network
of rootservers has shown to spoil almost all of them. I remeber there
has been an ORSC. I dont know what happened to SuperRoot.

I am shure only when everybody realises that they can have their own
root then will become those roots reliable and free from fraud and
other threats.

The ICANN rootservers have been attacked. The OpenNIC rootservers
have been attacked. Bot-nets are doing things that organisations
cannot do. But try to sink 13 nameservers in 250 countries. No,
I dont think they will even try to sink 3350 rootservers.

Every company can have their own rootserver that is isolated from
the outside. There is no way to attack it. That is what a reliable
infrastructure should look like.


Kind regards
Peter and Karin

> 
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
> 
>> A host agreement does not solve the problem. It creates also some 
>> legal difficulties. While the US government acts as a subject under 
>> international law, ICANN is not a subject under internaitonal law.
>>
>> For me it makes not sense to look for a "model" like the 
>> "Internaitonal Red Cross", the "International Olympic Committee" or 
>> the FIFA, the world soccer organisation. There is no model, ICANN 
>> itself is (or can become) the "model" for a new subject in 
>> international politics, a hybrid organisation which allows both 
>> governmental and non-governmental stakeholders input according to 
>> specific procedures. The only way forward is to improve the relevant 
>> procedures and policy development processes in a transparent and 
>> bottom up way so that this is so attractiv and effective that all 
>> other solutions (from governmental take over until further 
>> privatization) would be seen by a majority of stakeholder as a "step 
>> backwards". Unfortunately ICANN missed a lot of chances to demonstrate 
>> that it represent this new quality of a truely multistakeholder 
>> organisation of the 21st century so far. It is late now but not too late.
>>
>> BTW, the FIFA, which organizes the World Championship and attracts 
>> with more than 4 billion fans more people in the world than we have 
>> Internet users today is registered under the Swiss Civil Code (Article 
>> 60 ff.) and headquartered in Zürich. There is no MoU with the Swiss 
>> government. FIFA respects the national jurisdiction of Switzerland but 
>> has nearly nothing to do with the country. FIFA enters into agreements 
>> with host countries and national governments - like the German 
>> government did recently during the World Cup in June/July 2006 - hand 
>> over to FIFA a number of responsibilities, work together with FIFA if 
>> it comes to security issues and accept minimum standards set by FIFA 
>> for organizing the Championship. Even more, governmental officials - 
>> from presidents to prime ministers - are accepting invitations to sit 
>> in a FIFA lounge and are proud to be close to the "heros" of the game.
>>
>> The IOC has  developed a similar "reputation" which is accepted by 
>> governments and no government intervenes into the internal affairs of 
>> FIFA and IOC. The problem, why this are "bad cases" is that both FIFA 
>> and IOC are totally intransparent, undemocratic and they do not have 
>> any accountability mechanism. IOC members are the "Lord of the Rings" 
>> and it needs big scandals and criminal behaviour to get rid of IOC 
>> members. After the Samaranch Scandal around the Salt Lake City Winter 
>> Games the US Congress organized a hearing and invited IOC members, 
>> which did appear at the Hill. Legally this was an extraordinary case 
>> that a US parliament intervened into the business of a Swiss based 
>> NGO, but it was related to a US problem and the SLC winter games.
>>
>> But anyhow as I said above, there is no model. ICANN is the model and 
>> the only way forward is to improve and to implement the basic 
>> principles (and/or) to add more principles, as proposed, inter alia, 
>> by Milton in his reply to the NTIA Inquiry.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> wolfgang
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 
>> [mailto:froomkin at law.miami.edu]
>> Gesendet: Di 01.08.2006 18:04
>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Betreff: [governance] host country agreements considered dangerous
>>
>>
>>
>> I wish someone would explain to me in simple words why on earth one would
>> want ICANN to have the sort of status implied by a host country 
>> agreement.
>>
>> The history of ICANN is replete with examples of its misbehavior, and 
>> lack
>> of budget discipline.  It suffers deeply from a lack of accountability.
>> Giving it protection from law -- which is what host country agreements
>> mostly do -- hardly seems like the right reaction unless we first 
>> craft an
>> alternate accountability mechanism.
>>
>> Has everyone forgotten that until the US Government stopped it by 
>> amending
>> the MoU, ICANN was refusing to process zone file changes for ccTLDs that
>> had not signed agreements promising to obey ICANN, pay its levies, and
>> allowing ICANN to raise the fees by 15% per year?
>>
>> Adult supervision is essential.  Or at least the threat of it.
>>
>> I fully understand why people might think the current arrangement is
>> deficient: the US has been an erratic steward at best, and the current
>> administration does not inspure trust.  But the alterantive being 
>> proposed
>> does not seem any better, and in fact is worse in that if things go badly
>> wrong at ICANN some day there will be darn little we can do about it.
>>
>> -- 
>> http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
>> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm
>> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
>> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>>                        -->It's warm here.<--
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
> 


-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
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/


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From peter at echnaton.serveftp.com  Tue Aug  1 18:50:55 2006
From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 00:50:55 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for	introducingmulti-lateral
 oversight of the root
In-Reply-To: <s4cf27f5.098@gwia202.syr.edu>
References: <s4cf27f5.098@gwia202.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <44CFDACF.4070406@echnaton.serveftp.com>

Milton Mueller wrote:
> Canada?
> 
> 
>>>>bortzmeyer at internatif.org 8/1/2006 8:36:36 AM >>>
> 
> A realistic and short-term solution, which I suggested at the WSIS, is
> simply to host the new structure in an "innocent country", a small and
> quite neutral country which, unlike the USA or China or France, seems
> safe for everyone. Costa-Rica or Finland are two typical examples (and
> they have good Internet connectivity).
> 

Who needs a centralized root system?

Telefone works without centralized root. Every country has its own.

Why not a central publication like

http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld-whois.htm
http://www.iana.org/root-whois/zw.htm

Were everybody can see what nameservers to query for each TLD?

Alternatively you could view

http://www.afrac.org/rootrep.txt

Or a site maintained by ITU.

Now every country can build their own independant root.
Everybody can, if he is only willing.

Dont take the data from either ITU or ICANN for granted.
Take the nameservers they list and query them. Every
country should maintain their TLD independantly and authoritatively.

If you have that information stay with it. Never query the ITU or ICANN
database again, except for TLDs you have lost or for new TLDs.

Build your own database manually. Update it only manually.
Update it only from what the TLD nameservers say.
Use your database to automatically build your personal rootfile from the
TLD nameservers.

There are domestic roots like the chinese root and the arab root. There seem
to be independant roots for tailand and korea. Every country can do it.
The resulting root will probably be more accurate than the ICANN rootfile because
you can include the daily changes decided by the TLD owners or countries. ICANN
takes years to respect those changes. Why rely on anybody else to be faster and
more reliable?

Everybody can do it.
Of course you need students studying computerscience. Pushing the mouse is not enough.

That one will do

http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu


Kind regards
Peter and Karin


-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
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/


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From patrick at isoc.lu  Wed Aug  2 02:08:53 2006
From: patrick at isoc.lu (Patrick Vande Walle)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:08:53 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for	introducingmulti-lateral
 oversight of the root
In-Reply-To: <44CFDACF.4070406@echnaton.serveftp.com>
References: <s4cf27f5.098@gwia202.syr.edu> <44CFDACF.4070406@echnaton.serveftp.com>
Message-ID: <44D04175.3000905@isoc.lu>

Peter Dambier wrote:
> Who needs a centralized root system?
> Telefone works without centralized root. Every country has its own.
True, but there still is a central authority, the ITU, which assigns
country code dial numbers.
Even in the telephone model, there is a coordination to make sure no two
countries get the same country code (+1 being the notable exception).
> Now every country can build their own independant root.
> Everybody can, if he is only willing.
The Internet model is very different from the centralized telephone
model inherited from the national telcos. Historically, there was one
telephone provider in each country.
>From the start of its privatization, the Internet evolved in a
competitive market, with numerous ISPs, each providing name to address
resolution to their customers.
I can imagine authoritarian governments forcing their ISPs to use a
common root. This is the open door to censorship, because from that
point on, one can also force the ISPs to not use the authoritative
servers for TLDs but expurgated ones.
> Build your own database manually. Update it only manually.
The average ISP installs the default Bind included in the operating
system on its public recursive DNS servers and runs a cron job once a
week to update the root hints file. This is basically free from any
maintenance cost. There should be a strong business or political
incentive to force them to invest into manually maintaining their own
root. Don't just discount the laziness factor and the fact that a
business needs to have a return on any investment in additional resources.
> you can include the daily changes decided by the TLD owners or
> countries. ICANN
> takes years to respect those changes. 
This is the whole idea behind the current e-IANA effort to automate the
RZF updates. It is true that TLD operators would like technical changes
reflected in the RZF in days rather than weeks.
That being said, in the current situation, it does not take years, as
you state.

Regards,

Patrick Vande Walle
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From patrick at vande-walle.eu  Wed Aug  2 02:22:17 2006
From: patrick at vande-walle.eu (Patrick Vande Walle)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:22:17 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for	introducingmulti-lateral
 oversight of the root
In-Reply-To: <44CFDACF.4070406@echnaton.serveftp.com>
References: <s4cf27f5.098@gwia202.syr.edu> <44CFDACF.4070406@echnaton.serveftp.com>
Message-ID: <44D04499.8000000@vande-walle.eu>

Peter Dambier wrote:
> Who needs a centralized root system?
> Telefone works without centralized root. Every country has its own.

True, but there still is a central authority, the ITU, which assigns
country code dial numbers.
Even in the telephone model, there is a coordination to make sure no two
countries get the same country code (+1 being the notable exception).

> Now every country can build their own independant root.
> Everybody can, if he is only willing.

The Internet model is very different from the centralized telephone
model inherited from the national telcos. Historically, there was one
telephone provider in each country.
>From the start of its privatization, the Internet evolved in a
competitive market, with numerous ISPs, each providing name to address
resolution to their customers.
I can imagine authoritarian governments forcing their ISPs to use a
common root. This is the open door to censorship, because from that
point on, one can also force the ISPs to not use the authoritative
servers for TLDs but expurgated ones.

> Build your own database manually. Update it only manually.

The average ISP installs the default Bind included in the operating
system on its public recursive DNS servers and runs a cron job once a
week to update the root hints file. This is basically free from any
maintenance cost. There should be a strong business or political
incentive to force them to invest into manually maintaining their own
root. Don't just discount the laziness factor and the fact that a
business needs to have a return on any investment in additional resources.

> you can include the daily changes decided by the TLD owners or
> countries. ICANN
> takes years to respect those changes. 

This is the whole idea behind the current e-IANA effort to automate the
RZF updates. It is true that TLD operators would like technical changes
reflected in the RZF in days rather than weeks.
That being said, in the current situation, it does not take years, as
you state.

Regards,

Patrick Vande Walle

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From peter at echnaton.serveftp.com  Wed Aug  2 03:08:05 2006
From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 09:08:05 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for	introducingmulti-lateral
 oversight of the root
In-Reply-To: <44D04499.8000000@vande-walle.eu>
References: <s4cf27f5.098@gwia202.syr.edu> <44CFDACF.4070406@echnaton.serveftp.com> <44D04499.8000000@vande-walle.eu>
Message-ID: <44D04F55.1080803@echnaton.serveftp.com>

Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
> Peter Dambier wrote:
> 
>>Who needs a centralized root system?
>>Telefone works without centralized root. Every country has its own.
> 
> 
> True, but there still is a central authority, the ITU, which assigns
> country code dial numbers.
> Even in the telephone model, there is a coordination to make sure no two
> countries get the same country code (+1 being the notable exception).
> 

The coordination is what is important. Coordination is talking and
listenning. ICANN has shown again and again not to listen. It shows
as a dictator. The UN may show weak but talk and listen they do.
ITU has show they did a good job with radio and telefone. I am shure
they could manage DNS easyly. Of course we need to help them.

> 
>>Now every country can build their own independant root.
>>Everybody can, if he is only willing.
> 
> 
> The Internet model is very different from the centralized telephone
> model inherited from the national telcos. Historically, there was one
> telephone provider in each country.
>>From the start of its privatization, the Internet evolved in a
> competitive market, with numerous ISPs, each providing name to address
> resolution to their customers.
> I can imagine authoritarian governments forcing their ISPs to use a
> common root. This is the open door to censorship, because from that
> point on, one can also force the ISPs to not use the authoritative
> servers for TLDs but expurgated ones.
> 

China does, Turkey used to do.

> 
>>Build your own database manually. Update it only manually.
> 
> 
> The average ISP installs the default Bind included in the operating
> system on its public recursive DNS servers and runs a cron job once a
> week to update the root hints file. This is basically free from any
> maintenance cost. There should be a strong business or political
> incentive to force them to invest into manually maintaining their own
> root. Don't just discount the laziness factor and the fact that a
> business needs to have a return on any investment in additional resources.
>

I have seen the ORSC and Public-Root comming down because of a
Baptista Vortex. They copied the rootzone without even looking
at the file size. Both roots collapsed and lost customers
immediately. Interestingly enough I have seen the UnifiedRoot
comming down too because they obviously took Public-Root data
for granted.

I have seen so many DNS problems with ISPs nameservers. They
really do need DNS people. Those people could do the comparing
and building of their own DNS and those people would be there
to fix existing DNS problems that have nothing to do with the
root.

> 
>>you can include the daily changes decided by the TLD owners or
>>countries. ICANN
>>takes years to respect those changes. 
> 
> 
> This is the whole idea behind the current e-IANA effort to automate the
> RZF updates. It is true that TLD operators would like technical changes
> reflected in the RZF in days rather than weeks.
> That being said, in the current situation, it does not take years, as
> you state.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Patrick Vande Walle
> 

Agreed, they have improved. But I have seen them misusing their
position to blackmail countries. That should not be allowed.

We need coordination but it must be humans who coordinate not
machines. The days of a single point of failure in the master
of are single root system are gone.

If today the master rootserver would fail, only china and turkey
and a handful of people using alternative roots would be able
to exchange emails.

If a corrupt dictator would get control of that single master
he would be able to direct every email send anywhere on the
world through his server. Nobody would even notice.


Kind regards
Peter and Karin

-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
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/


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Wed Aug  2 03:49:46 2006
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 09:49:46 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for	introducingmulti-lateral  oversight of the root
In-Reply-To: <44CFDACF.4070406@echnaton.serveftp.com>
References: <s4cf27f5.098@gwia202.syr.edu> <44CFDACF.4070406@echnaton.serveftp.com>
Message-ID: <20060802074946.GA22397@nic.fr>

On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 12:50:55AM +0200,
 Peter Dambier <peter at echnaton.serveftp.com> wrote 
 a message of 86 lines which said:

> Telefone works without centralized root.

Bullshit. The root is called the ITU.

> Why not a central publication like
> 
> http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld-whois.htm
> http://www.iana.org/root-whois/zw.htm
> 
> Were everybody can see what nameservers to query for each TLD?

And what's the difference between such a system and the current root?
What does it buy to replace the DNS with HTTP? What problem does it
solve? What if ".org", in your dummy root, is delegated to someone
else and iana.org leads elsewhere?
 
> Never query the ITU or ICANN database again, except for TLDs you
> have lost or for new TLDs.

Sure, do the paperwork yourself, keep track of changes in Timor Leste,
read the ISO 3166 Web page every morning, send email to the TLD
managers to resolve inconsistencies in their own name servers, etc.

Most system administrators have work to do, you know.
 
> That one will do
> 
> http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu

For the record, the Ubuntu project is a serious thing, not affiliated
with the dummy root business and does not endorse such cracks.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Wed Aug  2 04:05:14 2006
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 10:05:14 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Re: host country agreements considered dangerous
References: <s4cf27f5.098@gwia202.syr.edu>
 <20060801110427.sw4jxum7vggk0w4c@secure.privaterra.org>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608011159290.25854@osaka.law.miami.edu>
 <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043593@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <a0623090ec0f5604edeba@[192.168.0.105]>
Message-ID:  <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043597@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

David 
 
I agree than the "way forward" is mainly dialogue and that is the IGF. But you should remember that the IGF has no decision making capacity. Hopefully it will become a mechanism which supports communication, coordination and cooperation among stakeholders which would enable involved parties with decision making capacities to make decisions based on knowledge and the received input from outside sources. 
 
The difference between IGF and ICANN is that ICANN has in some (minor but important) points a decision making capacity. The challenge for ICANN is to "improve" the process of decision making within ICANN and that means to improve the bottom up policy development processes and the interaction among the stakeholders, represented in the different SOs and ACs. 
 
There are some procedural points for the interaction among GAC and the Board but very vague and unclear. Lets wait and see what the joint committee will produce. But there is no procedure for the interaction among ALAC and the Board. What I proposed several times is to have a formalized procedure in the ICANN Bylaws (and probably a joint ALAC-Board Committee). I have encouraged Anette, the ALAC Chair to establish an ALAC Taks Force to review the ALAC articles in the ICANN Bylaws, The Task Force could develop some recommendations to the ICANN Board by Bylaw revisions (as the CNSO did). It will be interesting to see what the Board does with "advise" from its own "advisory committee". 
 
There is also a lot to do to improve the interaction among the SOs and between the SOs and the Board. It is unacceptable that the GNSO works for five years on Whois without any recommendation. CNSO, ASO/NRO have a long list of open issues, but there are chances to move foreward as long as you push the discussion and the dialogue forward. Insofar the IGF could become a source of inspiration for ICANN, it could become a pusher for ICANN or even better ICANN´s watchdog.  
 
Best wishes
 
wolfgang   

________________________________

Von: David Allen [mailto:David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu]
Gesendet: Di 01.08.2006 21:52
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: [governance] Re: host country agreements considered dangerous



At 9:13 PM +0200 8/1/06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
>ICANN is the model and the only way forward is to improve and to implement the basic principles (and/or) to add more principles ...

It is a strong statement, to say that there is only one way forward.  Seems likely there will be a good bit more than just one model proposed.  Indeed, the good function of IGF can be to bring those out and to test and compare them, one with another, in dialog.  As Klaus Grewlich has encouraged.

David
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Wed Aug  2 04:05:20 2006
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 10:05:20 +0200
Subject: AW: AW: [governance] host country agreements considered dangerous
References: <s4cf27f5.098@gwia202.syr.edu>
 <20060801110427.sw4jxum7vggk0w4c@secure.privaterra.org>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608011159290.25854@osaka.law.miami.edu>
 <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043593@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608011633560.25854@osaka.law.miami.edu>
Message-ID:  <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043598@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Michael:
But are IOC and FIFA -- which have had to deal with corruption problems --really the sort of models we want?

Wolfgang:
That is why a labeled both organisations as "bad cases" in my statement. Legally the FIFA is an interesting example, but if you compare the level of arrogance between FIFA and ICANN, FIFA needs no overtime and penalty shoot out to win. 

 
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:

> A host agreement does not solve the problem. It creates also some legal difficulties. While the US government acts as a subject under international law, ICANN is not a subject under internaitonal law.
>
> For me it makes not sense to look for a "model" like the "Internaitonal Red Cross", the "International Olympic Committee" or the FIFA, the world soccer organisation. There is no model, ICANN itself is (or can become) the "model" for a new subject in international politics, a hybrid organisation which allows both governmental and non-governmental stakeholders input according to specific procedures. The only way forward is to improve the relevant procedures and policy development processes in a transparent and bottom up way so that this is so attractiv and effective that all other solutions (from governmental take over until further privatization) would be seen by a majority of stakeholder as a "step backwards". Unfortunately ICANN missed a lot of chances to demonstrate that it represent this new quality of a truely multistakeholder organisation of the 21st century so far. It is late now but not too late.
>
> BTW, the FIFA, which organizes the World Championship and attracts with more than 4 billion fans more people in the world than we have Internet users today is registered under the Swiss Civil Code (Article 60 ff.) and headquartered in Zürich. There is no MoU with the Swiss government. FIFA respects the national jurisdiction of Switzerland but has nearly nothing to do with the country. FIFA enters into agreements with host countries and national governments - like the German government did recently during the World Cup in June/July 2006 - hand over to FIFA a number of responsibilities, work together with FIFA if it comes to security issues and accept minimum standards set by FIFA for organizing the Championship. Even more, governmental officials - from presidents to prime ministers - are accepting invitations to sit in a FIFA lounge and are proud to be close to the "heros" of the game.
>
> The IOC has  developed a similar "reputation" which is accepted by governments and no government intervenes into the internal affairs of FIFA and IOC. The problem, why this are "bad cases" is that both FIFA and IOC are totally intransparent, undemocratic and they do not have any accountability mechanism. IOC members are the "Lord of the Rings" and it needs big scandals and criminal behaviour to get rid of IOC members. After the Samaranch Scandal around the Salt Lake City Winter Games the US Congress organized a hearing and invited IOC members, which did appear at the Hill. Legally this was an extraordinary case that a US parliament intervened into the business of a Swiss based NGO, but it was related to a US problem and the SLC winter games.
>
> But anyhow as I said above, there is no model. ICANN is the model and the only way forward is to improve and to implement the basic principles (and/or) to add more principles, as proposed, inter alia, by Milton in his reply to the NTIA Inquiry.
>
> Best wishes
>
> wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law [mailto:froomkin at law.miami.edu]
> Gesendet: Di 01.08.2006 18:04
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: [governance] host country agreements considered dangerous
>
>
>
> I wish someone would explain to me in simple words why on earth one would
> want ICANN to have the sort of status implied by a host country agreement.
>
> The history of ICANN is replete with examples of its misbehavior, and lack
> of budget discipline.  It suffers deeply from a lack of accountability.
> Giving it protection from law -- which is what host country agreements
> mostly do -- hardly seems like the right reaction unless we first craft an
> alternate accountability mechanism.
>
> Has everyone forgotten that until the US Government stopped it by amending
> the MoU, ICANN was refusing to process zone file changes for ccTLDs that
> had not signed agreements promising to obey ICANN, pay its levies, and
> allowing ICANN to raise the fees by 15% per year?
>
> Adult supervision is essential.  Or at least the threat of it.
>
> I fully understand why people might think the current arrangement is
> deficient: the US has been an erratic steward at best, and the current
> administration does not inspure trust.  But the alterantive being proposed
> does not seem any better, and in fact is worse in that if things go badly
> wrong at ICANN some day there will be darn little we can do about it.
>
> --
> http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                        -->It's warm here.<--
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>

--
http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Wed Aug  2 06:30:03 2006
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 12:30:03 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root
In-Reply-To: <s4cf2ae7.085@gwia202.syr.edu>
References: <s4cf2ae7.085@gwia202.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <954259bd0608020330p72b6b528md9d6c736c995dd69@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Lee,

The point I was raising is not the location per se but the nature of the
entity : there is no way today to create a truly international structure,
either for profit or non-profit. And it would make sense to have a global
structure to handle such a global network.

To avoid confusion, let's distinguish clearly betwen the different layers of
issues we are addressing in this important thread :

1) the regimes that should be applied to gTLDs and ccTLDs : similarities and
differences

2) benefits and drawbacks of one root vs several interoperable ones (cf. Joe
Baptista) ?

3) should the same entity(ies) handle both root management and general
policy setting ?

4) the nature of institutions in charge of the respective functions :
national NGO status with host country agreement, intergovernmental
organization, a new, truly international and multi-stakeholder format, other
... ?

5) the origins of legitimacy for the said organization(s) (ie : how they are
created) : MoU with one or several governments, international Treaty,
framework convention, self-established multi-stakeholder Charter  ?

6) the physical location of the offices of these entities : single location
or geographic distribution in multiple regions ? hosting by various entities
(as the W3C) or in their own premisses ?

As for the physical location, Avri is of course right : it should be
only the governance regime/framework that matters, not the location. Still,
the present situation combines : a legitimacy coming from a MoU with a
single government, a legal structure following the laws of a single country
and, for a long time, a location in a single country. The symbolic dimension
cannot be eluded.

Establishing a more distributed international presence (as ICANN initiated
recently with Europe), getting some sort of host country agreement, and
establishing a new charter/framework among more actors than one government
alone are probably elements to consider in moving forward.

This of course does not reduce the pertinence of Milton's remark regarding
accountability : how to guarantee accountability, enforceability and
possibility of appeal at the international level ?

As you mentionned in a separate post, ime may not be ripe yet to revive the
notion of a framework convention, but it would eventually be an appropriate
way to discuss those interlinked issues together.

Best.

Bertrand de La Chapelle


P.S. : as for the IMF and World Bank location in DC, you probably know, Lee,
that the rule is that the headquarters of these institutions are located -
per Charter - in the country that is the largest shareholder (in this case
the US). But, knowing that the shares of all european countries
combined represent more than the US, some actors have suggested in the past
that the european union should pool its seats and ask for the two
institutions to move their headquarters to Europe. It is not likely to
happen for many reasons, as we all know, but the physical location of any
international organization is clearly not neutral.








On 8/1/06, Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> Following this logic, next we suggest the UN leave NYC, and of course
> the World Bank & IMF depart DC.
>
> There, we've solved the world's problems ; (
>
> Lee
>
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
>
> >>> mueller at syr.edu 8/1/2006 10:07 AM >>>
>
> Canada?
>
> >>> bortzmeyer at internatif.org 8/1/2006 8:36:36 AM >>>
> A realistic and short-term solution, which I suggested at the WSIS, is
> simply to host the new structure in an "innocent country", a small and
> quite neutral country which, unlike the USA or China or France, seems
> safe for everyone. Costa-Rica or Finland are two typical examples (and
> they have good Internet connectivity).
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060802/50dc3858/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060802/50dc3858/attachment.txt>

From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Wed Aug  2 08:43:39 2006
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 08:43:39 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: host country agreements considered dangerous
In-Reply-To:   <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043597@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <s4cf27f5.098@gwia202.syr.edu>
 <20060801110427.sw4jxum7vggk0w4c@secure.privaterra.org>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608011159290.25854@osaka.law.miami.edu>
 <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043593@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <a0623090ec0f5604edeba@[192.168.0.105]> 
 <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043597@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <a06230914c0f645389c05@[192.168.0.105]>

Those who focus on ICANN will probably appreciate the detail about possible change there.  But the comments do not acknowledge the core point:

There are and will be more than a few proposed models that look quite beyond ICANN.  Exactly because IGF is deliberative, rather than decision-making, there is opportunity to be creative and investigate what would be quality regimes in a politically realistic context.  Some of these will not look like ICANN ...

"[C]ommunication, coordination and cooperation among stakeholders which would enable involved parties with decision making capacities to make decisions based on knowledge ..." means an atmosphere for IGF that encourages out-of-the-box thinking, interesting analysis, and quality exchanges.  That means, among others, respect for and encouragement of a variety of proposals.  Certainly, it means no presupposition as to outcome (not, e.g., that IGF be 'ICANN´s watchdog').

Looking forward to a quality working environment, David

At 10:05 AM +0200 8/2/06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
>David
>
>I agree than the "way forward" is mainly dialogue and that is the IGF. But you should remember that the IGF has no decision making capacity. Hopefully it will become a mechanism which supports communication, coordination and cooperation among stakeholders which would enable involved parties with decision making capacities to make decisions based on knowledge and the received input from outside sources.
>
>The difference between IGF and ICANN is that ICANN has in some (minor but important) points a decision making capacity. The challenge for ICANN is to "improve" the process of decision making within ICANN and that means to improve the bottom up policy development processes and the interaction among the stakeholders, represented in the different SOs and ACs.
>
>There are some procedural points for the interaction among GAC and the Board but very vague and unclear. Lets wait and see what the joint committee will produce. But there is no procedure for the interaction among ALAC and the Board. What I proposed several times is to have a formalized procedure in the ICANN Bylaws (and probably a joint ALAC-Board Committee). I have encouraged Anette, the ALAC Chair to establish an ALAC Taks Force to review the ALAC articles in the ICANN Bylaws, The Task Force could develop some recommendations to the ICANN Board by Bylaw revisions (as the CNSO did). It will be interesting to see what the Board does with "advise" from its own "advisory committee".
>
>There is also a lot to do to improve the interaction among the SOs and between the SOs and the Board. It is unacceptable that the GNSO works for five years on Whois without any recommendation. CNSO, ASO/NRO have a long list of open issues, but there are chances to move foreward as long as you push the discussion and the dialogue forward. Insofar the IGF could become a source of inspiration for ICANN, it could become a pusher for ICANN or even better ICANN´s watchdog.
>
>Best wishes
>
>wolfgang
>
>________________________________
>
>Von: David Allen [mailto:David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu]
>Gesendet: Di 01.08.2006 21:52
>An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Betreff: [governance] Re: host country agreements considered dangerous
>
>
>
>At 9:13 PM +0200 8/1/06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:
>>ICANN is the model and the only way forward is to improve and to implement the basic principles (and/or) to add more principles ...
>
>It is a strong statement, to say that there is only one way forward.  Seems likely there will be a good bit more than just one model proposed.  Indeed, the good function of IGF can be to bring those out and to test and compare them, one with another, in dialog.  As Klaus Grewlich has encouraged.
>
>David
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From baptista at cynikal.net  Wed Aug  2 09:33:36 2006
From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 09:33:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [governance] Big Fish gets caught in TLD Fraud by UnifiedRoot, NewRoot and UNIDT
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0608020924130.10653@ruby.cynikal.net>


The Public-Root experiment was once of the most successful in the
alternative / inclusive namespace DNS.  The involvement of Jon maddog Hall
- a well respected programmer and pillar of the community:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_%22maddog%22_Hall

Clearly shows the basic ideas behind the publicroot were sound.
Unfortunately as I have warned in the past - the ideas and solutions were
sound - unfortunately the people were corrupt.

Jon recently responded to some of my concerns - and i am including his
response here as a historical note.  I have given Mr. Hall some examples
of the corruption in reply to his note - but he has yet to respond back to
me.  Silence in this case is not golden.

regards
joe

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 13:29:09 -0400
From: Jon maddog Hall <maddog at li.org>
To: baptista at cynikal.net
Cc: maddog at li.org, info at unifiedroot.com, info at inaic.com, xennt at cyberbunker.com,
     boekhoudt.andre at kpmg.nl, peter3 at xs4all.nl, rene.rijntjes at tmf-group.com,
     erik.seeboldt at unifiedroot.com, hjm.smit at chello.nl, tespenke.gerrit at kpmg.nl,
     wouter at tweakers.net, pr at publicroot.org, martijnburger at dataweb.nl
Subject: Re: TLD Fraud by UnifiedRoot, NewRoot and UNIDT

Dear Joe,

Last year, I was approached by a friend of mine who I have known for many
years about working with a group to help "liberate the Internet".  They
wanted me to help them with both solving some technical details and setting
up a committee of Internet leaders that could help improve the Internet and
come up with a set of policies, starting with a framework to ensure fair and
even access to TLDs.  They had a business plan that made sense, and they
were willing to contribute a portion of the profits to "good works".  The
people I met who were supporting this organization were seasoned
international business people, with clear track records of running existing,
successful companies.

I have been charted to go out to various experts and organizations and offer
them the opportunity to help shape these future policies and procedures in
an open and fair way.  Since that time I have been helping UnifiedRoot build
their root server system, formulate T's and C's, formulate the beginnings of
a TLD policy, etc.  I have watched as the have worked to embrace the issues
to put all these things together.  In my experience, I have found the
management of UnifiedRoot to be very receptive to solid ideas and
criticisms.

I am aware that UnifiedRoot was created as a "fresh start", following what I
understand was a termination agreement between UNIDT and Public Root.
Whether that agreement was acceptable to you is not my issue.  You are
welcome to challenge those arrangements in whatever way you think is
appropriate.

But your linkage to UnifiedRoot and accusations of some sort of fraud seems
to me to be sorely misplaced.  Fraud is based on an "intent to deceive".  I
have seen nothing in UnifiedRoot's behavior which makes me think that they
are intentionally deceiving anyone.  They *are* intent on paving a new path,
albeit through fields traversed by various "alternative roots" in recent
years, none of which have been able to achieve their goals for one reason or
another.

The Whois information that you seem to have concerns about is a "work in
progress".  For the last several months, UnifiedRoot has been analyzing the
various root organizations and TLDs out there in an effort to verify the
hodge podge of data, and to "unify" TLDs into a single system, and therefore
allow them to become operational and to benefit a broader market.  UR has
developed a set of policies for what all that means, how they will treat
existing TLDs, etc.

Are UR's policies perfect?  No, but we expect they will evolve over time,
with the help of the market, and the changes will happen in a transparent
and fair way.  Is it risky?  Yes, but all business is risky, and in this
case if the business plan works, the benefits will be far reaching.  The
Terms and Conditions for people to buy a TLD actually spell out the issues
with the risk.

I am sorry that Public Root failed to deliver its goals.  I am sorry that
you were not paid the money that you feel you were owed.  I am sorry you
disagree with the way the parties handled matters.  I was not privy to any
of that, and the disputes occurred mainly between and among people who I
have never met nor had any dealings with.

Although all that is over now, you obviously feel strongly about these
issues.  I would encourage you to direct your talents and energies toward
the assisting those who are trying to do "the right thing".  I consider
"doing the right thing" as:

            o creating a strong root file system
            o creating a business plan around TLDs that helps move the Internet forward
            o making sure that people can access their TLDs
            o doing this in an open and transparent way.

I believe that UnifiedRoot is trying to do these things.  It is what I am trying
to do.

Finally, the companies that you mention, in particular KPMG and TMF, were
brought in by the management of UnifiedRoot to help make the organization
more accountable and more transparent, not less.

In particular, your allusion in letters that you have sent out that Linux
International is a part of some fraud is highly insulting, and I ask that
you stop it immediately.  If I thought, even for a moment, that UnifiedRoot
was not trying its best to succeed at what many other organizations have
failed, I would not be involved.

It seems to me that UR has a compelling chance to achieve and further the
very objectives that you signed onto when you aligned with Public Root.  And
if UnifiedRoot succeeds, it will create a much better Internet and fund
various projects that will benefit everyone.

Regards,

Jon "maddog" Hall
======================================================================================
Subject: TLD Fraud by UnifiedRoot, NewRoot and UNIDT
From: "Joe Baptista" <baptista at cynikal.net>
Date: Sat Jul 29 09:31:56 EDT 2006
To: maddog at li.org

Hello:


I am writing this email to you because you are either affliliated with
UNIDT or the UnifiedRoot and have in some way participated, supported or
covered up a fraud.

Please find attached a copy of an email sent to all TLD Holders, including
legacy TLD owners.  If you are receiving this notice then I put you on
notice that it is my intention to name you in this fraud, including the
companies that have participated in this fraud.

If you in any way feel that my claims are in error then it would be
prudent that you speak up now.  I will provide you with an advance copy of
the document in which you will be named.  You may then have an opportunity
to respond prior to that document being distributed to the TLD holders and
stakeholders.

God bless
Joe Baptista

- NOTICE sent to UNIDT, NewRoot and UnifiedRoot TLD Holders -

You are receiving this email because you are a TLD Holder who purchased or
acquired your top-level domains from UnifiedRoot, UNIDT, NewRoot, Dogan
Online, or KOC Net.  You are the victim of a fraud in the selling of these
top-level domains to you by the parties listed above.  In addition SITA
(Societe Internationale de Telecommunications Aeronautique), Linux
International, the accountants KPMG and the TMF Group have participated in
this cover-up.

My name is Joe Baptista.  I was hired this past October 2004 to represent
the people who created the inclusive namespace that UnfiedRoot claims to
represent.  This claim is a lie.  The inclusive namespace and the
PublicRoot community have no association whatsoever with the UnifiedRoot
and any claims the UnifiedRoot is inclusive or representative of these
communities is false.

As a member of the TapRoot committee of the TLDA ( Top Level Domain
Association http://www.tlda.net/taproot/index.html ) it was my job to
ensure that the processes through which you purchased your Top-Level
domains were honest, open and transparent.  Unfortunately my investigation
resulted in the uncovering of financial fraud and the intentional theft of
top-level domains from their rightful owners with the full knowledge of
the parties responsible for sales, being UnifiedRoot, UNIDT and NewRoot.

The UnifiedRoot was created with the sole purpose and intention of
covering up this fraud. A number of articles on this were published in
Dutch and Turkish.  The Dutch articles by Peter Olsthoorn are available
online at the following URLs:

   http://www.netkwesties.nl/editie137/artikel2.html
   http://www.netkwesties.nl/editie140/artikel1.html
   http://www.netkwesties.nl/editie141/artikel3.html
   http://www.netkwesties.nl/editie141/artikel4.html

The Turkish articles by H. Cihan Salim and are available online at the
following URL:

   http://www.cihansalim.net/blog/200511.htm#prtr04

If you read Dutch or Turkish then please take the time to read these news
items.  Also you may use the translation service Babelfist at Altavista to
translate the Dutch articles to English using the URL:

   http://babelfish.altavista.com/

I will communicate again this coming month with specific details on the
fraud committed against you and the community.  I will also provide you
with some ideas on how you may be compensated, a means to make claims, and
protect your investments.

Your purchase of Top-Level Domains was a wise choice.  It is regrettable
that some of the people involved are too corrupt to ensure your purchase
was sound.

IF YOU HAVE RECEIEVED THIS MESSAGE AND ARE NOT A TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN HOLDER /
OWNER / OR REGISTRANT, please take the time to reply back to me so I can
ensure the records are correct.  The main issue here that affects you is a
fraudulent whois database.  To assist you in determining if this message
applies to you, I have attached as APPENDIX A a list of your Top-Level
Domains.  You can use the whois at UnifiedRoot to review them.  That whois
is located at the following URL:

   http://www.unifiedroot.com/registrars/whois

Kindest regards
Joe Baptista
+1 416 912 6551

--- APPENDIX A - LIST OF TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS associated with the email
address maddog at li.org

NOTICE: THIS LIST IS NOT PROVIDED TO YOU AS YOU ARE PARTICIPANTS IN
FRAUD AND DON'T DESERVE THE COMPUTER CYCLES IT TAKES TO PROCESS THIS
LISTING.

-- 
Jon "maddog" Hall
Executive Director           Linux International(R)
email: maddog at li.org         80 Amherst St.
Voice: +1.603.672.4557       Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A.
WWW: http://www.li.org

Board Member: Uniforum Association
Board Member Emeritus: USENIX Association (2000-2006)

(R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries.
(R)Linux International is a registered trademark in the USA used pursuant
   to a license from Linux Mark Institute, authorized licensor of Linus
   Torvalds, owner of the Linux trademark on a worldwide basis
(R)UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the USA and other
   countries.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From LMcKnigh at syr.edu  Wed Aug  2 13:46:55 2006
From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:46:55 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for	
	introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root
Message-ID: <s4d0acf5.079@gwia202.syr.edu>

Hi Klaus,

I wasn't at the moment proposing anything specific, I just wanted to help folks see that moving ICANN's HQ is not really a solution, however one defines the problem.  And yes host country agreements have their own problems as Wolfgang and other's point out.  And there's worse legal frameworks than California non-profit status.  So no easy fixes here, but we knew that already.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> "klaus grewlich" <kwgr at gmx.de> 8/1/2006 12:59 PM >>>
Dear Lee,
what do You propose?
Klaus

 -------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:51:23 -0400
Von: "Lee McKnight" <LMcKnigh at syr.edu>
An: bortzmeyer at internatif.org, governance at lists.cpsr.org 
Betreff: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for		introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root

> We agree, the matters addressed in a host country agreement (or whatever
> specifically comes next) for ICANN is (or should be) unrelated to the
> physical location of its headquarters.
> 
> Lee 
> 
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
> 
> >>> bortzmeyer at internatif.org 8/1/2006 10:34 AM >>>
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 10:20:01AM -0400,
>  Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu> wrote 
>  a message of 41 lines which said:
> 
> > Following this logic, next we suggest the UN leave NYC,
> 
> This is completely unrelated. UN does not operate under a MoU with the
> US government. And it has a "host country agreement", it is not an US
> organization.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org 
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org 
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 

-- 
Botschafter Prof. Dr. Klaus W. Grewlich
Deutsche Botschaft
ul. Razzakova 28
720040 Bishkek
Republic of Kyrgyzstan
(Privatpost: Diplo-Kurier
Botschaft Bischkek
11020 Berlin)
Tel: (996) (312) 905000
e-mail: kwgr at gmx.de 



Echte DSL-Flatrate dauerhaft für 0,- Euro*. Nur noch kurze Zeit!
"Feel free" mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From LMcKnigh at syr.edu  Thu Aug  3 16:24:38 2006
From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:24:38 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for
	introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root
Message-ID: <s4d22356.068@gwia202.syr.edu>

Bertrand,

Thanks, an excellent post. Really a start on an outline of a draft
agenda for a framework convention to consider. Definitely yours are
among the core questions on the table, and it does help a lot if we can
all try to be as precise in separating out the various Internet
governance issues on the table. Of course there are still more.  I'm
pressed for time so won;t respond point by point right now, will return
to this soon. Back mainly to the realpolitik around ICANN's HQ location:


- yes obviously it says something in fact quite a lot that the HQ is in
California, it's a non-profit under us & california law, and oh yeah
there's a more or less benevolent(?) big brother in DC that keeps
pulling their - and the whole world's - chain now and then. 

- yes moving HQ's is a big deal and would engender global competition
to host, totally normal and quite reasonable. A distributed host model
makes sense as ICANN seems to get, given the global reach of the
Internet and its various regional impacts. And it means something
institutionally if a body is established enough to set off that kind of
scramble. So the Internet's grown up, even if ICANN isn't, and we should
all be proud : )

- But and back to the Realpolitik, ICANN as an institution might be
happy to relocate to say the Caymans to get away from Big Brother, and
be less accountable to us all (no slur, just a compliment to their
support of unfettered enterprise ; ); so a move in that sense is
plausible.

- However, we forgot about big brother. Pre-framework convention it
doesn;t really feel like the Internet's all that grown-up does it. So I
suspect Big Brother is not going away altogether, but may loosen the
leash(es) or let others get their hands on some of them too somehow. To
keep with the analogy. So while internationalization of oversight is de
facto and de jure happening, the question is how far and what precisely
are the next steps for each of the actors and institutions in play. Some
you outlined in your note.  The objective and need of a truer
globalization though is obvious, since the numbers don't lie - there's
way more Internet users outside the US than inside, and globalization
without representation feels unfair. And yes it is also critically
important that civil society and the tech communtiy don't let
governements accidentally choke us to death.

 In sum: if the rest of the world and the USG haven;t agreed on what
the answers are to your 6 questions, or even that those are the
questions to be answered, then they're not letting go. And yes once you
have the HQ it is hard to get it out of there even if a treaty says it
has to go. That's realpolitik for you. But Bonn lost to Berlin, so
change happens. And the technology is incredibly squishy so the USG
could end up controlling nothing by trying too hard to control too much.
 Or too long.

- So that leaves us with the IGF and the need to contiinue the
discussion around these issues and prep for a a Framework Convention ss
you have suggested.

- And sure, amongst the issues on the table will be the next hq's of
ICANN, as well as the locations of any other new Internet institutions
spawned, whether for root management or policy setting or whatever.  

Finally, I like Wolfgang's 'watchdog' role for IGF vis a vis ICANN, but
really it is a broader mandate , since the IGF's role must encompass
providing for multistakeholder review and examination of all other
relevant institutions and their (in-)actions, ie ITU, WIPO etc. 

Lee 

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> "Bertrand de La Chapelle" <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> 8/2/2006 6:30
AM >>>
Dear Lee,

The point I was raising is not the location per se but the nature of
the
entity : there is no way today to create a truly international
structure,
either for profit or non-profit. And it would make sense to have a
global
structure to handle such a global network.

To avoid confusion, let's distinguish clearly betwen the different
layers of
issues we are addressing in this important thread :

1) the regimes that should be applied to gTLDs and ccTLDs :
similarities and
differences

2) benefits and drawbacks of one root vs several interoperable ones
(cf. Joe
Baptista) ?

3) should the same entity(ies) handle both root management and general
policy setting ?

4) the nature of institutions in charge of the respective functions :
national NGO status with host country agreement, intergovernmental
organization, a new, truly international and multi-stakeholder format,
other
... ?

5) the origins of legitimacy for the said organization(s) (ie : how
they are
created) : MoU with one or several governments, international Treaty,
framework convention, self-established multi-stakeholder Charter  ?

6) the physical location of the offices of these entities : single
location
or geographic distribution in multiple regions ? hosting by various
entities
(as the W3C) or in their own premisses ?

As for the physical location, Avri is of course right : it should be
only the governance regime/framework that matters, not the location.
Still,
the present situation combines : a legitimacy coming from a MoU with a
single government, a legal structure following the laws of a single
country
and, for a long time, a location in a single country. The symbolic
dimension
cannot be eluded.

Establishing a more distributed international presence (as ICANN
initiated
recently with Europe), getting some sort of host country agreement,
and
establishing a new charter/framework among more actors than one
government
alone are probably elements to consider in moving forward.

This of course does not reduce the pertinence of Milton's remark
regarding
accountability : how to guarantee accountability, enforceability and
possibility of appeal at the international level ?

As you mentionned in a separate post, ime may not be ripe yet to revive
the
notion of a framework convention, but it would eventually be an
appropriate
way to discuss those interlinked issues together.

Best.

Bertrand de La Chapelle


P.S. : as for the IMF and World Bank location in DC, you probably know,
Lee,
that the rule is that the headquarters of these institutions are
located -
per Charter - in the country that is the largest shareholder (in this
case
the US). But, knowing that the shares of all european countries
combined represent more than the US, some actors have suggested in the
past
that the european union should pool its seats and ask for the two
institutions to move their headquarters to Europe. It is not likely to
happen for many reasons, as we all know, but the physical location of
any
international organization is clearly not neutral.








On 8/1/06, Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> Following this logic, next we suggest the UN leave NYC, and of
course
> the World Bank & IMF depart DC.
>
> There, we've solved the world's problems ; (
>
> Lee
>
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
>
> >>> mueller at syr.edu 8/1/2006 10:07 AM >>>
>
> Canada?
>
> >>> bortzmeyer at internatif.org 8/1/2006 8:36:36 AM >>>
> A realistic and short-term solution, which I suggested at the WSIS,
is
> simply to host the new structure in an "innocent country", a small
and
> quite neutral country which, unlike the USA or China or France,
seems
> safe for everyone. Costa-Rica or Finland are two typical examples
(and
> they have good Internet connectivity).
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org 
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org 
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Thu Aug  3 18:31:16 2006
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 00:31:16 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root
In-Reply-To: <s4d22356.066@gwia202.syr.edu>
References: <s4d22356.066@gwia202.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <954259bd0608031531m69b4424ey9d9782a9f9c5ed1b@mail.gmail.com>

Lee,

A personal analysis of the US government attitude in the WSIS process
regarding those issues. There certainly are other elements at play, of
course, and I have no isnsider information :-).

I suppose there was a strategic decision from the US government NOT to have
anything substantial decided on ICANN or Internet Governance through the
WSIS process itself because it remained - in spite of some improvements -
fundamentally a UN process. This would have set a precedent for other
issues. We might not like it because it slowed down the process, but it is
understandable in a broader picture.

Now that this process is over in its pure UN format, there can be some
loosening of positions, such as a move on ICANN, if less on IANA. Hence the
importance of the IGF space as a more neutral and multi-stakeholder
environment to explore a better architecture. There is a window of
opportunity here for ALL actors, including governments, to fully take
advantage of.

The key challenge now is to design something innovative that is in line with
what the US government has repeatedly advocated through the successive MoUs
and organizes a peaceful transition to a more international framework.

In discussing these issues, the IGF has no decision-making capacity but it
has, potentially, a real decision-shaping capacity,precisely because of its
flexible format and composition.

I always like to remind people of the exchange between ambassador Khan and
Valerie d'Costa in the last days of the extended PrepCom3 in Tunis : the
debate is not between those who want change and those who do not; it is
about the scope and speed of the evolution.

Best

Bertrand


On 8/3/06, Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> Bertrand,
>
> Thanks, an excellent post. Really a start on an outline of a draft
> agenda for a framework convention to consider. Definitely yours are
> among the core questions on the table, and it does help a lot if we can
> all try to be as precise in separating out the various Internet
> governance issues on the table. Of course there are still more.  I'm
> pressed for time so won;t respond point by point right now, will return
> to this soon. Back mainly to the realpolitik around ICANN's HQ location:
>
>
> - yes obviously it says something in fact quite a lot that the HQ is in
> California, it's a non-profit under us & california law, and oh yeah
> there's a more or less benevolent(?) big brother in DC that keeps
> pulling their - and the whole world's - chain now and then.
>
> - yes moving HQ's is a big deal and would engender global competition
> to host, totally normal and quite reasonable. A distributed host model
> makes sense as ICANN seems to get, given the global reach of the
> Internet and its various regional impacts. And it means something
> institutionally if a body is established enough to set off that kind of
> scramble. So the Internet's grown up, even if ICANN isn't, and we should
> all be proud : )
>
> - But and back to the Realpolitik, ICANN as an institution might be
> happy to relocate to say the Caymans to get away from Big Brother, and
> be less accountable to us all (no slur, just a compliment to their
> support of unfettered enterprise ; ); so a move in that sense is
> plausible.
>
> - However, we forgot about big brother. Pre-framework convention it
> doesn;t really feel like the Internet's all that grown-up does it. So I
> suspect Big Brother is not going away altogether, but may loosen the
> leash(es) or let others get their hands on some of them too somehow. To
> keep with the analogy. So while internationalization of oversight is de
> facto and de jure happening, the question is how far and what precisely
> are the next steps for each of the actors and institutions in play. Some
> you outlined in your note.  The objective and need of a truer
> globalization though is obvious, since the numbers don't lie - there's
> way more Internet users outside the US than inside, and globalization
> without representation feels unfair. And yes it is also critically
> important that civil society and the tech communtiy don't let
> governements accidentally choke us to death.
>
> In sum: if the rest of the world and the USG haven;t agreed on what
> the answers are to your 6 questions, or even that those are the
> questions to be answered, then they're not letting go. And yes once you
> have the HQ it is hard to get it out of there even if a treaty says it
> has to go. That's realpolitik for you. But Bonn lost to Berlin, so
> change happens. And the technology is incredibly squishy so the USG
> could end up controlling nothing by trying too hard to control too much.
> Or too long.
>
> - So that leaves us with the IGF and the need to contiinue the
> discussion around these issues and prep for a a Framework Convention ss
> you have suggested.
>
> - And sure, amongst the issues on the table will be the next hq's of
> ICANN, as well as the locations of any other new Internet institutions
> spawned, whether for root management or policy setting or whatever.
>
> Finally, I like Wolfgang's 'watchdog' role for IGF vis a vis ICANN, but
> really it is a broader mandate , since the IGF's role must encompass
> providing for multistakeholder review and examination of all other
> relevant institutions and their (in-)actions, ie ITU, WIPO etc.
>
> Lee
>
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
>
> >>> "Bertrand de La Chapelle" <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> 8/2/2006 6:30
> AM >>>
> Dear Lee,
>
> The point I was raising is not the location per se but the nature of
> the
> entity : there is no way today to create a truly international
> structure,
> either for profit or non-profit. And it would make sense to have a
> global
> structure to handle such a global network.
>
> To avoid confusion, let's distinguish clearly betwen the different
> layers of
> issues we are addressing in this important thread :
>
> 1) the regimes that should be applied to gTLDs and ccTLDs :
> similarities and
> differences
>
> 2) benefits and drawbacks of one root vs several interoperable ones
> (cf. Joe
> Baptista) ?
>
> 3) should the same entity(ies) handle both root management and general
> policy setting ?
>
> 4) the nature of institutions in charge of the respective functions :
> national NGO status with host country agreement, intergovernmental
> organization, a new, truly international and multi-stakeholder format,
> other
> ... ?
>
> 5) the origins of legitimacy for the said organization(s) (ie : how
> they are
> created) : MoU with one or several governments, international Treaty,
> framework convention, self-established multi-stakeholder Charter  ?
>
> 6) the physical location of the offices of these entities : single
> location
> or geographic distribution in multiple regions ? hosting by various
> entities
> (as the W3C) or in their own premisses ?
>
> As for the physical location, Avri is of course right : it should be
> only the governance regime/framework that matters, not the location.
> Still,
> the present situation combines : a legitimacy coming from a MoU with a
> single government, a legal structure following the laws of a single
> country
> and, for a long time, a location in a single country. The symbolic
> dimension
> cannot be eluded.
>
> Establishing a more distributed international presence (as ICANN
> initiated
> recently with Europe), getting some sort of host country agreement,
> and
> establishing a new charter/framework among more actors than one
> government
> alone are probably elements to consider in moving forward.
>
> This of course does not reduce the pertinence of Milton's remark
> regarding
> accountability : how to guarantee accountability, enforceability and
> possibility of appeal at the international level ?
>
> As you mentionned in a separate post, ime may not be ripe yet to revive
> the
> notion of a framework convention, but it would eventually be an
> appropriate
> way to discuss those interlinked issues together.
>
> Best.
>
> Bertrand de La Chapelle
>
>
> P.S. : as for the IMF and World Bank location in DC, you probably know,
> Lee,
> that the rule is that the headquarters of these institutions are
> located -
> per Charter - in the country that is the largest shareholder (in this
> case
> the US). But, knowing that the shares of all european countries
> combined represent more than the US, some actors have suggested in the
> past
> that the european union should pool its seats and ask for the two
> institutions to move their headquarters to Europe. It is not likely to
> happen for many reasons, as we all know, but the physical location of
> any
> international organization is clearly not neutral.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8/1/06, Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Following this logic, next we suggest the UN leave NYC, and of
> course
> > the World Bank & IMF depart DC.
> >
> > There, we've solved the world's problems ; (
> >
> > Lee
> >
> > Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> > School of Information Studies
> > Syracuse University
> > +1-315-443-6891office
> > +1-315-278-4392 mobile
> >
> > >>> mueller at syr.edu 8/1/2006 10:07 AM >>>
> >
> > Canada?
> >
> > >>> bortzmeyer at internatif.org 8/1/2006 8:36:36 AM >>>
> > A realistic and short-term solution, which I suggested at the WSIS,
> is
> > simply to host the new structure in an "innocent country", a small
> and
> > quite neutral country which, unlike the USA or China or France,
> seems
> > safe for everyone. Costa-Rica or Finland are two typical examples
> (and
> > they have good Internet connectivity).
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060804/e8f7228f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060804/e8f7228f/attachment.txt>

From pouzin at well.com  Thu Aug  3 19:28:55 2006
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 01:28:55 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] ICANN Studienkreis
Message-ID: <200608032328.k73NStx5027213@ares.enst.fr>

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 11:16:53 +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

>[Yet another so called anti-spam protection, but uninformed people.]

>It calls back your email server, to check that the return address is valid. If you use greylisting (ENST does) or similar techniques, it will fail. Check your logs. When you write to Wolfgang, you get the callback:

>Aug  1 11:14:30 ariane postfix/smtpd[29714]: connect from mailgate.urz.uni-halle.de[141.48.3.51]

>and possibly a refusal:

There was no other diag info than the one in my previous posting. It's too incomplete and cryptic to be of any help to a user.

It may be due to my "From" address being different from the address of the computer or the server used to send the msg. This is a routine environment in today's internet. The only other similar failure I have observed is with a qmail-send routine in an uncertain mailing system. Lot of my mails would get bumped if all mail servers were as peculiar as mailgate2.urz.uni-halle.de.

Btw, spammers have learned long ago how to bypass those dogood features, which are mostly effective in blocking legitimate mail.

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:53:01 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

>By the way, greylisting (or other similar "anti-spam" devices that only a nerd could conceive, and that make sane people like Louis go mad) would be an interesting subject for discussion in Athens...

Not clear that the Athens meeting is an adequate setting for spamology, although security is one of the 4 main themes. At least 3 contributions address spam: ITU, OECD, ICC.

The kludgy and goofy greylisting amateur tricks would better belong to a specialized task force. But the policy aspects should qualify for a slot in Athens. Intranets, NATs, firewalls, proprietary or defective SW, and do-it-yourself anti-spam recreate the internet of the 80's. A user had only one address, one server, and had better know a route to send a msg. Delivery was unpredictable, like in a guerilla infested country.

Smalltalk about the global internet is rather funny, as we live with millions of fragments more or less friendly to each other, just like in real life. The problem is to keep dysfunctions within reasonable limits. Having laws instead of guns.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From nb at bollow.ch  Fri Aug  4 08:17:17 2006
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri,  4 Aug 2006 14:17:17 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducingmulti-lateral oversight of the root
In-Reply-To: <954259bd0608010406q6a01424bwfe2d2d0a646599db@mail.gmail.com>
	(bdelachapelle@gmail.com)
References: <0J3200DB79D5AG@mail.uni-halle.de>
	 <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043568@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0608010406q6a01424bwfe2d2d0a646599db@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060804121717.3545460B9F@quill.bollow.ch>

Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:

> Wolfgang is right : the challenge we all are confronted with is to invent a
> new type of multi-stakeholder structure (whatever that is) that can be
> established directly at the international level and is not a traditional
> intergovernmental organization.

I agree wholeheartedly.  In fact, in the "Internet Quality Labels"
proposal which I have drafted, I have included some ideas for such
a multi-stakeholder structure.

See:

http://intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/SwissInternetUserGroup.txt

I would propose that before attempting to apply the principle of
multistakeholder accountability to existing organizations of great
significance like ICANN, the concept should first be tried out and
proven to work well at a smaller scale, like for example with a
certification organisation for "Internet Quality Labels".

> As far as I know, there is no possibility today to create entities
> directly at the international level, apart from intergovernmental
> organizations (and this requires very complex and lengthy
> negotiations and treaties) : you cannot create for instance a global
> company or a global NGO right away, able to operate (and be
> recognized) in all countries on the basis of their website.

I think that a major reason for this is the question of how
commitments that the "global company" or "global NGO" enters into
would be enforced:  That would require a court system with global 
power to have people (who are in contept of court decisions)
arrested and punished.

I believe that the realistic way forward is to work with organizations
which are incorporated in some country with well-fuctioning court
system and respect for human rights, and have those organizations
enter legally binding commitments (enforcable through the court
system of whatever country the organization is incorporated in) to
act according to specific, good principles of multistakeholder
accountability.

Greetings,
Norbert.


-- 
Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                       http://Norbert.ch
President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG        http://SIUG.ch
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Fri Aug  4 11:44:11 2006
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:44:11 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF substantial contributions - privacy aspects
Message-ID: <44D36B4B.6010700@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Hi all,

the IGF secretariat has put online the substantial contributions they have 
received by now at 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions_for_1st_IGF.htm>.

I have taken some time today to browse through them, with a specific 
interest in privacy and identity issues. Here's what I found.

Best, Ralf


1) ITU-T Study Group 17 work plan on Cybersecurity
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/03%20-%20IGF-cybersecurity.doc>
--> refers to ID management infrastructures:
"(...) Security of identity in telecommunication network
• How to securely manage identity and federation among providers in
Telecommunication?
• Legal/Policy Considerations
• What are the minimum security requirements that regulators should
enforce on telecommunication providers and ISPs? (...)"


2) Council of Europe
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/CoE%20submission%20to%20the%20IGF.doc>
--> Nice human rights fundamentals, along the lines of the Human Rights 
Caucus contrinbution (see below):
"(...) 21. However, much remains to be done and there are still many 
unanswered questions regarding the interpretation of rights in online 
situations which the IGF discussions could help to explore and map out. 
Important issues to address, and their human rights implications, include 
the privacy of correspondence or communications over the Internet (for 
example how a state should deal with third party interference) and the 
right to freedom of expression and information (for example censorship by 
non-state actors such as Internet service providers regarding their notice 
and takedown actions). Security and stability related issues should also 
continue to be examined from a human rights perspective. (...)"


3) OECD

- Task-Force on Spam
<http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/28/36494147.pdf>
--> 115 pages thick and has a number of references t privacy and identity. 
One example related to our idea:
"(...) the Trusted Email Open Standard (TEOS) has been created by the 
ePrivacy Group. TEOS grew out of ePrivacy’s industry self-regulation 
program that aims to separate legitimate e-mail from spam. TEOS goes 
beyond authentication and creates a trusted identity for e-mail senders 
based on signatures in e-mail headers. Unlike the authentication 
signatures of DKIM, the TEOS signatures are visible seals in messages, 
certifying that the sender meets specified criteria. (...)" (p. 57f)

- They also provide a summary of OECD's work relevant to the IGF
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/UpdatedOECD_CSA.doc>
"(...) E. Online Privacy
• The OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows 
of Personal Data (1980) (...)
• The OECD Privacy Statement Generator  (...)
• The OECD Privacy Online: Guidance on Policy and Practice (2003) (...)"


4) ICC / CCBI: Several Contributions

- Employee privacy, data protection and human resources
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/Employee.privacy.data%20protection.and.human.resources.pdf>
--> This is evil:
"Workplace monitoring is becoming acceptable and commonplace in many 
countries, although care needs to be exercised that the practice is 
consistent with local cultural values and traditions. Proportionate 
monitoring of electronic communications can be an essential part of 
corporate measures to foster the “culture of security” called for by the 
OECD Guidelines for the Security of Information Systems and Networks."

- Privacy Toolkit. An international business guide for policymakers
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/privacy_toolkit.pdf>
--> old stuff from 2003, asking for a "flexible privacy protection approach"

- Standard Contractual Clauses for the Transfer of Personal Data from the 
EU to Third Countries
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/Model.clauses.Toolkit.pdf>
--> nothing new, just the ICC's EU-approved clauses for data transfers


5) ICANN's Non-Commercial User Constituency (NCUC)
Privacy Implications of WHOIS Database Policy
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/NCUC-IGF-Whois_privacy-2a.doc>
--> nice paper, supporting the GNSO Council position from May 2006:
"The purpose of the gTLD Whois service is to provide information 
sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular gTLD domain 
name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, 
issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the 
domain name within a DNS nameserver."


6) WSIS Civil Society Human Rights Caucus
http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/HR_Athens.doc
"(...) the HR Caucus proposes that the IGF establish a task force on Human 
Rights and Internet Governance. The task force would particularly address 
current and future internet governance mechanisms for compliance with 
freedom of expression, privacy, and the rule of law (most notably due 
process and effective remedy). (...)"


7) Swiss Internet User Group: Internet Quality Labels
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/SwissInternetUserGroup.txt>
--> based on the privacy seals concept, but also covering net neutrality 
etc., with some elaborated ideas on multi-stakeholder accountability.


8) Spanish Experts Group on Internet Governance and of Telefonica 
Foundation and Politécnica Madrid
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/Sostenibilidad%20y%20Gobernanza%20IGFConference2006.pdf>
--> has a section on "Seguridad, Privacidad Y Confianza En Internet" 
(Security, Privacy and Confidence In Internet), but unfortunately, I can't 
read Spanish...


9) Vittorio Bertola

- The Internet Bill of Rights
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/The%20Internet%20Bill%20of%20Rights.doc>
--> not directly discussing substance or even privacy here, but the 
history of past efforts and the pros and cons of an "Internet Bill of 
Rights". He's also preparing a workhop for the IGF on this AFAIK.

- An Introduction to Trusted Computing
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/An%20Introduction%20To%20Trusted%20Computing.doc>
--> good summary of TC developments and governance issues.
"Privacy: TC systems are uniquely identified and recognizable, when 
performing the remote attestation mechanism; thus it is possible to track 
which software a specific PC is running, and perhaps also acquire further 
information. Potentially, if TPMs are not implemented in a publicly 
screened way, they could communicate back to manufacturers and other 
parties any kind of information and data from the user's PC, without the 
user even knowing it. This could allow manufacturers and other parties to 
spy what the user does with the device."


10) Misc contributions on security

Some other contributions are refering to security. I have not looked into 
them deeply, as I am more interested in privacy and identity management at 
the moment. Here's the list:

- Proposals of the Russian Federation to the Agenda of the Internet 
Governance Forum
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/Proposals_RF_Agenda_of_Internet_Governance%20Forum.pdf>
-> "information security" again...

- The ITU-T Study Group 17 work plan on Cybersecurity
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/03%20-%20IGF-cybersecurity.doc>

- Overview of ITU-D Mandate and Activities in Cybersecurity
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/08%20-%20IGF-ITU-D%20Overview-cybersecurity%2021JUL06.doc>

- Government of Quebec
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/gouvduquebec.pdf>

- Japan Business Federation
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/proposals_for_igf_nippon_keidanren.doc>
--> "we strongly hope the following 6 issues preferentially discussed at 
the 1st IGF (...): Internet Security, Protection of Privacy, Spam, 
Capacity building, Balance of freedom of expression and regulation of 
contents, Multilingual support"

- European Information Society Group: Policing the Internet. 
Democratically accountable partnerships or self-protection groups?
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/EURIM_IGF06paper.doc>
--> Scary but pretty smart stuff...
http://www.eurim.org.uk - who are they?

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From klohento at panos-ao.org  Tue Aug  8 09:14:50 2006
From: klohento at panos-ao.org (klohento)
Date: Tue,  8 Aug 2006 06:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Photo
Message-ID: <20060808131451.679CB6662@smtp2.electricembers.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060808/825cd48e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------

**********************************************************
**********************************************************

WARNING: WinProxy has detected a virus in file
attached to this e-mail message!

The attachment has been automatically removed to
protect your network.

WinProxy Administrator: tekisiac at yahoo.com

08/08/06 14:16:05 
WinProxy (Version 6.1 R1b (6.1.23.0)) - http://www.WinProxy.com/
Antivirus Vendor: Panda Software
Scan Engine Version: 5.4.1.0_1.2.1.8
Pattern File Version: 3.114530 (Timestamp: 2006/05/12 13:01:23)

Machine name: AZE
Machine IP address: 82.206.196.194
Server: 209.209.81.68
Client: 192.168.0.170
Protocol: SMTP

Virus: "W32/Tearec.A.worm!CME-24" found!
Attachment: Video_part.mim

**********************************************************
**********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060808/825cd48e/attachment.txt>

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Wed Aug  9 12:19:30 2006
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 01:19:30 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF Athens - hotel reservation process opens
Message-ID: <f31ae3560608090919nbeab8d7i5cccf1b4a5e8a554@mail.gmail.com>

The hotel reservation process for IGF hotels is now open.

We've found problems with the site.  It works fine on Windows, but not
Mac (don't know about Linux etc.)  The organizers know and are fixing
the site so it works with all OS and browsers.

List of conferences hotels here
<http://www.igfgreece2006.gr/?tid=68&aid=0>   We've been told that
these are discounted prices.  When you go to the reservation page
<https://www.igfgreece2006.gr/hotel/index.php > (credit card required)
you will be asked to prioritize your choice of hotels.  So print the
hotel list or leave that page open in another window.

The main conference hotel is the Divani Apollon Palace, there's a
cheaper hotel across the street, the Amarilia Hotel.

Adam
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From sylvia.caras at gmail.com  Wed Aug  9 18:57:49 2006
From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 15:57:49 -0700
Subject: [governance] transparency
Message-ID: <b1161f110608091557t547a32a0o6c14589be73df3dc@mail.gmail.com>

Global Accountability Project
Transparency in International Organisations:
Background Research for the Transparency Dimension

http://www.oneworldtrust.org/documents/Transparency%20Sector%20Paper.pdf
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu Aug 10 01:58:51 2006
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:58:51 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] IGF Athens - hotel reservation process opens
In-Reply-To: <20060809194402.31863.qmail@web34309.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20060809194402.31863.qmail@web34309.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <p06230908c100566269c6@[192.168.1.3]>

I should also have said you must register before you can make a hotel 
booking.  Register online here 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/register/index.php>

Once you have completed the form you should receive conformation 
email and a hotel booking number. You need the number to access the 
hotel booking page.

Seems there was a delay sending out the confirmation emails, I 
registered on the 1st day and received my confirmation on August 8.

Email should have been sent by <info at intgovforum.org>.  Check your 
junk mail for that email (form letters often get caught in filters). 
If you have not received confirmation of your registration, please 
write to <info at intgovforum.org> and ask for help.

The registration form follows a typical UN format (accommodates how 
governments register for such events) and the part about "delegation" 
may be meaningless to you.  For example, you can select "other" and 
write Internet User (or something that describes your interest.)

Thanks,

Adam



>
>
>Dear Adam,
>Thanks for the information.
>There is no way we may be able to get the discount
>without the confirmation of our registration which
>should include the NUMBER TO BE ALLOCATED FOR
>DELEGATES TO APPLY FOR THE HOTEL BOOKINGS.
>I will rather say that the process to get our
>confirmation till date is taking quite some time.
>Considering the fact some of us will need apple time
>to contact the embassies here and all the various
>hurdles that we shall be made to pass through.
>One ONLY hope that our representaives at the Advisory
>Body were able to take this up with the Greece
>Authority like we did with the Tunisia Ambassasdor in
>Geneva before the Tunis Phase Two of the WSIS and the
>embassy was quite cooperative arising from the
>agreement received from the Tunisia govt through their
>Ambassador in Geneva.
>Please take notice that participants from Africa often
>have it rough getting visas to European countries for
>conferences.
>We are watching and hopeful?...
>Pastor Peters OMORAGBON
>
>--- Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> 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!
>>  _______________________________________
>>
>>  The hotel reservation process for IGF hotels is now
>>  open.
>>
>>  We've found problems with the site.  It works fine
>>  on Windows, but not
>>  Mac (don't know about Linux etc.)  The organizers
>>  know and are fixing
>>  the site so it works with all OS and browsers.
>>
>>  List of conferences hotels here
>>  <http://www.igfgreece2006.gr/?tid=68&aid=0>   We've
>>  been told that
>>  these are discounted prices.  When you go to the
>>  reservation page
>>  <https://www.igfgreece2006.gr/hotel/index.php >
>>  (credit card required)
>>  you will be asked to prioritize your choice of
>>  hotels.  So print the
>>  hotel list or leave that page open in another
>>  window.
>>
>>  The main conference hotel is the Divani Apollon
>>  Palace, there's a
>>  cheaper hotel across the street, the Amarilia Hotel.
>>
>>  Adam
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Plenary mailing list
>>  Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>>
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>>
>
>
>
>    Pastor Peters OMORAGBON
>Executive President/CEO
>Nurses Across the Borders Humanitarian Initiative-Inc.-(Nigeria & U.S.A)
>An NGO On Special Consultative Status with The Economic and Social 
>Council of the United Nations-(ECOSOC)
>Member(OBSERVER),United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 
>Change (UNFCCC)
>295, IKORODU ROAD, IDIROKO BUS STOP MARYLAND IKEJA LAGOS NIGERIA
>350, MAIN STREET, EAST ORANGE NEW JERSEY 07018 U.S.A
>Tel:+234-1-812-8649, +234-1-818-6494,+234-802-308-5408(Mobile)
>FAX:+234-1-493-7203
>Email:nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com
>URL: www.nursesacrosstheborders.4t.com
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu Aug 10 13:22:53 2006
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:22:53 +0200
Subject: [governance] AW: [WSIS CS-Plenary] US/ICANN agreement to be over
References: <9ea79150607311928m32c35b07u892c7b05018f312c@mail.gmail.com>
 <20060810082800.GA3879@margaux.inria.fr>
Message-ID:  <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043603@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Dear Bernard,
 
a good starter is to read the Background Paper of the WGIG. I myself was responsible for this part (together with Madame Hu from China). It starts from para. 73. See
http://www.wgig.org/docs/BackgroundReport.doc
 
You can find also good material in tehn WGIG book, edited by Bill Drake.There are some articles in it on the root server issue, including my own.  
http://www.wgig.org/book-Launch.html
 
Best wishes
 
wolfgang
 

________________________________

Von: Bernard Lang [mailto:Bernard.Lang at inria.fr]
Gesendet: Do 10.08.2006 10:28
An: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
Betreff: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] US/ICANN agreement to be over



[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,

Perhaps someone can give me a pointer to a relevant paper :

I fail to see what is so important about root servers (and several
other roles of ICANN).

The day we consider that these roles are being abused, we can just
switch to another organisation in a matter of hours.

I am a lot more concerned over the internet architecture and the
protocoles used.  They cannot be easily changed, and it entails high
costs and significant cooperation from all.

Power is in architecture much more than in human organizations (and I
suspect Larry Lessig would strongly agree - but I did not ask).

Bernard Lang


* Marouen MRAIHI <mr.marouen at gmail.com>, le 01-08-06, a écrit:
> [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!
> _______________________________________
>
> The two most important news in this article in french is that
> http://www.silicon.fr/getarticle.asp?ID=16191 :
> - The US/ICANN agreement will be over on september 30
> - Mr John Kneuer from the DoC said that they want to "give up" some of
> the controls over internet to the private sector or the international
> community. No more details on that.
>
> The writer is wondering about the when/how and if the root servers
> will be included in this transfer.
>
> Marouen
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary

--
             Le brevet logiciel menace votre entreprise
               Software patents threaten your company
    Soutenez la Majorité Économique - Support the Economic Majority
                  http://www.economic-majority.com/

Bernard.Lang at inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion

_______________________________________________
Plenary mailing list
Plenary at wsis-cs.org
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From baptista at cynikal.net  Thu Aug 10 20:01:08 2006
From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:01:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] US/ICANN agreement to be over
In-Reply-To: <20060810082800.GA3879@margaux.inria.fr>
References: <9ea79150607311928m32c35b07u892c7b05018f312c@mail.gmail.com>
 <20060810082800.GA3879@margaux.inria.fr>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0608101938400.16952@ruby.cynikal.net>


Bernard:

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Bernard Lang wrote:

> I fail to see what is so important about root servers (and several
> other roles of ICANN).
>
> The day we consider that these roles are being abused, we can just
> switch to another organisation in a matter of hours.

Well lets focus first on root servers.  There is absolutly nothing
important about the root servers.  They are in fact a dangerous legacy
who's time has come to dump in the trash bin of internet history.

The current legacy root servers exists because thats the way most software
is distributed - with these legacy roots coded into a file that any
sysadmin can change in a few minutes time with an edit.

The legacy root - which see:

http://www.root-servers.org/

Are in most cases distributed with software (mainly BIND) and they are
coded in a file called a cache.  It should be noted that the BIND software
package has been and still is under the direct control of Paul Vixie -
the f root operator.  Which I guess gos to explain alot - including the
lack of choice.

Which see - BIND

http://www.isc.org/index.pl?/sw/bind/

which see cache file

ftp://rs.internic.net/domain/db.cache

For the longest time there was a myth aroun ICANNs creation that they had
a monopoly on the root servers.  This myth I was first to oppose and
eventually they dropped it.  But most of the world was bamboozeled into
believeing ICANN actually controlled something.  In fact this is an
artificial monopoly depedant on the distribution of BIND with the existing
cache file.  A monopoly based more on ignorance then fact.

Now - why are the root a dangerous legacy.

Well - first off security issues are BIG here.  For year now Paul and some
of the root operators have shared their data with the intellegence
community.  This means serious privacy issues.  Which see write up on
same:

http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/papers/Root_Server_Privacy_Complaint.pdf

Two - a fact not much discussed is the very serious fact that non of the
root operators in the U.S. legacy chain are under contract.  THERE ARE NO
CONTRACTS.  And thats not very professional.  Should scare alot of people
on these lists.  The current legacy operations are a rag tag group of
volunteers associated more through special interests then a need to serve.

> I am a lot more concerned over the internet architecture and the
> protocoles used.  They cannot be easily changed, and it entails high
> costs and significant cooperation from all.

Well - that depends.  Turkey recently legislated out the ICANN roots and
now use roots provided by UnifiedRoot - a company involved in criminal
fraud, tax evasions etc. etc.  I know - I helped build it and was the
first to blow the whistle on them.  Non the less Turkey switched simply by
legislating ISPs to use first the Public-Root/INAIC ( www.public-root.com
and www.INAIC.com ), then they legislated ISP to use the UnifiedRoot at
www.unifiedroot.com.

As far as I'm concerned all countries should establish their own root
systems to ensure national security.

> Power is in architecture much more than in human organizations (and I
> suspect Larry Lessig would strongly agree - but I did not ask).

Interesting you should mention Larry Lessig.  Somehow the poor chap go
himself involved with these fools at the unifiedroot - if you surf over to

http://backoffice.unifiedroot.com/registrars/whois

and enter the TLD " commons " into the search box without the quotes - you
see Lawrence Lessig as the TLD holder.  I warned alot of people about the
UnifiedRoot - including Muller and whats his name - the proffessor in
florida - who's name I forget.  Both got the message and now deny every
having even heard of the organizations.  I must have forgotten to warn
Lessig or somehow he was left out of the loop.

But generally speaking - if you remove the fraud, tax evasion and the fact
most of the whois is bogus and the claims on the site that they are
"inclusive" are not much more then bogus claims designed for more
for marketing then facts - Lessig made the right choice in joining the
inclusive namespace.

Other have gotten caught up in this trap including one Jon Hall - a
programmer of some reputation in the linux community.

Now - as we can see anyone can start a root system.  The trick is in
ensuring the root data is correct and shared.  This is a simple database
application that would of been ICANNs duty.  But they screwed that up and
now are mainly useless and not trusted at all.

The ICANN failure is in making a fundamental error in judgement.  ICANN
assumed it was master of the root.  This is completely false.  They are at
best it's slave.

regards
joe baptista

>
> Bernard Lang
>
>
> * Marouen MRAIHI <mr.marouen at gmail.com>, le 01-08-06, a écrit:
> > [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!
> > _______________________________________
> >
> > The two most important news in this article in french is that
> > http://www.silicon.fr/getarticle.asp?ID=16191 :
> > - The US/ICANN agreement will be over on september 30
> > - Mr John Kneuer from the DoC said that they want to "give up" some of
> > the controls over internet to the private sector or the international
> > community. No more details on that.
> >
> > The writer is wondering about the when/how and if the root servers
> > will be included in this transfer.
> >
> > Marouen
> > _______________________________________________
> > Plenary mailing list
> > Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
> --
>              Le brevet logiciel menace votre entreprise
>                Software patents threaten your company
>     Soutenez la Majorité Économique - Support the Economic Majority
>                   http://www.economic-majority.com/
>
> Bernard.Lang at inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
> http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
>             INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
>          Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
>
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri Aug 11 11:45:35 2006
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 00:45:35 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF Athens hotel booking system now browser friendly
Message-ID: <f31ae3560608110845w311e8ccaic5268211ec8c332f@mail.gmail.com>

IGF secretariat have just written to say:


"Dear All,

I have been informed by the Greek hosts that the hotel reservation
system is now multi browser and platform friendly."



Good luck booking a room.

Adam
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From sylvia.caras at gmail.com  Fri Aug 11 13:48:56 2006
From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:48:56 -0700
Subject: [governance] IGF Athens hotel booking system now browser friendly
In-Reply-To: <f31ae3560608110845w311e8ccaic5268211ec8c332f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f31ae3560608110845w311e8ccaic5268211ec8c332f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b1161f110608111048r6bb174b9n60c30c497ba02f94@mail.gmail.com>

I have only gotten an acknowledgement, not a code, from the
registration process.

Sylvia

On 8/11/06, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> I
> Good luck booking a room.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Aug 11 13:49:13 2006
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:49:13 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] US/ICANN agreement to be over
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0608101938400.16952@ruby.cynikal.net>
References: <9ea79150607311928m32c35b07u892c7b05018f312c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20060810082800.GA3879@margaux.inria.fr>
	 <Pine.GSO.4.58.0608101938400.16952@ruby.cynikal.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0608111049p4d2763dawce63be996452f011@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/11/06, Joe Baptista <baptista at cynikal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Are in most cases distributed with software (mainly BIND) and they are
> coded in a file called a cache.  It should be noted that the BIND software
> package has been and still is under the direct control of Paul Vixie -
> the f root operator.  Which I guess gos to explain alot - including the
> lack of choice.



There are plenty of choices out there besides BIND, BIND is a useful piece
of software, which probably explains it's popularity.


>
> Well - first off security issues are BIG here.  For year now Paul and some
>
> of the root operators have shared their data with the intellegence
> community.  This means serious privacy issues.  Which see write up on
> same:
>
> http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/papers/Root_Server_Privacy_Complaint.pdf<http://www.cynikal.net/%7Ebaptista/papers/Root_Server_Privacy_Complaint.pdf>



There is no indication in this paper that the above allegation is true, it
only describes the possibility of it happening.

In addition, the paper says; "The continued operations of these roots by
Commerce can be subject to abuse." , but below, you say there are no
contracts. These two positions are contradictory to me.

Two - a fact not much discussed is the very serious fact that non of the
> root operators in the U.S. legacy chain are under contract.  THERE ARE NO
> CONTRACTS.  And thats not very professional.  Should scare alot of people
> on these lists.  The current legacy operations are a rag tag group of
> volunteers associated more through special interests then a need to serve.
>



On the contrary, non of the root-ops are volunteers. they are all paid by
their organisations to run these servers.  They are in no way a "rag tag"
group, rather, they are highly professional, skilled network engineers.
That these organisations have no contract with ICANN or the USG does not
detract from their ability to help maintain a stable DNS.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060811/731d542d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060811/731d542d/attachment.txt>

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri Aug 11 14:04:56 2006
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 03:04:56 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF Athens hotel booking system now browser friendly
In-Reply-To: <b1161f110608111048r6bb174b9n60c30c497ba02f94@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f31ae3560608110845w311e8ccaic5268211ec8c332f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <b1161f110608111048r6bb174b9n60c30c497ba02f94@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f31ae3560608111104s61ff7e9ep2831618c9938c3f8@mail.gmail.com>

any problems, please write to <info at intgovforum.org> and ask for help.



On 8/12/06, Sylvia Caras <sylvia.caras at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have only gotten an acknowledgement, not a code, from the
> registration process.
>
> Sylvia
>
> On 8/11/06, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> > I
> > Good luck booking a room.
>


-- 
Email from Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Email from my Gmail account probably means I am travelling.  Please
reply to  <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> Thanks!
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From peter at echnaton.serveftp.com  Fri Aug 11 18:26:29 2006
From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 00:26:29 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] US/ICANN agreement to be over
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0608111049p4d2763dawce63be996452f011@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9ea79150607311928m32c35b07u892c7b05018f312c@mail.gmail.com>	 <20060810082800.GA3879@margaux.inria.fr>	 <Pine.GSO.4.58.0608101938400.16952@ruby.cynikal.net> <f65fb55e0608111049p4d2763dawce63be996452f011@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <44DD0415.7060408@echnaton.serveftp.com>

McTim wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/11/06, *Joe Baptista* <baptista at cynikal.net 
> <mailto:baptista at cynikal.net>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     Are in most cases distributed with software (mainly BIND) and they are
>     coded in a file called a cache.  It should be noted that the BIND
>     software
>     package has been and still is under the direct control of Paul Vixie -
>     the f root operator.  Which I guess gos to explain alot - including the
>     lack of choice.
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of choices out there besides BIND, BIND is a useful 
> piece of software, which probably explains it's popularity.
> 

Windows is a popular software. That is the reason why ALL botnets consist
of windows bots only. At least some gouvernments are beginning to see the risk.

Ask the Bind developpers. It is risky to run bind versions below 9.something.
I am running BIND 9.4.0b1 side by side with djbdns. But look what is out in
the wild internet. Many companies are running 8.something or even 4.something.

I am looking for choices but I have only found either bind or djbdns. There
used to be others but just try and find the bug lists. Try to compile and
install djbdns. Then you know why bind is quasi monopoly.

> 
> 
>     Well - first off security issues are BIG here.  For year now Paul
>     and some
>     of the root operators have shared their data with the intellegence
>     community.  This means serious privacy issues.  Which see write up on
>     same:
> 
>     http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/papers/Root_Server_Privacy_Complaint.pdf
>     <http://www.cynikal.net/%7Ebaptista/papers/Root_Server_Privacy_Complaint.pdf>
> 
> 
> 
> There is no indication in this paper that the above allegation is true, 
> it only describes the possibility of it happening.
> 
> In addition, the paper says; "The continued operations of these roots by 
> Commerce can be subject to abuse." , but below, you say there are no 
> contracts. These two positions are contradictory to me.


This is what is happening to Iraq's Internet domain

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/30/iraq_internet_domain/


Iraq, its domain and the ‘terrorist-funding’ owner

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/04/09/iraq_its_domain/


So theregister.co.uk are saying that there exist problems with Iraq ccTLD.


There have been complaints about Verisign misusing their position in control
of DNS.

http://www.petitioncenter.com/verisign-dns/


Libya disappears from the Internet

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/13/libya_falls_off_net/



> 
>     Two - a fact not much discussed is the very serious fact that non of the
>     root operators in the U.S. legacy chain are under contract.  THERE
>     ARE NO
>     CONTRACTS.  And thats not very professional.  Should scare alot of
>     people
>     on these lists.  The current legacy operations are a rag tag group of
>     volunteers associated more through special interests then a need to
>     serve. 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, non of the root-ops are volunteers. they are all paid 
> by their organisations to run these servers.  They are in no way a "rag 
> tag" group, rather, they are highly professional, skilled network 
> engineers.  That these organisations have no contract with ICANN or the 
> USG does not detract from their ability to help maintain a stable DNS.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net <http://whois.afrinic.net> mctim
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
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/

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Aug 13 10:34:47 2006
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:34:47 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] US/ICANN agreement to be over
In-Reply-To: <44DD0415.7060408@echnaton.serveftp.com>
References: <9ea79150607311928m32c35b07u892c7b05018f312c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20060810082800.GA3879@margaux.inria.fr>
	 <Pine.GSO.4.58.0608101938400.16952@ruby.cynikal.net>
	 <f65fb55e0608111049p4d2763dawce63be996452f011@mail.gmail.com>
	 <44DD0415.7060408@echnaton.serveftp.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0608130734o18f23678nf9f4c33f33919f50@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Peter,


On 8/12/06, Peter Dambier <peter at echnaton.serveftp.com> wrote:


> > In addition, the paper says; "The continued operations of these roots by
> > Commerce can be subject to abuse." , but below, you say there are no
> > contracts. These two positions are contradictory to me.
>
>
> This is what is happening to Iraq's Internet domain
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/30/iraq_internet_domain/

You are obviously conflating two different sorts of things.

One is the question of who operates the 13 root servers and under what
"contracts", which is the topic of discussion.

The other is who operates a cctld.

Let's not confuse the two.

BTW, the article you cited is from 2004.

>
>
> Iraq, its domain and the 'terrorist-funding' owner
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/04/09/iraq_its_domain/

that was from 2003

Things have changed since then:

http://www.iana.org/reports/iq-report-05aug05.pdf

>
>
> So theregister.co.uk are saying that there exist problems with Iraq ccTLD.

Well, don't believe everything you read online!

http://www.iana.org/root-whois/iq.htm

So the .ig cctld was redelegated. IIRC, it was taken away from an
imprisoned guy who never got around to registering any domain names.

This is an iana process, that again, should not be conflated with
rootserver operations.


[mctim at toybox ~]$ dig @B.DNS-SERVER.IQ. soa  iq

; <<>> DiG 9.3.2 <<>> @B.DNS-SERVER.IQ. soa iq
; (1 server found)
;; global options:  printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 15594
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 6, ADDITIONAL: 6

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;iq.                            IN      SOA

;; ANSWER SECTION:
iq.                     7200    IN      SOA     a.dns-server.iq.
hostmaster.dns-server.iq. 200507081 900 900 604800 86400

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
iq.                     7200    IN      NS      d.dns-server.iq.
iq.                     7200    IN      NS      e.dns-server.iq.
iq.                     7200    IN      NS      f.dns-server.iq.
iq.                     7200    IN      NS      a.dns-server.iq.
iq.                     7200    IN      NS      b.dns-server.iq.
iq.                     7200    IN      NS      c.dns-server.iq.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
a.dns-server.iq.        7200    IN      A       194.117.56.1
b.dns-server.iq.        7200    IN      A       194.117.57.1
c.dns-server.iq.        7200    IN      A       194.117.58.1
d.dns-server.iq.        7200    IN      A       194.117.59.1
e.dns-server.iq.        7200    IN      A       194.117.60.1
f.dns-server.iq.        7200    IN      A       194.117.61.1

;; Query time: 11 msec
;; SERVER: 194.117.57.1#53(194.117.57.1)
;; WHEN: Sun Aug 13 06:25:32 2006
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 270

>
>
> There have been complaints about Verisign misusing their position in control
> of DNS.
>
> http://www.petitioncenter.com/verisign-dns/

Yes, but Sitefinder is gone (ppl are impleneting local versions of it tho)

>
>
> Libya disappears from the Internet
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/13/libya_falls_off_net/

also from 2004. It's there now:

[mctim at toybox ~]$ dig @B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. soa  ly

; <<>> DiG 9.3.2 <<>> @B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. soa ly
; (1 server found)
;; global options:  printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 39036
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 5, ADDITIONAL: 5

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;ly.                            IN      SOA

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
ly.                     172800  IN      NS      DNS1.LTTNET.NET.
ly.                     172800  IN      NS      NS-LY.RIPE.NET.
ly.                     172800  IN      NS      AUTH02.NS.UU.NET.
ly.                     172800  IN      NS      PHLOEM.UOREGON.EDU.
ly.                     172800  IN      NS      DNS.LTTNET.NET.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
DNS.LTTNET.NET.         172800  IN      A       62.240.36.9
DNS1.LTTNET.NET.        172800  IN      A       62.68.42.9
NS-LY.RIPE.NET.         172800  IN      A       193.0.12.125
AUTH02.NS.UU.NET.       172800  IN      A       198.6.1.82
PHLOEM.UOREGON.EDU.     172800  IN      A       128.223.32.35

;; Query time: 163 msec
;; SERVER: 192.228.79.201#53(192.228.79.201)
;; WHEN: Sun Aug 13 06:16:58 2006
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 231


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at psg.com  Sun Aug 13 14:17:37 2006
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:17:37 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [announce] Webform for Public Comments on  Initial Report on new gTLDs.
References: <44D75D6A.7010209@gnso.icann.org>
Message-ID: <7C3EDAB3-F70C-4C6B-AB0D-A0796FAE8674@psg.com>

fyi - anyone intersted in commenting

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT at GNSO.ICANN.ORG"  
> <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
> Date: 7 augusti 2006 17.34.02 GMT+02:00
> To: announce at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: [announce] Webform for Public Comments on  Initial Report  
> on new gTLDs.
>
>
> REMINDER:
>
> http://icann.org/announcements/announcement1-28jul06.htm
> Comments due by August 18, 2006
>
> There is a web form to facilitate comments:
> http://survey.icann.org/cgi/comments:
> This form is to facilitate gathering public comments on currently  
> active issues in the ICANN policy development process. Please fill  
> in the identifying information below, and select the issue you wish  
> to comment upon.
>
>  Name:
> Title:
> Organization:
> Email:
> Email again:
> Issue:  New gTLDS
>   After submitting this form you will be presented with a second  
> form with space for comments on the selected issue. When that form  
> is submitted, your email address will be sent a "confirm" message  
> verifying that you wish to publish the comments. Note that the  
> confirm will not be sent if you have recently submitted and  
> confirmed other comments.
>
> Comments may also be sent to:
> newgtlds-comments at icann.org.
> Comments will be viewable at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/newgtlds- 
> comments.
>
> ...................................................................... 
> .
> GNSO Council's Committee on the introduction of new top level  
> domains has released its Initial Report as part of ICANN's policy  
> development process. This Report is the product of a long series of  
> consultations and meetings about the Terms of Reference .
>
> The GNSO Council's new TLD Committee will meet again in Amsterdam  
> between 29 & 31 August 2006 to consider any further public comments  
> and inputs from ICANN's Advisory Committees and Supporting  
> Organisations before preparing a Final Report for submission to the  
> ICANN Board prior to the Sao Paolo meeting in early December 2006.
>
> A public comment period is now open until Friday 18 August 2006 and  
> members of the community are asked to respond specifically to the  
> following questions upon which further discussion is needed.
>
> 1. After reading the Initial Report, are there any other selection  
> criteria which may be helpful for a new top level domain  
> application round?
>
> 2. Thinking about the issue of application fees for any new top  
> level domain application, is there merit in graduated application  
> fees to assist applicants?
>
> 3. Taking into account the experiences from the 2000 and 2004 round  
> of new top level domains, do you have further comments to make  
> about streamlining the application process?
>
> 4. Thinking about ICANN's responsibility to ensure competition in  
> registry services operation, do you have any additional comments  
> about how to encourage applications which would serve needs which  
> are not met by the existing top level domains?
>
> 5. Looking closely at the technical selection criteria section of  
> the Report, are there any further comments which would assist with  
> identifying appropriate base line technical criteria for new  
> applications?
>
> 6. Do you have any further comment to make on the use of the first  
> come first served system for processing applications and then  
> whether auctions or lotteries are appropriate ways of resolving  
> competition between applications?
>
> 7. Do you have any further views on the kinds of new TLDs that  
> might be encouraged? Specifically, do members of the community  
> expect the existing differentiation between sponsored, generic,  
> chartered and open TLDs to remain?
>
> Comments can be submitted via this web form,
> http://survey.icann.org/cgi/comments
> or by sending email to newgtlds-comments at icann.org.
> Comments will be viewable at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/newgtlds- 
> comments.
>
> Further questions about any aspect of the /Initial Report /or the  
> policy development process can be addressed to Dr Liz Williams,  
> Senior Policy Counselor, at newgtlds-questions at icann.org.
>
> Thank you for taking the time to comment.
> Kind regards,
>
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
> gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at psg.com  Sun Aug 13 14:18:06 2006
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:18:06 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [announce] GNSO Preliminary Task Force Report- Policies for Contractual Conditions: Existing TLDs
References: <44D76117.2060106@gnso.icann.org>
Message-ID: <EBA2D44A-D603-4163-A4F6-CDA069DCA73D@psg.com>

fyi

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT at GNSO.ICANN.ORG"  
> <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
> Date: 7 augusti 2006 17.49.43 GMT+02:00
> To: announce at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: [announce] GNSO Preliminary Task Force Report- Policies  
> for Contractual Conditions: Existing TLDs
>
> [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org]
> [To: announce[at]gnso.icann.org;regional-liaisons at icann.org]
> [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org]
>
> The GNSO Preliminary Task Force Report – Policies for Contractual  
> Conditions: Existing Top Level Domains
> has been be posted to the GNSO's website at:
> http://gnso.icann.org/
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/pcc-pdp-03aug06.pdf
>
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
>
> Glen
> -- 
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
> gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu Aug 17 02:11:51 2006
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:11:51 +0200
Subject: [governance] IANA Contract
References: <9ea79150607311928m32c35b07u892c7b05018f312c@mail.gmail.com>
 <20060810082800.GA3879@margaux.inria.fr>
 <Pine.GSO.4.58.0608101938400.16952@ruby.cynikal.net>
 <f65fb55e0608111049p4d2763dawce63be996452f011@mail.gmail.com>
 <44DD0415.7060408@echnaton.serveftp.com>
 <f65fb55e0608130734o18f23678nf9f4c33f33919f50@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F304361C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

 

Just FYI, the IANA Contrract between ICANN and the DOC has been renewed. It is a five year arrangement. 
 
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-15aug06.htm
 
Wolfgang
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From Ramin.Kaweh at unctad.org  Thu Aug 17 04:01:53 2006
From: Ramin.Kaweh at unctad.org (Ramin Kaweh)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:01:53 +0200
Subject: [governance] Ramin Kaweh is out of the office.
Message-ID: <OF99752D74.4F916132-ONC12571CD.002C1E6B-C12571CD.002C1E6C@unog.ch>





I will be out of the office starting  14.08.2006 and will not return until
31.08.2006.

I will respond to your message when I return.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Aug 18 13:03:22 2006
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 22:33:22 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF workshop on 'framework convention on the Internet'
In-Reply-To: <7C3EDAB3-F70C-4C6B-AB0D-A0796FAE8674@psg.com>
Message-ID: <20060818170635.9E7F3DA96D@smtp3.electricembers.net>

 

 

Hi everyone,

 

I was wondering whether - though IGC did not give any substantive inputs for
IGF - we can do a couple of workshop proposals. This is much easier since
the group only needs to identify that a topic is important rather than agree
on a set of issues all the way...

 

I was going through the inputs given by various CS actors to the IGF
process, and it strikes me that many of them have called for a more formal
process of integrating 'progressive' values into the IG system. And to this
end, for employing a global process for developing some higher level
principles for IG.

 

IGF has proposed a 'framework convention' (FC), Vittorio speaks of adopting
a 'Internet bill of rights', and the contribution of my own organization
builds the case for a development agenda (which as I proposed earlier on
this list, can only be operationalised through a FC kind of a approach). 

 

(An improved version of our submission to IGF - A Development Agenda for
Internet Governance - Call for a ‘Framework Convention on the Internet’ - is
enclosed)    

 

Other submissions like by HR caucus, APC, Civil Society Working Group-
Scientific Information, WSIS Academia, Education and Research Task force, IP
Justice,  ..... also make points which, more of less, do tend towards some
kind of international policy framework incorporating various values and
often a rights framework. APC has earlier called for a convention process in
its submissions during the WSIS.  

 

(Council of Europe’s submission also speaks about

“The notion of the Internet’s public service value and the role of key
actors in this connection should therefore be discussed in the framework of
Internet Governance.”

And 

“Proactive Internet Governance measures to ensure that states discharge
their duties vis-à-vis the public and the common good require international
cooperation, for example by developing both appropriate 

.and normative
texts which elaborate and map out the principles and values of the
Internet”.)

 

Altogether there seems to be a considerable body of opinion in CS about a
‘framework convention’ kind of a process. Enough at least for us to discuss
this issue at the IGF. 

 

It also appears to me that the vague wordings in Tunis agenda speaking of
“enhanced cooperation” involving all stakeholders for developing ”globally
applicable principles on public policy” is itself something that can be
interpreted in the above light. In any case in the first quarter of 2006 UN
Secy Gen was supposed to start a formal process for this ‘enhanced
cooperation’ but I haven’t heard anything on this. (Is there something that
I have missed?) And what is surprising is that no one is speaking about this
at all.  

 

Obviously, no talk on the above issue suits those who are served well by the
present IG dispensations. 

 

I think there is space for much more substantive discussions at IGF than
what its agenda (and possible outcomes) as listed on the IGF website
indicates. In fact, even the US indicated recently that IGF should be a
place where the issue of freedom of expression on the Internet can be taken
up.

 

Under the circumstance it appears the build-up to IGF is not such that holds
promise for optimizing a pretty good opportunity. And the first meeting will
decide much about what really IGF stands for. And if we do not work now
towards keeping a strong political process alive at IGF, it will very easily
be reduced to an annual conference
  

 

CS, and especially IGC, has special responsibility in this regard to lead
issues especially of the higher political level. A ‘development agenda in
IG’ and ‘call for a framework convention on IG’ are two such political
issues on which workshops can be held. Our enclosed paper combines the two
issues. This may appear to present the FC issue in a rather partisan way
(which is intended for a specific purpose). But since the appeal for FC kind
of process is much wider, I propose that IGC supports a workshop on ‘a
framework convention on the internet’ and discuss its context,
justifications and possibility.      

 

Since there seems to be no formal process right now for agreement in IGC for
sponsoring such a workshop, I am not sure how this can go forward. But I
think the topic of a workshop itself is less controversial than a
substantive position and that we can agree with some proposal for IGC
sponsored workshops. And I propose the above one
.

 

Parminder  

 

 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

91-80-26654134

www.ITforChange.net 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060818/42a36b28/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: A Development Agenda for IG - ITfC.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 51652 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060818/42a36b28/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060818/42a36b28/attachment.txt>

From Mueller at syr.edu  Fri Aug 18 14:02:14 2006
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:02:14 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF workshop on 'framework convention on the
	Internet'
Message-ID: <s4e5c874.046@gwia202.syr.edu>


Speaking for myself, and probably other IGP members though haven't had time to consult, we welcome this initiative. If you want an IGP person on it, we would be most cooperative, probably John Mathiason would be most appropriate. We could not, however, formally co-sponsor or get involved in programming it at this late date, would be happy to respond passively to your initiative. 

IGP is already co-sponsor of two IGF workshop proposals, one on DNS root zone file management issues, the other on freedom of expression. Two reasons not to do another: 1) Collecting speakers and gathering co-sponsors to meet the MS mandate has proven to be extremely time-consuming and difficult. Especially in August! The process on those two is still not entirely finalized, although the results are already quite successful. 2) We wonder whether IGF Secretariat will not welcome too many proposals from one organization. 

If you can shepherd the caucus around this, more power to you. Keep me informed, on or off list.

>>> parminder at itforchange.net 8/18/2006 1:03 PM >>>
 

 

Hi everyone,

 

I was wondering whether - though IGC did not give any substantive inputs for
IGF - we can do a couple of workshop proposals. This is much easier since
the group only needs to identify that a topic is important rather than agree
on a set of issues all the way...

 

I was going through the inputs given by various CS actors to the IGF
process, and it strikes me that many of them have called for a more formal
process of integrating 'progressive' values into the IG system. And to this
end, for employing a global process for developing some higher level
principles for IG.

 

IGF has proposed a 'framework convention' (FC), Vittorio speaks of adopting
a 'Internet bill of rights', and the contribution of my own organization
builds the case for a development agenda (which as I proposed earlier on
this list, can only be operationalised through a FC kind of a approach). 

 

(An improved version of our submission to IGF - A Development Agenda for
Internet Governance - Call for a 'Framework Convention on the Internet' - is
enclosed)    

 

Other submissions like by HR caucus, APC, Civil Society Working Group-
Scientific Information, WSIS Academia, Education and Research Task force, IP
Justice,  ..... also make points which, more of less, do tend towards some
kind of international policy framework incorporating various values and
often a rights framework. APC has earlier called for a convention process in
its submissions during the WSIS.  

 

(Council of Europe's submission also speaks about

"The notion of the Internet's public service value and the role of key
actors in this connection should therefore be discussed in the framework of
Internet Governance."

And 

"Proactive Internet Governance measures to ensure that states discharge
their duties vis-à-vis the public and the common good require international
cooperation, for example by developing both appropriate **.and normative
texts which elaborate and map out the principles and values of the
Internet".)

 

Altogether there seems to be a considerable body of opinion in CS about a
'framework convention' kind of a process. Enough at least for us to discuss
this issue at the IGF. 

 

It also appears to me that the vague wordings in Tunis agenda speaking of
"enhanced cooperation" involving all stakeholders for developing "globally
applicable principles on public policy" is itself something that can be
interpreted in the above light. In any case in the first quarter of 2006 UN
Secy Gen was supposed to start a formal process for this 'enhanced
cooperation' but I haven't heard anything on this. (Is there something that
I have missed?) And what is surprising is that no one is speaking about this
at all.  

 

Obviously, no talk on the above issue suits those who are served well by the
present IG dispensations. 

 

I think there is space for much more substantive discussions at IGF than
what its agenda (and possible outcomes) as listed on the IGF website
indicates. In fact, even the US indicated recently that IGF should be a
place where the issue of freedom of expression on the Internet can be taken
up.

 

Under the circumstance it appears the build-up to IGF is not such that holds
promise for optimizing a pretty good opportunity. And the first meeting will
decide much about what really IGF stands for. And if we do not work now
towards keeping a strong political process alive at IGF, it will very easily
be reduced to an annual conference*  

 

CS, and especially IGC, has special responsibility in this regard to lead
issues especially of the higher political level. A 'development agenda in
IG' and 'call for a framework convention on IG' are two such political
issues on which workshops can be held. Our enclosed paper combines the two
issues. This may appear to present the FC issue in a rather partisan way
(which is intended for a specific purpose). But since the appeal for FC kind
of process is much wider, I propose that IGC supports a workshop on 'a
framework convention on the internet' and discuss its context,
justifications and possibility.      

 

Since there seems to be no formal process right now for agreement in IGC for
sponsoring such a workshop, I am not sure how this can go forward. But I
think the topic of a workshop itself is less controversial than a
substantive position and that we can agree with some proposal for IGC
sponsored workshops. And I propose the above one*.

 

Parminder  

 

 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

91-80-26654134

www.ITforChange.net 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From nb at bollow.ch  Sat Aug 19 03:22:03 2006
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 09:22:03 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] IGF workshop on 'framework convention on the Internet'
In-Reply-To: <20060818170635.9E7F3DA96D@smtp3.electricembers.net>
	(parminder@itforchange.net)
References: <20060818170635.9E7F3DA96D@smtp3.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <20060819072203.9CE4B336821@quill.bollow.ch>

Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Altogether there seems to be a considerable body of opinion in CS about a
> 'framework convention' kind of a process. Enough at least for us to 
> discuss this issue at the IGF.

What are the net effects that you would expect such a 'framework
convention' to have on the practical reality of the internet?

Greetings,
Norbert.


-- 
Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                       http://Norbert.ch
President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG        http://SIUG.ch
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Sat Aug 19 06:24:04 2006
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 12:24:04 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF workshop on 'framework convention on the Internet'
In-Reply-To: <20060819072203.9CE4B336821@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20060818170635.9E7F3DA96D@smtp3.electricembers.net> <20060819072203.9CE4B336821@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <44E6E6C4.6030806@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Norbert Bollow wrote:
> What are the net effects that you would expect such a 'framework
> convention' to have on the practical reality of the internet?
I think this is one of the questions we could discuss at such a workshop.

Besides, I think it is not just "practical" things that matter here, it is 
also perceptions about the legitimacy of the current and possible future 
regimes.

Parminder, go ahead with the workshop, but as Milton said: It's tough to 
get it set up multi-stakeholderistically in August. We've been working on 
a privacy workshop for some time mow and have not fixed all speakers 
yet... So, good luck!!!

Ralf
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at acm.org  Sun Aug 20 15:06:48 2006
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:06:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] Charter status update
Message-ID: <B4E73016-28B4-4D92-BB72-E7A57A5AC065@acm.org>

Hi,

I am back from my research trip and back to trying to get the charter  
approved.

I now have voting software working on igcaucus.org.  Anyone who is  
interested in the details of this software is welcome to read the  
manual available at: http://www.igcaucus.org/eVote.pdf.  The voting  
software is open source and is provided by Marilyn Davis, Ph.D. at  
http://www.deliberate.com/ .

In order to use this software, I will be setting up a new mailing  
list called IGC-voters at igcaucus.org (it wasn't possible to link it to  
the actual governance mailing list).
This list will be made up of those who were both:
- subscribed to the governance list as of 060724
- subscribed to the governance list with a individual name attached  
to the subscription.

Ironically, there is a issue with attaching personal names to the IGC- 
voters list.  Since it need to use an older version of mailman (1.13)  
it is not capable of including the subscriber's name, only the email  
address.

There is also a privacy issue with the software.  As listed in every  
ballot:

> Warnings: Although eVote will not reveal your vote to the other
> members of the voting community, the system administrator of the
> computer that stores your vote can quite easily see the voting
> records of individuals. Also, there is the possibility that your
> ballot can be seen by a "snooper", someone who intercepts your
> ballot in transit.
>
> The integrity of the poll, i.e., the accuracy of the count, is
> susceptible to being tampered with by the system administrator
> of the computer running the eVote(R)/Clerk software.
>
> Both the privacy of your vote and the integrity of the poll are
> susceptible to attack at your own computer.
>

This means that the administrator of igcaucus.org - me - has the  
ability to look at individual voting records and to tamper with the  
results.   I promise not to do this, and to only look at logs as  
necessary for system administration.  But it is up to the  
participants of the IGC whether they trust me to actually not do look  
or tamper with votes.  Of course if in the end we opt for non secret  
votes, this won't be an issue.  But if we decide to go for secret  
votes I will be bound by a promise to not look at and to not tamper  
with any of the IGC votes.  If the IGC cannot accept this personal  
guarantee, then I will ask help in finding free and open software  
that does not have this vulnerability.

There are several interesting pluses to this software.  One of its  
strongest features is that it allows anyone who is subscribed to the  
list to initiate a poll or a petition.  I think that over time the  
IGC could actually take advantage of this capability.  Setting up a  
vote is easy (once all the software and the lists are up and running)  
and it is easy to make any poll open or closed, to use a yes/no  
format or a rating 1-n format.  It is also possible to set up  
petitions as well as polls.  It is a very rich package.  It is also  
possible, I understand from my reading to work in multiple  
languages.  I have not tried this yet and don't intent to for the  
charter, but do think it would be an interesting capability to take  
advantage of later.  I would also note that the Marilyn, the author  
of the program is very helpful, so as we progress in our usage of  
advanced features, we will be able get assistance if needed.

So, unless there are objections from the caucus, i intend to populate  
the the IGC-voter's list as mentioned above.  As I subscribe people,  
they will receive a welcome message.  Since this list is being create  
as an opt-out list, I apologize in advance for anyone who is  
subscribed who does not wish to be.  And of course I invite them to  
unsubscribe.  If you know already that you do NOT wish to be  
subscribed to the IGC-voters list, please let me know off list.  I  
will let this list know when I have finished the subscription effort  
so that anyone who has not received the welcome message and who  
believes they should have, can let me know before the vote starts.

Also, since there have been no comments on the charter for the last  
several weeks, I will take 1.6 as the charter for the vote.  I will  
create the ballot in the next few days and post it for a brief sanity  
review.

If all goes well, I expect to initiate the charter vote by 27 August  
to last until 12 September.  But I have been optimistic before.

thanks
a.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca  Sun Aug 20 15:24:11 2006
From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:24:11 -0400
Subject: [governance] Charter status update
In-Reply-To: <B4E73016-28B4-4D92-BB72-E7A57A5AC065@acm.org>
References: <B4E73016-28B4-4D92-BB72-E7A57A5AC065@acm.org>
Message-ID: <44E8B6DB.3020600@umontreal.ca>

Hi Avri and Everyone,

I, for one, am comfortable with the potential privacy risks associated 
with the voting software and with expressing trust in Avri's judgement 
as a honest broker in having access to the results- at the very least 
for the charter vote.

Thanks again Avri,

Cheers,

Jeremy Shtern



Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am back from my research trip and back to trying to get the charter 
> approved.
>
> I now have voting software working on igcaucus.org.  Anyone who is 
> interested in the details of this software is welcome to read the 
> manual available at: http://www.igcaucus.org/eVote.pdf.  The voting 
> software is open source and is provided by Marilyn Davis, Ph.D. at 
> http://www.deliberate.com/ .
>
> In order to use this software, I will be setting up a new mailing list 
> called IGC-voters at igcaucus.org (it wasn't possible to link it to the 
> actual governance mailing list).
> This list will be made up of those who were both:
> - subscribed to the governance list as of 060724
> - subscribed to the governance list with a individual name attached to 
> the subscription.
>
> Ironically, there is a issue with attaching personal names to the 
> IGC-voters list.  Since it need to use an older version of mailman 
> (1.13) it is not capable of including the subscriber's name, only the 
> email address.
>
> There is also a privacy issue with the software.  As listed in every 
> ballot:
>
>> Warnings: Although eVote will not reveal your vote to the other
>> members of the voting community, the system administrator of the
>> computer that stores your vote can quite easily see the voting
>> records of individuals. Also, there is the possibility that your
>> ballot can be seen by a "snooper", someone who intercepts your
>> ballot in transit.
>>
>> The integrity of the poll, i.e., the accuracy of the count, is
>> susceptible to being tampered with by the system administrator
>> of the computer running the eVote(R)/Clerk software.
>>
>> Both the privacy of your vote and the integrity of the poll are
>> susceptible to attack at your own computer.
>>
>
> This means that the administrator of igcaucus.org - me - has the 
> ability to look at individual voting records and to tamper with the 
> results.   I promise not to do this, and to only look at logs as 
> necessary for system administration.  But it is up to the participants 
> of the IGC whether they trust me to actually not do look or tamper 
> with votes.  Of course if in the end we opt for non secret votes, this 
> won't be an issue.  But if we decide to go for secret votes I will be 
> bound by a promise to not look at and to not tamper with any of the 
> IGC votes.  If the IGC cannot accept this personal guarantee, then I 
> will ask help in finding free and open software that does not have 
> this vulnerability.
>
> There are several interesting pluses to this software.  One of its 
> strongest features is that it allows anyone who is subscribed to the 
> list to initiate a poll or a petition.  I think that over time the IGC 
> could actually take advantage of this capability.  Setting up a vote 
> is easy (once all the software and the lists are up and running) and 
> it is easy to make any poll open or closed, to use a yes/no format or 
> a rating 1-n format.  It is also possible to set up petitions as well 
> as polls.  It is a very rich package.  It is also possible, I 
> understand from my reading to work in multiple languages.  I have not 
> tried this yet and don't intent to for the charter, but do think it 
> would be an interesting capability to take advantage of later.  I 
> would also note that the Marilyn, the author of the program is very 
> helpful, so as we progress in our usage of advanced features, we will 
> be able get assistance if needed.
>
> So, unless there are objections from the caucus, i intend to populate 
> the the IGC-voter's list as mentioned above.  As I subscribe people, 
> they will receive a welcome message.  Since this list is being create 
> as an opt-out list, I apologize in advance for anyone who is 
> subscribed who does not wish to be.  And of course I invite them to 
> unsubscribe.  If you know already that you do NOT wish to be 
> subscribed to the IGC-voters list, please let me know off list.  I 
> will let this list know when I have finished the subscription effort 
> so that anyone who has not received the welcome message and who 
> believes they should have, can let me know before the vote starts.
>
> Also, since there have been no comments on the charter for the last 
> several weeks, I will take 1.6 as the charter for the vote.  I will 
> create the ballot in the next few days and post it for a brief sanity 
> review.
>
> If all goes well, I expect to initiate the charter vote by 27 August 
> to last until 12 September.  But I have been optimistic before.
>
> thanks
> a.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Sun Aug 20 16:35:02 2006
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:35:02 -0400
Subject: [governance] International Internet Charging arrangements
Message-ID: <s4e88f3d.071@gwia202.syr.edu>

Those interested in the cost of internet interconnection and the
relationship between telecom sector liberalization and sector growth and
development should read the OECD report submitted as a contribution to
the IG Forum:

http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/36462170.pdf

I'd particularly recommend the section "Access to domestic and
international backbone networks" which begins on page 30. 

Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From LMcKnigh at syr.edu  Sun Aug 20 16:35:50 2006
From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:35:50 -0400
Subject: [governance] Charter status update
Message-ID: <s4e88f70.074@gwia202.syr.edu>

Second.

For ongoing use more policy may be needed, but not yet.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca 8/20/2006 3:24 PM >>>
Hi Avri and Everyone,

I, for one, am comfortable with the potential privacy risks associated

with the voting software and with expressing trust in Avri's judgement

as a honest broker in having access to the results- at the very least 
for the charter vote.

Thanks again Avri,

Cheers,

Jeremy Shtern



Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am back from my research trip and back to trying to get the charter

> approved.
>
> I now have voting software working on igcaucus.org.  Anyone who is 
> interested in the details of this software is welcome to read the 
> manual available at: http://www.igcaucus.org/eVote.pdf.  The voting 
> software is open source and is provided by Marilyn Davis, Ph.D. at 
> http://www.deliberate.com/ .
>
> In order to use this software, I will be setting up a new mailing
list 
> called IGC-voters at igcaucus.org (it wasn't possible to link it to the

> actual governance mailing list).
> This list will be made up of those who were both:
> - subscribed to the governance list as of 060724
> - subscribed to the governance list with a individual name attached
to 
> the subscription.
>
> Ironically, there is a issue with attaching personal names to the 
> IGC-voters list.  Since it need to use an older version of mailman 
> (1.13) it is not capable of including the subscriber's name, only the

> email address.
>
> There is also a privacy issue with the software.  As listed in every

> ballot:
>
>> Warnings: Although eVote will not reveal your vote to the other
>> members of the voting community, the system administrator of the
>> computer that stores your vote can quite easily see the voting
>> records of individuals. Also, there is the possibility that your
>> ballot can be seen by a "snooper", someone who intercepts your
>> ballot in transit.
>>
>> The integrity of the poll, i.e., the accuracy of the count, is
>> susceptible to being tampered with by the system administrator
>> of the computer running the eVote(R)/Clerk software.
>>
>> Both the privacy of your vote and the integrity of the poll are
>> susceptible to attack at your own computer.
>>
>
> This means that the administrator of igcaucus.org - me - has the 
> ability to look at individual voting records and to tamper with the 
> results.   I promise not to do this, and to only look at logs as 
> necessary for system administration.  But it is up to the
participants 
> of the IGC whether they trust me to actually not do look or tamper 
> with votes.  Of course if in the end we opt for non secret votes,
this 
> won't be an issue.  But if we decide to go for secret votes I will be

> bound by a promise to not look at and to not tamper with any of the 
> IGC votes.  If the IGC cannot accept this personal guarantee, then I

> will ask help in finding free and open software that does not have 
> this vulnerability.
>
> There are several interesting pluses to this software.  One of its 
> strongest features is that it allows anyone who is subscribed to the

> list to initiate a poll or a petition.  I think that over time the
IGC 
> could actually take advantage of this capability.  Setting up a vote

> is easy (once all the software and the lists are up and running) and

> it is easy to make any poll open or closed, to use a yes/no format or

> a rating 1-n format.  It is also possible to set up petitions as well

> as polls.  It is a very rich package.  It is also possible, I 
> understand from my reading to work in multiple languages.  I have not

> tried this yet and don't intent to for the charter, but do think it 
> would be an interesting capability to take advantage of later.  I 
> would also note that the Marilyn, the author of the program is very 
> helpful, so as we progress in our usage of advanced features, we will

> be able get assistance if needed.
>
> So, unless there are objections from the caucus, i intend to populate

> the the IGC-voter's list as mentioned above.  As I subscribe people,

> they will receive a welcome message.  Since this list is being create

> as an opt-out list, I apologize in advance for anyone who is 
> subscribed who does not wish to be.  And of course I invite them to 
> unsubscribe.  If you know already that you do NOT wish to be 
> subscribed to the IGC-voters list, please let me know off list.  I 
> will let this list know when I have finished the subscription effort

> so that anyone who has not received the welcome message and who 
> believes they should have, can let me know before the vote starts.
>
> Also, since there have been no comments on the charter for the last 
> several weeks, I will take 1.6 as the charter for the vote.  I will 
> create the ballot in the next few days and post it for a brief sanity

> review.
>
> If all goes well, I expect to initiate the charter vote by 27 August

> to last until 12 September.  But I have been optimistic before.
>
> thanks
> a.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org 
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org 
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Aug 21 06:58:48 2006
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:28:48 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF workshop on 'framework convention on the Internet'
In-Reply-To: <20060819072203.9CE4B336821@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <20060821105854.7765FDACA2@smtp3.electricembers.net>

Hi Norbert, 

 

> What are the net effects that you would expect such a 'framework

> convention' to have on the practical reality of the internet?

 

There a few ways to attempt an answer to this question. 

 

One, is to explore if and how various national and global level policy
instruments which lay out broader principles affect every day reality around
us. 

 

At the highest levels are our country constitutions, and at the global
level, various declaration of rights.

 

One can also try to follow if, for example, the 'framework convention on
climate change' has made difference to energy policies, industrial
regulation and licensing etc and how it affects us directly...

 

And the second way is to try to see relevance of higher level principles in
information society (IS) issues directly. 

 

Do you think there is a difference in how US establishment sees Internet
(see its early policy documents expounding its 'marketplace characteristics)
and how a development agency in India and Bangladesh looks at it. And when
policy issues like of pricing, choice of technology, level of public
investments, IPR application etc have to be decided at a policy level, the
'primary or the over-whelming' character of internet, and ICTs, as seen in
the eyes of the policy makers become important. 

 

It is in this background that US and Brazil have different policies on FOSS.


 

And to go the hot topic of net neutrality - the logic given by telecoms to
destroy the egalitarian nature of the Internet is that they need funds to
lay new infrastructure. How else will they upgrade the infrastructure, they
ask? And this can appear reasonable to some public policy quarters, as it
does in the US. But if Internet and its associated ICTs are identified
politically as essential social infrastructure for the society that should
be available equitably, the policy response will be different. First of all,
I do not believe it is so expensive to lay next gen infrastructure that its
costs cannot be met by existing business models that preserve NN. And if
they really cant, than public investments need to step in, as they have in
matter of roads, education, health infrastructure etc....

 

It is a certain kind of political principles which, in 2001, made the
chairman of the US Federal Communication Commission say in his maiden press
conference (which is a venue for articulation of ones policy principles)that

 

"the "digital divide" was "a dangerous phrase" because it could be used to
justify government programs that guaranteed poor people cheaper access to
new technology, like computers..."I think there's a Mercedes divide, -- I'd
like to have one, but I can't afford one."

 

Now that's not what most of us here believe, and operate from. But this
policy orientation has not only determined development of ICTs and
connectivity in the US in the last few years, but also, with US's high
influence on global polices, also influenced its development in the rest for
the world.

 

Do you not think that the development of Internet and associated ICTs would
have taken a different route if global political environment were different?
I certainly think so. 

 

It is in such ways that laying global broad principles of defining Internet
and its social significance, and linking it to its governance issues, has
net effects on the practical reality of the Internet.  

 

And these possible effects are felt more by those who are more excluded by
current political regimes, than others. (I mean no presumptions here.)

 

Meanwhile, if the Framework convention proposal is accepted, I will be happy
to have greater libertarian views like yours who have doubts about efficacy
of such policy frameworks for the Internet. And, so I invite you to
participate in the workshop as well.

 

Best

 

Parminder  

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

91-80-26654134

www.ITforChange.net 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch]

> Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 12:52 PM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org

> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshop on 'framework convention on the

> Internet'

> 

> Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 

> > Altogether there seems to be a considerable body of opinion in CS about

> a

> > 'framework convention' kind of a process. Enough at least for us to

> > discuss this issue at the IGF.

> 

> What are the net effects that you would expect such a 'framework

> convention' to have on the practical reality of the internet?

> 

> Greetings,

> Norbert.

> 

> 

> --

> Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                       http://Norbert.ch

> President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG        http://SIUG.ch

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> 

> For all list information and functions, see:

>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060821/16ce9238/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060821/16ce9238/attachment.txt>

From qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw  Mon Aug 21 06:55:25 2006
From: qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw (Qusai Al-Shatti)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:55:25 +0300
Subject: [governance] Charter status update
Message-ID: <200608211055.NAA00475@safat.kisr.edu.kw>

Hi Avri and everyone:
I have no problem with the privacy issues that you mentioned. I join jeremy in expressing my trust in Avri judgement as an honest broker and organizer of the voting process on the caucus charter.

Thanks Avri for all your efforts

Qusai Al-Shatti

 --- Message Header --- 

The following message was sent by Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> on Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:06:48 -0400.

 --- Original Message --- 

> Hi,
> 
> I am back from my research trip and back to trying to get the charter  
> approved.
> 
> I now have voting software working on igcaucus.org.  Anyone who is  
> interested in the details of this software is welcome to read the  
> manual available at: http://www.igcaucus.org/eVote.pdf.  The voting  
> software is open source and is provided by Marilyn Davis, Ph.D. at  
> http://www.deliberate.com/ .
> 
> In order to use this software, I will be setting up a new mailing  
> list called IGC-voters at igcaucus.org (it wasn't possible to link it to  
> the actual governance mailing list).
> This list will be made up of those who were both:
> - subscribed to the governance list as of 060724
> - subscribed to the governance list with a individual name attached  
> to the subscription.
> 
> Ironically, there is a issue with attaching personal names to the IGC- 
> voters list.  Since it need to use an older version of mailman (1.13)  
> it is not capable of including the subscriber's name, only the email  
> address.
> 
> There is also a privacy issue with the software.  As listed in every  
> ballot:
> 
> > Warnings: Although eVote will not reveal your vote to the other
> > members of the voting community, the system administrator of the
> > computer that stores your vote can quite easily see the voting
> > records of individuals. Also, there is the possibility that your
> > ballot can be seen by a "snooper", someone who intercepts your
> > ballot in transit.
> >
> > The integrity of the poll, i.e., the accuracy of the count, is
> > susceptible to being tampered with by the system administrator
> > of the computer running the eVote(R)/Clerk software.
> >
> > Both the privacy of your vote and the integrity of the poll are
> > susceptible to attack at your own computer.
> >
> 
> This means that the administrator of igcaucus.org - me - has the  
> ability to look at individual voting records and to tamper with the  
> results.   I promise not to do this, and to only look at logs as  
> necessary for system administration.  But it is up to the  
> participants of the IGC whether they trust me to actually not do look  
> or tamper with votes.  Of course if in the end we opt for non secret  
> votes, this won't be an issue.  But if we decide to go for secret  
> votes I will be bound by a promise to not look at and to not tamper  
> with any of the IGC votes.  If the IGC cannot accept this personal  
> guarantee, then I will ask help in finding free and open software  
> that does not have this vulnerability.
> 
> There are several interesting pluses to this software.  One of its  
> strongest features is that it allows anyone who is subscribed to the  
> list to initiate a poll or a petition.  I think that over time the  
> IGC could actually take advantage of this capability.  Setting up a  
> vote is easy (once all the software and the lists are up and running)  
> and it is easy to make any poll open or closed, to use a yes/no  
> format or a rating 1-n format.  It is also possible to set up  
> petitions as well as polls.  It is a very rich package.  It is also  
> possible, I understand from my reading to work in multiple  
> languages.  I have not tried this yet and don't intent to for the  
> charter, but do think it would be an interesting capability to take  
> advantage of later.  I would also note that the Marilyn, the author  
> of the program is very helpful, so as we progress in our usage of  
> advanced features, we will be able get assistance if needed.
> 
> So, unless there are objections from the caucus, i intend to populate  
> the the IGC-voter's list as mentioned above.  As I subscribe people,  
> they will receive a welcome message.  Since this list is being create  
> as an opt-out list, I apologize in advance for anyone who is  
> subscribed who does not wish to be.  And of course I invite them to  
> unsubscribe.  If you know already that you do NOT wish to be  
> subscribed to the IGC-voters list, please let me know off list.  I  
> will let this list know when I have finished the subscription effort  
> so that anyone who has not received the welcome message and who  
> believes they should have, can let me know before the vote starts.
> 
> Also, since there have been no comments on the charter for the last  
> several weeks, I will take 1.6 as the charter for the vote.  I will  
> create the ballot in the next few days and post it for a brief sanity  
> review.
> 
> If all goes well, I expect to initiate the charter vote by 27 August  
> to last until 12 September.  But I have been optimistic before.
> 
> thanks
> a.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
Hi,
> 
> I am back from my research trip and back to trying to get the charter  
> approved.
> 
> I now have voting software working on igcaucus.org.  Anyone who is  
> interested in the details of this software is welcome to read the  
> manual available at: http://www.igcaucus.org/eVote.pdf.  The voting  
> software is open source and is provided by Marilyn Davis, Ph.D. at  
> http://www.deliberate.com/ .
> 
> In order to use this software, I will be setting up a new mailing  
> list called IGC-voters at igcaucus.org (it wasn't possible to link it to  
> the actual governance mailing list).
> This list will be made up of those who were both:
> - subscribed to the governance list as of 060724
> - subscribed to the governance list with a individual name attached  
> to the subscription.
> 
> Ironically, there is a issue with attaching personal names to the IGC- 
> voters list.  Since it need to use an older version of mailman (1.13)  
> it is not capable of including the subscriber's name, only the email  
> address.
> 
> There is also a privacy issue with the software.  As listed in every  
> ballot:
> 
> > Warnings: Although eVote will not reveal your vote to the other
> > members of the voting community, the system administrator of the
> > computer that stores your vote can quite easily see the voting
> > records of individuals. Also, there is the possibility that your
> > ballot can be seen by a "snooper", someone who intercepts your
> > ballot in transit.
> >
> > The integrity of the poll, i.e., the accuracy of the count, is
> > susceptible to being tampered with by the system administrator
> > of the computer running the eVote(R)/Clerk software.
> >
> > Both the privacy of your vote and the integrity of the poll are
> > susceptible to attack at your own computer.
> >
> 
> This means that the administrator of igcaucus.org - me - has the  
> ability to look at individual voting records and to tamper with the  
> results.   I promise not to do this, and to only look at logs as  
> necessary for system administration.  But it is up to the  
> participants of the IGC whether they trust me to actually not do look  
> or tamper with votes.  Of course if in the end we opt for non secret  
> votes, this won't be an issue.  But if we decide to go for secret  
> votes I will be bound by a promise to not look at and to not tamper  
> with any of the IGC votes.  If the IGC cannot accept this personal  
> guarantee, then I will ask help in finding free and open software  
> that does not have this vulnerability.
> 
> There are several interesting pluses to this software.  One of its  
> strongest features is that it allows anyone who is subscribed to the  
> list to initiate a poll or a petition.  I think that over time the  
> IGC could actually take advantage of this capability.  Setting up a  
> vote is easy (once all the software and the lists are up and running)  
> and it is easy to make any poll open or closed, to use a yes/no  
> format or a rating 1-n format.  It is also possible to set up  
> petitions as well as polls.  It is a very rich package.  It is also  
> possible, I understand from my reading to work in multiple  
> languages.  I have not tried this yet and don't intent to for the  
> charter, but do think it would be an interesting capability to take  
> advantage of later.  I would also note that the Marilyn, the author  
> of the program is very helpful, so as we progress in our usage of  
> advanced features, we will be able get assistance if needed.
> 
> So, unless there are objections from the caucus, i intend to populate  
> the the IGC-voter's list as mentioned above.  As I subscribe people,  
> they will receive a welcome message.  Since this list is being create  
> as an opt-out list, I apologize in advance for anyone who is  
> subscribed who does not wish to be.  And of course I invite them to  
> unsubscribe.  If you know already that you do NOT wish to be  
> subscribed to the IGC-voters list, please let me know off list.  I  
> will let this list know when I have finished the subscription effort  
> so that anyone who has not received the welcome message and who  
> believes they should have, can let me know before the vote starts.
> 
> Also, since there have been no comments on the charter for the last  
> several weeks, I will take 1.6 as the charter for the vote.  I will  
> create the ballot in the next few days and post it for a brief sanity  
> review.
> 
> If all goes well, I expect to initiate the charter vote by 27 August  
> to last until 12 September.  But I have been optimistic before.
> 
> thanks
> a.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From nne75 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 21 07:46:22 2006
From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:46:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Charter status update
In-Reply-To: <200608211055.NAA00475@safat.kisr.edu.kw>
Message-ID: <20060821114622.73482.qmail@web50211.mail.yahoo.com>

Avri, you have my trust.  Handle it with care.  I have tested the voters' list.  It is working..
   
  Nnenna

Qusai Al-Shatti <qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw> wrote:
  Hi Avri and everyone:
I have no problem with the privacy issues that you mentioned. I join jeremy in expressing my trust in Avri judgement as an honest broker and organizer of the voting process on the caucus charter.

Thanks Avri for all your efforts

Qusai Al-Shatti

--- Message Header --- 

The following message was sent by Avri Doria on Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:06:48 -0400.

--- Original Message --- 

> Hi,
> 
> I am back from my research trip and back to trying to get the charter 
> approved.
> 
> I now have voting software working on igcaucus.org. Anyone who is 
> interested in the details of this software is welcome to read the 
> manual available at: http://www.igcaucus.org/eVote.pdf. The voting 
> software is open source and is provided by Marilyn Davis, Ph.D. at 
> http://www.deliberate.com/ .
> 
> In order to use this software, I will be setting up a new mailing 
> list called IGC-voters at igcaucus.org (it wasn't possible to link it to 
> the actual governance mailing list).
> This list will be made up of those who were both:
> - subscribed to the governance list as of 060724
> - subscribed to the governance list with a individual name attached 
> to the subscription.
> 
> Ironically, there is a issue with attaching personal names to the IGC- 
> voters list. Since it need to use an older version of mailman (1.13) 
> it is not capable of including the subscriber's name, only the email 
> address.
> 
> There is also a privacy issue with the software. As listed in every 
> ballot:
> 
> > Warnings: Although eVote will not reveal your vote to the other
> > members of the voting community, the system administrator of the
> > computer that stores your vote can quite easily see the voting
> > records of individuals. Also, there is the possibility that your
> > ballot can be seen by a "snooper", someone who intercepts your
> > ballot in transit.
> >
> > The integrity of the poll, i.e., the accuracy of the count, is
> > susceptible to being tampered with by the system administrator
> > of the computer running the eVote(R)/Clerk software.
> >
> > Both the privacy of your vote and the integrity of the poll are
> > susceptible to attack at your own computer.
> >
> 
> This means that the administrator of igcaucus.org - me - has the 
> ability to look at individual voting records and to tamper with the 
> results. I promise not to do this, and to only look at logs as 
> necessary for system administration. But it is up to the 
> participants of the IGC whether they trust me to actually not do look 
> or tamper with votes. Of course if in the end we opt for non secret 
> votes, this won't be an issue. But if we decide to go for secret 
> votes I will be bound by a promise to not look at and to not tamper 
> with any of the IGC votes. If the IGC cannot accept this personal 
> guarantee, then I will ask help in finding free and open software 
> that does not have this vulnerability.
> 
> There are several interesting pluses to this software. One of its 
> strongest features is that it allows anyone who is subscribed to the 
> list to initiate a poll or a petition. I think that over time the 
> IGC could actually take advantage of this capability. Setting up a 
> vote is easy (once all the software and the lists are up and running) 
> and it is easy to make any poll open or closed, to use a yes/no 
> format or a rating 1-n format. It is also possible to set up 
> petitions as well as polls. It is a very rich package. It is also 
> possible, I understand from my reading to work in multiple 
> languages. I have not tried this yet and don't intent to for the 
> charter, but do think it would be an interesting capability to take 
> advantage of later. I would also note that the Marilyn, the author 
> of the program is very helpful, so as we progress in our usage of 
> advanced features, we will be able get assistance if needed.
> 
> So, unless there are objections from the caucus, i intend to populate 
> the the IGC-voter's list as mentioned above. As I subscribe people, 
> they will receive a welcome message. Since this list is being create 
> as an opt-out list, I apologize in advance for anyone who is 
> subscribed who does not wish to be. And of course I invite them to 
> unsubscribe. If you know already that you do NOT wish to be 
> subscribed to the IGC-voters list, please let me know off list. I 
> will let this list know when I have finished the subscription effort 
> so that anyone who has not received the welcome message and who 
> believes they should have, can let me know before the vote starts.
> 
> Also, since there have been no comments on the charter for the last 
> several weeks, I will take 1.6 as the charter for the vote. I will 
> create the ballot in the next few days and post it for a brief sanity 
> review.
> 
> If all goes well, I expect to initiate the charter vote by 27 August 
> to last until 12 September. But I have been optimistic before.
> 
> thanks
> a.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
Hi,
> 
> I am back from my research trip and back to trying to get the charter 
> approved.
> 
> I now have voting software working on igcaucus.org. Anyone who is 
> interested in the details of this software is welcome to read the 
> manual available at: http://www.igcaucus.org/eVote.pdf. The voting 
> software is open source and is provided by Marilyn Davis, Ph.D. at 
> http://www.deliberate.com/ .
> 
> In order to use this software, I will be setting up a new mailing 
> list called IGC-voters at igcaucus.org (it wasn't possible to link it to 
> the actual governance mailing list).
> This list will be made up of those who were both:
> - subscribed to the governance list as of 060724
> - subscribed to the governance list with a individual name attached 
> to the subscription.
> 
> Ironically, there is a issue with attaching personal names to the IGC- 
> voters list. Since it need to use an older version of mailman (1.13) 
> it is not capable of including the subscriber's name, only the email 
> address.
> 
> There is also a privacy issue with the software. As listed in every 
> ballot:
> 
> > Warnings: Although eVote will not reveal your vote to the other
> > members of the voting community, the system administrator of the
> > computer that stores your vote can quite easily see the voting
> > records of individuals. Also, there is the possibility that your
> > ballot can be seen by a "snooper", someone who intercepts your
> > ballot in transit.
> >
> > The integrity of the poll, i.e., the accuracy of the count, is
> > susceptible to being tampered with by the system administrator
> > of the computer running the eVote(R)/Clerk software.
> >
> > Both the privacy of your vote and the integrity of the poll are
> > susceptible to attack at your own computer.
> >
> 
> This means that the administrator of igcaucus.org - me - has the 
> ability to look at individual voting records and to tamper with the 
> results. I promise not to do this, and to only look at logs as 
> necessary for system administration. But it is up to the 
> participants of the IGC whether they trust me to actually not do look 
> or tamper with votes. Of course if in the end we opt for non secret 
> votes, this won't be an issue. But if we decide to go for secret 
> votes I will be bound by a promise to not look at and to not tamper 
> with any of the IGC votes. If the IGC cannot accept this personal 
> guarantee, then I will ask help in finding free and open software 
> that does not have this vulnerability.
> 
> There are several interesting pluses to this software. One of its 
> strongest features is that it allows anyone who is subscribed to the 
> list to initiate a poll or a petition. I think that over time the 
> IGC could actually take advantage of this capability. Setting up a 
> vote is easy (once all the software and the lists are up and running) 
> and it is easy to make any poll open or closed, to use a yes/no 
> format or a rating 1-n format. It is also possible to set up 
> petitions as well as polls. It is a very rich package. It is also 
> possible, I understand from my reading to work in multiple 
> languages. I have not tried this yet and don't intent to for the 
> charter, but do think it would be an interesting capability to take 
> advantage of later. I would also note that the Marilyn, the author 
> of the program is very helpful, so as we progress in our usage of 
> advanced features, we will be able get assistance if needed.
> 
> So, unless there are objections from the caucus, i intend to populate 
> the the IGC-voter's list as mentioned above. As I subscribe people, 
> they will receive a welcome message. Since this list is being create 
> as an opt-out list, I apologize in advance for anyone who is 
> subscribed who does not wish to be. And of course I invite them to 
> unsubscribe. If you know already that you do NOT wish to be 
> subscribed to the IGC-voters list, please let me know off list. I 
> will let this list know when I have finished the subscription effort 
> so that anyone who has not received the welcome message and who 
> believes they should have, can let me know before the vote starts.
> 
> Also, since there have been no comments on the charter for the last 
> several weeks, I will take 1.6 as the charter for the vote. I will 
> create the ballot in the next few days and post it for a brief sanity 
> review.
> 
> If all goes well, I expect to initiate the charter vote by 27 August 
> to last until 12 September. But I have been optimistic before.
> 
> thanks
> a.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


 		
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060821/85569432/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060821/85569432/attachment.txt>

From avri at psg.com  Mon Aug 21 10:13:01 2006
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 10:13:01 -0400
Subject: [governance] Charter status update
In-Reply-To: <20060821114622.73482.qmail@web50211.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060821114622.73482.qmail@web50211.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <878540A0-1FDF-437A-BEDA-B61D538DC06C@psg.com>


On 21 aug 2006, at 07.46, Nnenna wrote:

> Avri, you have my trust.  Handle it with care.  I have tested the  
> voters' list.  It is working..

Thanks to you and others, for the continuing trust.  I do plan to  
handle it with care.

A few more details:

- Because of the way the software works, there will be 4 separate  
email ballots
    - one for the base charter with options left unresolved
    - one for the option regarding the selection of the appeal's team  
by nomcom or voting
    - one for the option of selecting nominees etc.. (e.g. MAG) by  
nomcom or voting
    - one about whether voting is secret or open

The text for the three options ballots will be based on the text in  
the in charter.

Examples of these ballots will be sent to this list later today.


Speaking of the proposed charter I have done several things:

- removed edit marks
- highlighted the option
- fixed a few pending editorial errors

And one significant, though I still think editorial change.  I have  
put the description of the now optional nomcom  process in a separate  
document which is referred to in the optional text.

the proposed charter can be found in:
  http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_proposed.html
the nomcom process can be found in:
   http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html


more in a bit.  comments welcome.

thanks

a.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060821/810630f0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060821/810630f0/attachment.txt>

From avri at psg.com  Mon Aug 21 11:53:48 2006
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:53:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] Charter status update (resend)
In-Reply-To: <20060821114622.73482.qmail@web50211.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060821114622.73482.qmail@web50211.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <C5F77F44-4E2B-43B2-B07F-A45DF8CC3920@psg.com>

<note: i was informed that i sent this out in a rich format.  here is  
a resent in plain text>

On 21 aug 2006, at 07.46, Nnenna wrote:

> Avri, you have my trust.  Handle it with care.  I have tested the  
> voters' list.  It is working..

Thanks to you and others, for the continuing trust.  I do plan to  
handle it with care.

A few more details:

- Because of the way the software works, there will be 4 separate  
email ballots
    - one for the base charter with options left unresolved
    - one for the option regarding the selection of the appeal's team  
by nomcom or voting
    - one for the option of selecting nominees etc.. (e.g. MAG) by  
nomcom or voting
    - one about whether voting is secret or open

The text for the three options ballots will be based on the text in  
the in charter.

Examples of these ballots will be sent to this list later today.


Speaking of the proposed charter I have done several things:

- removed edit marks
- highlighted the option
- fixed a few pending editorial errors

And one significant, though I still think editorial change.  I have  
put the description of the now optional nomcom  process in a separate  
document which is referred to in the optional text.

the proposed charter can be found in:
  http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_proposed.html
the nomcom process can be found in:
   http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html


more in a bit.  comments welcome.

thanks

a.



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From nb at bollow.ch  Tue Aug 22 06:54:09 2006
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:54:09 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] IGF workshop on 'framework convention on the Internet'
In-Reply-To: <20060821105854.7765FDACA2@smtp3.electricembers.net>
	(parminder@itforchange.net)
References: <20060821105854.7765FDACA2@smtp3.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <20060822105410.0110D1EEA92@quill.bollow.ch>

Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> > What are the net effects that you would expect such a 'framework
> > convention' to have on the practical reality of the internet?
> 
> There a few ways to attempt an answer to this question. 
> 
> One, is to explore if and how various national and global level policy
> instruments which lay out broader principles affect every day reality around
> us. 

Yes, ok.  It seems to me (without having seriously explored the
question) that the function of those "broader principles" documents
is to contribute to shaping the social consensus of what is
"politically correct".  That in turn has some influence on what
people will actually do, and on what those who choose to engage in
engage in harmful practices will get away with.

> Do you think there is a difference in how US establishment sees Internet
> (see its early policy documents expounding its 'marketplace characteristics)
> and how a development agency in India and Bangladesh looks at it.

Yes, definately.

If the goal of the 'Framework Convention on the Internet' is something
like "make sure that the application of fundamental human rights such
as privacy for personal communications and freedom of speech, as well
as the economic perspectives and needs of people in developing
countries will not be overlooked and will not be forgotten", I'll
wholeheartedly support that.

> It is in this background that US and Brazil have different policies on FOSS.

I like the Brazil policy on FOSS much better than the attitude of the
current US government.

But I have serious concerns about the idea that internet should
somehow be regulated by means of an international treaty.  If I
recall correctly, there was an intervention from Brazil which called
for something like that.  If I could be assured that the treaty will
be only about matters of human rights and development, my concerns
would be resolved.

I want that any new internet governance institutions which might be
created from now on must have genuine and transparent multistakeholder
accountability, and I want that the fundamental property of the
internet that there is freedom for creative technical development must
be preserved.

> Do you not think that the development of Internet and associated
> ICTs would have taken a different route if global political
> environment were different?

I certainly wouldn't want to deny that the global political
environment has a significant influence.

I'm worried however that the positive influence from good principles
mentioned in a 'framework convention' might be negligible in relation
to the bad effects of an international treaty which might eventually
result in the creation of a non-transparent, non-multistakeholder or
non-accountable international organisation that will be in charge of 
essential aspects of internet governance.

> Meanwhile, if the Framework convention proposal is accepted, I will be happy
> to have greater libertarian views like yours who have doubts about efficacy
> of such policy frameworks for the Internet. And, so I invite you to
> participate in the workshop as well.

I'd certainly appreciate the opportunity to explain the dangers that
I see.

Greetings,
Norbert.


-- 
Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                       http://Norbert.ch
President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG        http://SIUG.ch
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From info at INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG  Tue Aug 22 13:10:40 2006
From: info at INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG (IGP Info)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 13:10:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Newsletter, Vol 1.03
Message-ID: <auto-000221918984@fr3.webmaillogin.com>

======================================
Internet Governance Project Newsletter
======================================
...current events in Internet Governance and the activities of the Internet Governance  Project.
http://www.internetgovernance.org

Volume 1.03
August 22, 2006

========
Contents
========

[1] ICANN Gets IANA Again, US Keeps Control  [2] IGF Undergoes First Major Test  [3] IGP  Proposes IGF Workshops  [4] DoC Ignores the Rest of World? [5] Civil Society Converges on  IGF  [6] IGP launches Chinese website  [7] Net neutrality work at OECD  

==========================================================
[1] ICANN Gets IANA Again, US Keeps Control (This is news?) 
==========================================================

The US government on Wednesday announced its renewal of the IANA contract with ICANN for a  one-year period, with an option for four more years. Many news reports about this event  were inaccurate, confusing the IANA contract with the Department of Commerce Memorandum  of Understanding that provides oversight for ICANN's policy making functions. For an  informed report from IGP on the substance and significance of this development, click  here. <http://internetgovernance.org/news.html#ianarenewal_082206>

==========================================
[2] The IGF Undergoes its First Major Test 
==========================================

The new Internet Governance Forum's agenda has proven to be so generic (Openness, Access  Diversity, Security) that no one knows what will transpire in its Plenary sessions. The  real agenda-setting action will be in the Forum's parallel "workshops," 90-minute sessions  on particular topics. The workshop proposals force stakeholder groups to work together,  and the review and selection of the proposals forces the IGF to make decisions. Workshops  are thus the first big test of the viability of the multistakeholder model and the  capacity and impartiality of the Secretariat and its Advisory Group. There may be pressure  from some interest groups to avoid certain topics deemed sensitive or controversial -- but  if the IGF cannot discuss the real issues of Internet Governance, what is the point of its  existence? The deadline for Workshop proposals is August 24, and decisions about which  ones are accepted are expected by mid-September.  

==============================
[3] IGP Proposes IGF Workshops 
==============================

Co-sponsoring with the Government of Brazil and the Third World Network, IGP has proposed  a Workshop on "New Technical and Policy Challenges in DNS Root Zone Management." The  workshop will feature two root server operators (VeriSign and Sweden's Autonomica), an  IETF DNSSEC expert, developing world governments, and policy analysts. Recent technical  developments pose a number of new problems for root zone management that need to be  discussed. The workshop will focus on three of these issues: 1) the attempt to secure DNS  via DNSSEC; 2) new applications such as IDNs, IPv6 and ENUM; 3) proposals to multi- lateralize root zone oversight. IGP is also proposing a workshop on free expression that  will feature U.S. Ambassador David Gross, civil society advocacy groups, and governmental  representatives. 

===============================================
[4] IGP Campaign on Root Control Shifts Opinion
===============================================

A global email campaign by IGP generated comments from 32 countries in seven regions,  including Asia, Africa, North & South America, the Caribbean and the Middle East against continued unilateral U.S. control of the DNS root.  While IGP’s official filing offered a detailed rationale for that position, the IGP website provided a simple means for individual Internet users to transmit that message to the USG. And according The Register (UK), half of the comments critical of the USG, including several from ccTLD operators and others in the technical community, incorporated the IGP language.  In the final analysis, 87% of relevant comments received called for transition toward a new model of governance. However, while public response this lopsided would make any reasonable public-steward think twice, the DOC recently renewed its continued authority over the IANA function via ICANN, the key point of leverage for DNS root control. 

==================================
[5] Civil Society Converges on IGF 
==================================

About 20 members of civil society advocacy groups and several government representatives  attended a special experts meeting on the Internet Governance Forum in Geneva July 20-21.  The meeting was organized by the Consumer Project on Technology, the Third World Network  and the South Centre. IGP's Milton Mueller and Jeanette Hofmann were invited participants.  Also among the attendees were IGF MAG member Robin Gross of IPJustice; Markus Kummer and  Chengetai Masango of the IGF Secretariat; scholars William Drake and Michael Froomkin;  Yale ISP Director Eddan Katz; CP Tech director James Love; Georg Greve of the European  Free Software Foundation; Heather Ford of iCommons; Carlos Affonso de Souza of iCommons  Brazil. IGP partner Milton Mueller claimed that the meeting was "the first real strategic  intersection of Internet governance and A2K (Access to Knowledge) activists." The group  had fruitful discussions with the IGF Secretariat on the function of the Forum; e.g., the  difference between "binding" documents and norm negotiation, and discussing problems vs.  developing solutions collectively, and on the suitable criteria for submitting papers and  workshop proposals.

================================
[6] IGP launches Chinese website
================================

The Internet Governance Project announced today that its website is now available in  Chinese. "We view it essential that one of the world's largest Internet user community  have access to the global debate on Internet governance," said IGP Operations Director  Brenden Kuerbis. "In anticipation of the upcoming Internet Governance Forum, all  individuals, the private sector and governments must have access to objective analysis of  issues of freedom of expression, content filtering, and competition policy surrounding  critical network resources."  While only providing limited translation at this point, IGP  plans to publish translations of key papers prior to the Forum.    

===============================
[7] Net neutrality work at OECD
===============================

During the month of September IGP partner Milton Mueller will be in Paris working as a  visiting scholar at the OECD. He plans to develop a paper there on the application of WTO  reference paper principles to Internet interconnection issues. 

=========================
Subscription Information
=========================

Subscribe/unsubscribe from the IGP-Announce mailing list via web interface:
http://internetgovernance.org/subscribe.html

===============
Privacy Policy
===============

The IGP-Announce mailing list is used only to mail IGP news announcements.
We do not sell, rent or share our mailing list.  We do not enhance (link to other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name.

In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe your e-mail address from this list, please follow the above instructions under "subscription information."

Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Tue Aug 22 14:17:20 2006
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:17:20 -0400
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance news
Message-ID: <s4eb1211.051@gwia202.syr.edu>

======================================
Internet Governance Project Newsletter
======================================
...current events in Internet Governance and the activities of the
Internet Governance  Project.
http://www.internetgovernance.org 

Volume 1.03
August 22, 2006

========
Contents
========

[1] ICANN Gets IANA Again, US Keeps Control  [2] IGF Undergoes First
Major Test  [3] IGP  Proposes IGF Workshops  [4] DoC Ignores the Rest of
World [5] Civil Society Converges on  IGF  [6] IGP launches Chinese
website  [7] Net neutrality work at OECD  

=====================================
[1] ICANN Gets IANA Again, US Keeps Control (This is news?) 
=====================================
The US government on Wednesday announced its renewal of the IANA
contract with ICANN for a  one-year period, with an option for four more
years. Many news reports about this event  were inaccurate, confusing
the IANA contract with the Department of Commerce Memorandum  of
Understanding that provides oversight for ICANN's policy making
functions. For an  informed report from IGP on the substance and
significance of this development, click  here.
<http://internetgovernance.org/news.html#ianarenewal_082206>

=======================================
[2] The IGF Undergoes First Major Test 
=======================================

The new Internet Governance Forum's agenda has proven to be so generic
(Openness, Access  Diversity, Security) that no one knows what will
transpire in its Plenary sessions. The  real agenda-setting action will
be in the Forum's parallel "workshops," 90-minute sessions  on
particular topics. The workshop proposals force stakeholder groups to
work together,  and the review and selection of the proposals forces the
IGF to make decisions. Workshops  are thus the first big test of the
viability of the multistakeholder model and the  capacity and
impartiality of the Secretariat and its Advisory Group. There may be
pressure  from some interest groups to avoid certain topics deemed
sensitive or controversial -- but  if the IGF cannot discuss the real
issues of Internet Governance, what is the point of its  existence? The
deadline for Workshop proposals is August 24, and decisions about which 
ones are accepted are expected by mid-September.  

==============================
[3] IGP Proposes IGF Workshops 
==============================

Co-sponsoring with the Government of Brazil and the Third World
Network, IGP has proposed  a Workshop on "New Technical and Policy
Challenges in DNS Root Zone Management." The  workshop will feature two
root server operators (VeriSign and Sweden's Autonomica), an  IETF
DNSSEC expert, developing world governments, and policy analysts. Recent
technical  developments pose a number of new problems for root zone
management that need to be  discussed. The workshop will focus on three
of these issues: 1) the attempt to secure DNS  via DNSSEC; 2) new
applications such as IDNs, IPv6 and ENUM; 3) proposals to multi-
lateralize root zone oversight. IGP is also proposing a workshop on free
expression that  will feature U.S. Ambassador David Gross, civil society
advocacy groups, and governmental  representatives. 

======================================
[4] IGP Campaign on Root Control Shifts Opinion
======================================

A global email campaign by IGP generated comments from 32 countries in
seven regions,  including Asia, Africa, North & South America, the
Caribbean and the Middle East against continued unilateral U.S. control
of the DNS root.  While IGP's official filing offered a detailed
rationale for that position, the IGP website provided a simple means for
individual Internet users to transmit that message to the USG. And
according The Register (UK), half of the comments critical of the USG,
including several from ccTLD operators and others in the technical
community, incorporated the IGP language.  In the final analysis, 87% of
relevant comments received called for transition toward a new model of
governance. However, while public response this lopsided would make any
reasonable public-steward think twice, the DOC recently renewed its
continued authority over the IANA function via ICANN, the key point of
leverage for DNS root control. 

==================================
[5] Civil Society Converges on IGF 
==================================

About 20 members of civil society advocacy groups and several
government representatives  attended a special experts meeting on the
Internet Governance Forum in Geneva July 20-21.  The meeting was
organized by the Consumer Project on Technology, the Third World Network
 and the South Centre. IGP's Milton Mueller and Jeanette Hofmann were
invited participants.  Also among the attendees were IGF MAG member
Robin Gross of IPJustice; Markus Kummer and  Chengetai Masango of the
IGF Secretariat; scholars William Drake and Michael Froomkin;  Yale ISP
Director Eddan Katz; CP Tech director James Love; Georg Greve of the
European  Free Software Foundation; Heather Ford of iCommons; Carlos
Affonso de Souza of iCommons  Brazil. IGP partner Milton Mueller claimed
that the meeting was "the first real strategic  intersection of Internet
governance and A2K (Access to Knowledge) activists." The group  had
fruitful discussions with the IGF Secretariat on the function of the
Forum; e.g., the  difference between "binding" documents and norm
negotiation, and discussing problems vs.  developing solutions
collectively, and on the suitable criteria for submitting papers and 
workshop proposals.

================================
[6] IGP launches Chinese website
================================

The Internet Governance Project announced today that its website is now
available in  Chinese. "We view it essential that one of the world's
largest Internet user community  have access to the global debate on
Internet governance," said IGP Operations Director  Brenden Kuerbis. "In
anticipation of the upcoming Internet Governance Forum, all 
individuals, the private sector and governments must have access to
objective analysis of  issues of freedom of expression, content
filtering, and competition policy surrounding  critical network
resources."  While only providing limited translation at this point, IGP
 plans to publish translations of key papers prior to the Forum.    

===============================
[7] Net neutrality work at OECD
===============================

During the month of September IGP partner Milton Mueller will be in
Paris working as a  visiting scholar at the OECD. He plans to develop a
paper there on the application of WTO  reference paper principles to
Internet interconnection issues. 

=========================
Subscription Information
=========================

Subscribe/unsubscribe from the IGP-Announce mailing list via web
interface:
http://internetgovernance.org/subscribe.html 

===============
Privacy Policy
===============

The IGP-Announce mailing list is used only to mail IGP news
announcements.
We do not sell, rent or share our mailing list.  We do not enhance
(link to other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name.

In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe your e-mail address
from this list, please follow the above instructions under "subscription
information."

Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at acm.org  Tue Aug 22 20:18:05 2006
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:18:05 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF Plaza notification
Message-ID: <C5256074-CD65-42B3-8336-B30059B8235C@acm.org>

http://www.intgovforum.org/

[New] The Plaza – an open space for showcasing institutions and projects

The Plaza will be an important part of the inaugural meeting of the  
IGF – it will allow interested institutions or companies to showcase  
their projects and activities. The Plaza will be located at the  
conference venue in the immediate vicinity of the meeting rooms and  
will have the function of bringing participants together,  
facilitating the exchange of experience and the sharing of best  
practices.

The event manager of the WSIS exhibitions – the ICT for Development  
Platform Geneva 2003 and ICT 4 all Exhibition Tunis 2005 - , Otto  
Frei AG. (http://www.ottofrei.ch/)  will be in charge of organizing  
the Plaza.  If you are interested in participating in the Plaza,  
please contact info at ottofrei.ch .



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at psg.com  Wed Aug 23 01:12:37 2006
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:12:37 -0400
Subject: [governance] Poll: sample igc charter vote 1/4
In-Reply-To: Your message on  Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:01:06 -0400
Message-ID: <F7572F50-7A0E-4794-A170-AF5296ED4BC7@psg.com>

Hi,

This is an example of what the ballot on the charter will look like.

a.

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 05:56:04 +0200
avri at psg.com attached a poll to this subject:

	sample igc charter vote


==== ====
POLL TEXT
==== ====

By voting you affirm that you consider yourself a Civil Society
particpant of the Internet Governance Caucus.

If you cannot so affirm, please do not vote.

Question:
       Do you support the proposed charter as described in
       http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_proposed.html ?
       Note: this does not include approval of the options
             which will be covered in separate ballots

       If yes, vote yes.
       If not, vote no.


==== ============
POLL INSTRUCTIONS
==== ============

The 172 participants of the igc-voters list are asked
to vote yes or no.


======== ====
IF_VOTED POLL
======== ====

This is an "if-voted" poll.  This means you can send email to

	igc-voters at igcaucus.org	

with the subject, "sample igc charter vote",
and with a message that says:

          eVote who

to receive a list of those who voted.  Of course, everyone else
on the igc-voters list can see if you have voted too.

Warnings: Although eVote will not reveal your vote to the other
members of the voting community, the system administrator of the
computer that stores your vote can quite easily see the voting
records of individuals. Also, there is the possibility that your
ballot can be seen by a "snooper", someone who intercepts your
ballot in transit.

The integrity of the poll, i.e., the accuracy of the count, is
susceptible to being tampered with by the system administrator
of the computer running the eVote(R)/Clerk software.

Both the privacy of your vote and the integrity of the poll are
susceptible to attack at your own computer.


== ====
TO VOTE
== ====

  | 1.  Send a message to igc-voters at igcaucus.org	.
  |
  | 2.  Your subject must be "sample igc charter vote".
  |     (Don't worry about extra words in the subject line that
  |      reply-to produces.)
  |
  |      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
   ----> *  NOTE:  These two steps are easy.  Just use *
         *         your reply-to key on this message!  *
         * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    3.  Your message *must* start with the word, "eVote", or your
        vote will be sent to the entire igc-voters list and it won't
        be counted!

        To vote YES, your message should say:

          eVote yes

        To vote NO, your message should say:

          eVote no

    4.  If your message has a signature, or any other text
        below your vote, make a line that says, "end" just
        after your vote.

======== ==== ====
CHANGING YOUR VOTE
======== ==== ====

You can change your vote while the poll is open by voting again.


======== ==== ====
REMOVING YOUR VOTE
======== ==== ====

To remove your vote on "sample igc charter vote",
send the message:

	eVote remove


====== === ======= == === ====
SEEING THE RESULTS OF THE POLL
====== === ======= == === ====

To see the current vote tally on "sample igc charter vote",
send the message:

	eVote info


==== ===========
MORE INFORMATION
==== ===========

To receive more information about "sample igc charter vote":

1.  Send a message to:

	igc-voters at igcaucus.org	

2.  Your subject must be:

	sample igc charter vote

3.  Your message should say:

	eVote help who

to learn details about the WHO command.

If your message says:

	eVote how Charlie at somewhere.com

you will receive a message reporting whether or not Charlie has voted.

To see your own vote, the current vote tally, and this
information again, send the command:

	eVote info

For a general explanation of eVote/Majordomo, use any
subject line, and send the message:

	eVote help


Clerk 2.52b2 Ser.No. 1


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at psg.com  Wed Aug 23 01:13:51 2006
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:13:51 -0400
Subject: [governance] Poll: sample igc Appeals Team vote
In-Reply-To: Your message on  Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:01:25 -0400
Message-ID: <0786F496-AEEC-4EAE-897F-25BCEB831291@psg.com>

Hi,

This is an example of what the vote on the Appeals Team vote will  
look like.

a.

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 05:56:25 +0200
avri at psg.com attached a poll to this subject:

	sample igc Appeals Team vote


==== ====
POLL TEXT
==== ====

By voting you affirm that you consider yourself a Civil Society
particpant of the Internet Governance Caucus.

If you cannot so affirm, please do not vote.

Option from the charter:
"Appeals team

     An appeals team of 5 IGC members will be formed.
     The appeals board will be selected yearly by

       option 1: a randomly selected nominating committee
       option 2: a voting process

     Coordinators are not qualified to be members of the appeals team.

The Nomcom process is defined in http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process"


==== ============
POLL INSTRUCTIONS
==== ============

172 participants are asked to vote YES on 1 of the following choices:

   Your  Yes    No     On
   Vote  Votes  Votes  Choice

     -    0      0     1. Appeal's team selected by nomcom pr
     -    0      0     2. Appeal's team selected by voting

You have used 0 of your 1 YES votes.


======== ====
IF_VOTED POLL
======== ====

This is an "if-voted" poll.  This means you can send email to

	igc-voters at igcaucus.org	

with the subject, "sample igc Appeals Team vote",
and with a message that says:

          eVote who

to receive a list of those who voted.  Of course, everyone else
on the igc-voters list can see if you have voted too.

Warnings: Although eVote will not reveal your vote to the other
members of the voting community, the system administrator of the
computer that stores your vote can quite easily see the voting
records of individuals. Also, there is the possibility that your
ballot can be seen by a "snooper", someone who intercepts your
ballot in transit.

The integrity of the poll, i.e., the accuracy of the count, is
susceptible to being tampered with by the system administrator
of the computer running the eVote(R)/Clerk software.

Both the privacy of your vote and the integrity of the poll are
susceptible to attack at your own computer.


== ====
TO VOTE
== ====

  | 1.  Send a message to igc-voters at igcaucus.org	.
  |
  | 2.  Your subject must be "sample igc Appeals Team vote".
  |     (Don't worry about extra words in the subject line that
  |      reply-to produces.)
  |
  |      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
   ----> *  NOTE:  These two steps are easy.  Just use *
         *         your reply-to key on this message!  *
         * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    3.  Your message *must* start with the word, "eVote", or your
        vote will be sent to the entire igc-voters list and it won't
        be counted!

        To vote yes on choice 2, your message should say:

           eVote
           2. y

        Every choice you don't vote "yes" on will receive an automatic
         "no" vote.

    4.  If your message has a signature, or any other text
        below your vote, make a line that says, "end" just
        after your vote.

======== ==== ====
CHANGING YOUR VOTE
======== ==== ====

You can change your votes while the poll is open by voting again.


======== ==== ====
REMOVING YOUR VOTE
======== ==== ====

To remove your votes on "sample igc Appeals Team vote",
send the message:

	eVote remove


====== === ======= == === ====
SEEING THE RESULTS OF THE POLL
====== === ======= == === ====

To see the current vote tally on "sample igc Appeals Team vote",
send the message:

	eVote info


==== ===========
MORE INFORMATION
==== ===========

To receive more information about "sample igc Appeals Team vote":

1.  Send a message to:

	igc-voters at igcaucus.org	

2.  Your subject must be:

	sample igc Appeals Team vote

3.  Your message should say:

	eVote help who

to learn details about the WHO command.

If your message says:

	eVote how Charlie at somewhere.com

you will receive a message reporting whether or not Charlie has voted.

To see your own vote, the current vote tally, and this
information again, send the command:

	eVote info

For a general explanation of eVote/Majordomo, use any
subject line, and send the message:

	eVote help


Clerk 2.52b2 Ser.No. 1


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at psg.com  Wed Aug 23 01:15:33 2006
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:15:33 -0400
Subject: [governance] Poll: sample igc Nominations vote
In-Reply-To: Your message on  Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:07:06 -0400
Message-ID: <BCBA2CA9-95A7-4280-A91D-90BCE8F1B840@psg.com>

Hi,

this is an example of what the vote on choosing nominees will look like.

a.
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 06:02:14 +0200
avri at psg.com attached a poll to this subject:

	sample igc Nominations vote


==== ====
POLL TEXT
==== ====

By voting you affirm that you consider yourself a Civil Society
particpant of the Internet Governance Caucus.

If you cannot so affirm, please do not vote.

Option from the charter:
"
* All nominations to external bodies,
        e.g. the IGF multistakholder advisory group,

    o  Option 1: will be made using a randomly selected
                 nomcom process as defined in
                http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html.
    o   Option 2: according to the voting process.

"


==== ============
POLL INSTRUCTIONS
==== ============

172 participants are asked to vote YES on 1 of the following choices:

   Your  Yes    No     On
   Vote  Votes  Votes  Choice

     -    0      0     1. Nominations selected by nomcom proc
     -    0      0     2. Nominations selected by voting

You have used 0 of your 1 YES votes.


======== ====
IF_VOTED POLL
======== ====

This is an "if-voted" poll.  This means you can send email to

	igc-voters at igcaucus.org	

with the subject, "sample igc Nominations vote",
and with a message that says:

          eVote who

to receive a list of those who voted.  Of course, everyone else
on the igc-voters list can see if you have voted too.

Warnings: Although eVote will not reveal your vote to the other
members of the voting community, the system administrator of the
computer that stores your vote can quite easily see the voting
records of individuals. Also, there is the possibility that your
ballot can be seen by a "snooper", someone who intercepts your
ballot in transit.

The integrity of the poll, i.e., the accuracy of the count, is
susceptible to being tampered with by the system administrator
of the computer running the eVote(R)/Clerk software.

Both the privacy of your vote and the integrity of the poll are
susceptible to attack at your own computer.


== ====
TO VOTE
== ====

  | 1.  Send a message to igc-voters at igcaucus.org	.
  |
  | 2.  Your subject must be "sample igc Nominations vote".
  |     (Don't worry about extra words in the subject line that
  |      reply-to produces.)
  |
  |      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
   ----> *  NOTE:  These two steps are easy.  Just use *
         *         your reply-to key on this message!  *
         * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    3.  Your message *must* start with the word, "eVote", or your
        vote will be sent to the entire igc-voters list and it won't
        be counted!

        To vote yes on choice 2, your message should say:

           eVote
           2. y

        Every choice you don't vote "yes" on will receive an automatic
         "no" vote.

    4.  If your message has a signature, or any other text
        below your vote, make a line that says, "end" just
        after your vote.

======== ==== ====
CHANGING YOUR VOTE
======== ==== ====

You can change your votes while the poll is open by voting again.


======== ==== ====
REMOVING YOUR VOTE
======== ==== ====

To remove your votes on "sample igc Nominations vote",
send the message:

	eVote remove


====== === ======= == === ====
SEEING THE RESULTS OF THE POLL
====== === ======= == === ====

To see the current vote tally on "sample igc Nominations vote",
send the message:

	eVote info


==== ===========
MORE INFORMATION
==== ===========

To receive more information about "sample igc Nominations vote":

1.  Send a message to:

	igc-voters at igcaucus.org	

2.  Your subject must be:

	sample igc Nominations vote

3.  Your message should say:

	eVote help who

to learn details about the WHO command.

If your message says:

	eVote how Charlie at somewhere.com

you will receive a message reporting whether or not Charlie has voted.

To see your own vote, the current vote tally, and this
information again, send the command:

	eVote info

For a general explanation of eVote/Majordomo, use any
subject line, and send the message:

	eVote help


Clerk 2.52b2 Ser.No. 1


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at psg.com  Wed Aug 23 01:17:13 2006
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:17:13 -0400
Subject: [governance] Poll: sample igc Voting style vote
In-Reply-To: Your message on  Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:10:06 -0400
Message-ID: <1AB535FE-8835-48BE-96C2-9FE33662A60F@psg.com>

Hi,

this is an example of what the vote on voting styles will look like.

a.

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 06:05:03 +0200
avri at psg.com attached a poll to this subject:

	sample igc Voting style vote


==== ====
POLL TEXT
==== ====

By voting you affirm that you consider yourself a Civil Society
particpant of the Internet Governance Caucus.

If you cannot so affirm, please do not vote.

Option from the charter:
"
Elections will be run by the coordinators and will be subject to the
appeals process.

Option 1: All voting will be by secret ballot with the exception
noted above for release of voters names.

Option 2: All voting will be open, though at the discretion of the
coordinators, with or without a specific request from member(s), any
vote can be made into a secret vote. The reasons for making it a
secret vote will be stated, and are subject to appeal.

"


==== ============
POLL INSTRUCTIONS
==== ============

172 participants are asked to vote YES on 1 of the following choices:

   Your  Yes    No     On
   Vote  Votes  Votes  Choice

     -    0      0     1. All voting by secret ballot
     -    0      0     2. All voting open with option for a s

You have used 0 of your 1 YES votes.


======== ====
IF_VOTED POLL
======== ====

This is an "if-voted" poll.  This means you can send email to

	igc-voters at igcaucus.org	

with the subject, "sample igc Voting style vote",
and with a message that says:

          eVote who

to receive a list of those who voted.  Of course, everyone else
on the igc-voters list can see if you have voted too.

Warnings: Although eVote will not reveal your vote to the other
members of the voting community, the system administrator of the
computer that stores your vote can quite easily see the voting
records of individuals. Also, there is the possibility that your
ballot can be seen by a "snooper", someone who intercepts your
ballot in transit.

The integrity of the poll, i.e., the accuracy of the count, is
susceptible to being tampered with by the system administrator
of the computer running the eVote(R)/Clerk software.

Both the privacy of your vote and the integrity of the poll are
susceptible to attack at your own computer.


== ====
TO VOTE
== ====

  | 1.  Send a message to igc-voters at igcaucus.org	.
  |
  | 2.  Your subject must be "sample igc Voting style vote".
  |     (Don't worry about extra words in the subject line that
  |      reply-to produces.)
  |
  |      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
   ----> *  NOTE:  These two steps are easy.  Just use *
         *         your reply-to key on this message!  *
         * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    3.  Your message *must* start with the word, "eVote", or your
        vote will be sent to the entire igc-voters list and it won't
        be counted!

        To vote yes on choice 2, your message should say:

           eVote
           2. y

        Every choice you don't vote "yes" on will receive an automatic
         "no" vote.

    4.  If your message has a signature, or any other text
        below your vote, make a line that says, "end" just
        after your vote.

======== ==== ====
CHANGING YOUR VOTE
======== ==== ====

You can change your votes while the poll is open by voting again.


======== ==== ====
REMOVING YOUR VOTE
======== ==== ====

To remove your votes on "sample igc Voting style vote",
send the message:

	eVote remove


====== === ======= == === ====
SEEING THE RESULTS OF THE POLL
====== === ======= == === ====

To see the current vote tally on "sample igc Voting style vote",
send the message:

	eVote info


==== ===========
MORE INFORMATION
==== ===========

To receive more information about "sample igc Voting style vote":

1.  Send a message to:

	igc-voters at igcaucus.org	

2.  Your subject must be:

	sample igc Voting style vote

3.  Your message should say:

	eVote help who

to learn details about the WHO command.

If your message says:

	eVote how Charlie at somewhere.com

you will receive a message reporting whether or not Charlie has voted.

To see your own vote, the current vote tally, and this
information again, send the command:

	eVote info

For a general explanation of eVote/Majordomo, use any
subject line, and send the message:

	eVote help


Clerk 2.52b2 Ser.No. 1


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at psg.com  Wed Aug 23 08:18:24 2006
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:18:24 -0400
Subject: [governance] Poll: sample igc Voting style vote
In-Reply-To: Your message on  Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:16:54 -0400
Message-ID: <C0E117D0-8536-4741-9F61-A511D0207B63@psg.com>

Hi,

Corrected the ballot.  noticed the text was cut off strangle on the  
vote options.
same think occurred on some of the others and they will be fixed as  
well.

a.

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:11:49 +0200
avri at psg.com attached a poll to this subject:

	sample igc Voting style vote


==== ====
POLL TEXT
==== ====

By voting you affirm that you consider yourself a Civil Society
particpant of the Internet Governance Caucus.

If you cannot so affirm, please do not vote.

Option from the charter:
"
Elections will be run by the coordinators and will be subject to the
appeals process.

Option 1: All voting will be by secret ballot with the exception
noted above for release of voters names.

Option 2: All voting will be open, though at the discretion of the
coordinators, with or without a specific request from member(s), any
vote can be made into a secret vote. The reasons for making it a
secret vote will be stated, and are subject to appeal.

"


==== ============
POLL INSTRUCTIONS
==== ============

172 participants are asked to vote YES on 1 of the following choices:

   Your  Yes    No     On
   Vote  Votes  Votes  Choice

     -    0      0     1. Voting by secret ballot
     -    0      0     2. Voting open, optional secret ballot

You have used 0 of your 1 YES votes.


======== ====
IF_VOTED POLL
======== ====

This is an "if-voted" poll.  This means you can send email to

	igc-voters at igcaucus.org	

with the subject, "sample igc Voting style vote",
and with a message that says:

          eVote who

to receive a list of those who voted.  Of course, everyone else
on the igc-voters list can see if you have voted too.

Warnings: Although eVote will not reveal your vote to the other
members of the voting community, the system administrator of the
computer that stores your vote can quite easily see the voting
records of individuals. Also, there is the possibility that your
ballot can be seen by a "snooper", someone who intercepts your
ballot in transit.

The integrity of the poll, i.e., the accuracy of the count, is
susceptible to being tampered with by the system administrator
of the computer running the eVote(R)/Clerk software.

Both the privacy of your vote and the integrity of the poll are
susceptible to attack at your own computer.


== ====
TO VOTE
== ====

  | 1.  Send a message to igc-voters at igcaucus.org	.
  |
  | 2.  Your subject must be "sample igc Voting style vote".
  |     (Don't worry about extra words in the subject line that
  |      reply-to produces.)
  |
  |      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
   ----> *  NOTE:  These two steps are easy.  Just use *
         *         your reply-to key on this message!  *
         * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    3.  Your message *must* start with the word, "eVote", or your
        vote will be sent to the entire igc-voters list and it won't
        be counted!

        To vote yes on choice 2, your message should say:

           eVote
           2. y

        Every choice you don't vote "yes" on will receive an automatic
         "no" vote.

    4.  If your message has a signature, or any other text
        below your vote, make a line that says, "end" just
        after your vote.

======== ==== ====
CHANGING YOUR VOTE
======== ==== ====

You can change your votes while the poll is open by voting again.


======== ==== ====
REMOVING YOUR VOTE
======== ==== ====

To remove your votes on "sample igc Voting style vote",
send the message:

	eVote remove


====== === ======= == === ====
SEEING THE RESULTS OF THE POLL
====== === ======= == === ====

To see the current vote tally on "sample igc Voting style vote",
send the message:

	eVote info


==== ===========
MORE INFORMATION
==== ===========

To receive more information about "sample igc Voting style vote":

1.  Send a message to:

	igc-voters at igcaucus.org	

2.  Your subject must be:

	sample igc Voting style vote

3.  Your message should say:

	eVote help who

to learn details about the WHO command.

If your message says:

	eVote how Charlie at somewhere.com

you will receive a message reporting whether or not Charlie has voted.

To see your own vote, the current vote tally, and this
information again, send the command:

	eVote info

For a general explanation of eVote/Majordomo, use any
subject line, and send the message:

	eVote help


Clerk 2.52b2 Ser.No. 1


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Wed Aug 23 09:35:24 2006
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:35:24 +0200
Subject: [governance] ICANN Strategy Committee
References: <BCBA2CA9-95A7-4280-A91D-90BCE8F1B840@psg.com>
Message-ID:  <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043639@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Attached are my comments to ICANNs Presidential Strategy Committee which I did send on August, 14, 2006. They are not yet published on the ICANN Forum side, althougn the discussion has been closed on August 15, 2006. 
 
 
Comments to the Presidential Strategy Committee.
By Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus

1. The Legal Personality of ICANN: 
 
One of the problems around ICANN is that it represents an innovation in international politics. It does not follow an established model under contemporary international law. As a private corporation it is not a subject under international law, however ICANN deals with governments by communicating according to vague defined procedures via the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). The GAC, although it has governments as members, is not an intergovernmental organisation. It is not a decision making body but an advisory body which is in a formal sense no subject of international law. This is one source of confusion. 
 
To remove the confusion there is no way back to "traditional models". ICANN has to move forward and to develop new innovative procedures and practices. Taking into consideration that ICANN itself is an innovation it makes only little sense to investigate whether models in international politics are available which could be followed by ICANN. While it is true that special examples, practices and procedures between international non-governmental organisations and individual governments can be a source of inspiration, ICANN and the ICANN community should recognize that ICANN itself is a model which reflects the new needs of the information age for multistakeholder policy development processes.  
 
During the "World Summit on the Information Society" (WSIS) the heads of states of UN members recognized that the principle of multistakeholderism is a fundamental principle for the information society in general and in particular for the governance of the Internet. Multistakeholderism was defined as the "full involvement of governments, private sector and civil society" in policy development and decision making. All three main stakeholder groups are involved in ICANNs policy development and decision making processes. However there is a high level of dissatisfaction among stakeholder groups about the practice of the real involvement in ICANNs policy development and decision making. The only way forward for ICANN is to improve the processes and procedures for policy development and decision making. 
 
2. Procedural Issues for the Interaction among Stakeholders within ICANN
 
Neither WSIS nor WGIG defined in detail how the interaction among the three stakeholder groups should be formalized. This is an opportunity for ICANN to develop innovative procedures. As a first step ICANN should develop more formalized procedures for interaction among the ICANN Board, the Supporting Organisations (SO) and the Advisory Committees (AC). While some procedures are already in place (one example are the procedures under Article 11, Section 2.1 of ICANN Bylaws for the relationship between the Board and the GAC), the whole system of procedural interaction among stakeholders within ICANN gives still a lot of room for improvement. Very often it is unclear, how the Board has to deal with recommendations coming from SOs or ACs and how conflicts between the Board and SOs/ACs are settled. 
 
While formalized procedures should offer a certain degree of flexibility, it should provide also clarity for stakeholders what they have to do in cases where they either want to make a proposal or a policy recommendation or where they disagree how the Board deals with an issue or a recommendation coming from this specific stakeholder group. 
 
ICANN could consider to establish "Joint Mediation Committees" which would be activated in cases of conflict between the Board and a SO/AC. In such a committee representatives from both sides could discuss the controversial issues and try to find a compromise or "rough consensus". Such a formalized procedure would allow to channel complaints in a bottom up way and would build trust into ICANNs institutions and the whole PDP system within ICANN.  
 
This relates in particular to the relations between the Board and the ALAC, after ICANNs reform in 2002 abolished the direct election of ICANN At Large directors. It would make sense to consider the establishment of a joint Working Group between the ICANN Board and ALAC, similar to the joint Working Group between the Board and the GAC. It could be also considered, to give more clear guidelines to the NomCom with regard to the nomination of NomCom directors representing the At Large stakeholder group. The fact that the At Large stakeholder group has only one non-voting director in the board is a matter of great concern, undermines the acceptance and legitimacy of ICANN and invites governments, who claim to represent individual Internet users of their country, to step in.   
 
The only way forward is not to go back to a purely intergovernmental or purely private sector group but to improve the process of interaction among the stakeholder in policy development and decision making by recognizing and practisizing the so called horizontal principles of Internet Governance like openness, transparency, accountability, democracy etc. 
 
3. Relationship with the US Government:
 
ICANNs relationship with the US government is one of the main source of concern for many Internet communities. These concerns have two dimensions: One is the legal seat of ICANN and its incorporation under Californian Law. The other one is the contractual relationship with the Department of Commerce. Both issues are formally not directly linked and should be treated separately. 
 
a. The Place of Incorporation
 
While the place of incorporation is an issue of concern, it must not be a major barrier for independent ICANNs policy development and decision making. As Janis Karklins has said, a lot here is "perception". However, symbolism plays a great role in politics. 
 
Hans Correll has proposed to look into models how other NGOs under US federal or state law have made special arrangements to be protected against political interference from the host country. A special US Presidential Executive Order, as mentioned by Hans Correll (with regard to ISDC, IASI and IFPRI), could make sense. It could also make sense to look into the practice of other non governmental global institutions which deal with "global issues" and cooperate with governments. 
 
Next to the "International Red Cross", the "World Soccer Federation" (FIFA) and the "International Olympic Committee" (IOC) are two interesting cases. Both private organisations are incorporated under Swiss legislation but do not have a formal relationship with the Swiss government or any other government. However, the events both the IOC and FIFA are organizing need a high involvement of governments, in particular of the government of the host country for the Olympic Games or the World Soccer Cup. Both events raise high sensible security issues and need a close relationship between the IOC/FIFA and the relevant government. Both FIFA and IOC have contracts with the relevant governments which define specific rights and responsibilities regardless of the fact, that IOC and FIFA are nongovernmental institutions and insofar not a subject under international law. However both organisation have a questionable record as openness and transparency is concerned and have been also involved in a number of corruption cases which also became the subject of congressional hearings (in the case of the Salt Lake City Olympic Winter Games in 2002). 
 
One other (complementary) option could be to have a second Headquarter and to incorporate ICANN under the jurisdiction of another (European/Asian/African) country. This would give ICANN more flexibility for cases where the legal seat could become a problem. It would be also a confidence building measure for stakeholders who mistrust US policy. And it would offer alternatives to litigation.  
 
Additionally, ICANN could consider to change the name of the corporation. While ICANN is already an established well-known trademark of its own, its name doesn´t say anything that it is an "international" or "global" corporation, different from a "national corporation". By keeping ICANN in the acronym, the corporation could be renamed into GICANN or WICANN (Global/World Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). This would be another confidence building measure and symbolize that ICANN, although incorporated under the jurisdiction of California, is not an American corporation. 
 
b. the Contractual Relationship with the US Government
 
This relationship between ICANN and the US Department of Commerce has two elements: One is the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), the other one is the IANA contract. Both contractual arrangements terminate September, 30, 2006. 
 
i. MoU 
 
The MoU between ICANN and the DOC should terminate as soon as possible under the condition that ICANN 
a. is embedded into a contractual system with all TLD registries and root server operators (relevant contractual arrangement can have different forms);
b. has a functioning internal and external control mechanism;
c. completes its reform which would guarantee that all processes are managed democratically, openly, transparent and in due course on the basis of agree procedures and under full involvement of all stakeholders and 
d. specifies its relationship with the GAC for cases which have a clear public policy component and are related to the political security and stability of the Internet.
It seems to me that there is still more time needed before ICANN can be released into independence. 
 
ii. IANA Contract
 
The IANA contract is different both with regard to the legal nature and the substance. Historically the US government has moved into a position to make the final decisions with regard to modifications, deletion and additions of TLD Root Zone Files to the Internet Root Server System, including ccTLDs. This is seen as a key element to maintain the security and stability of the Internet. The function to authorize the publication of TLD root zone files is a mainly technical function, however it has raised a high degree of political concern, in particular in the WSIS process. The unilateral oversight role of the US government is also used more and more by individual groups and national governments to justify efforts to develop additional or alternative root server systems which have the potential to undermine the unity of the global internet (in particular if it comes to iDNs on the TLD level).
It makes no sense to "internationalize" the oversight over the root in a way that instead of one government a group of government overtakes the functions as they has been executed by the US government. The Burr/Cade proposal has a lot of risks to contribute to a counterproductive politization of this technical issue. As Karkelins has said, only the question bow to compose such an "intergovernmental oversight group" could lead to endless controversial diplomatic battles. 
 
To reduce the level of concern there could be four interrelated efforts:
a. a unilateral declaration of the US government (along the lines of Article 62 of the Tunis Agenda) that the US government will not interfere into decisions regarding another country´s country code TLD. The language of such a unilateral declaration should go beyond the formulation, used in the declaration of the four principles from June, 30, 2005 and express not only "the recognition" of the concerns by national governments but indicate clearly, that nothing will be done to interfere into the management of the relevant ccTLD root zone file (in particular with regard to deletions of ccTLD Root Zone Files in the hidden root server).  
b. A more automated fomalized procedure for modifications of ccTLD root zone files, as developed and proposed under eIANA by NARSK
c. The development of a procedure for bilateral interaction among individual governments and IANA for cases, where a national government has a political concern with regard to the management of the national ccTLD and which can not be managed in cooperation between the ccTLD Registry and IANA.
d. The development of a procedure how to deal with individual cases with regard to deletions, modifications and additions of root zone files to the Internet root server system where two or more national governments have expressed a political concern. Such concerns could be discussed by an ad hoc joint GAC/IANA Committee which would be activated only if a formal request from more than one government for an individual case is made.

August, 14, 2006

 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ki_chango at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 23 12:44:10 2006
From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:44:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [council] .biz/info/org  proposed contracts - pricing implications
Message-ID: <20060823164410.68992.qmail@web54701.mail.yahoo.com>

Long email below, but is certainly worth reading...

 
<snip>
 
> From: BC secretariat [mailto:secretariat at bizconst.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3:15 PM
> To: BC List
> Subject: Vint Cerf/ICANN confirm my interpretation of .biz/info/org
> proposed contracts --
> tiered/differential domain pricing would not be forbidden
> 
> 
> From George Kirikos
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> I finally got the "official" word from Vint Cerf of ICANN, "on the
> record", 
> who confirmed that my interpretation is correct, that
> differential/tiered 
> pricing on a domain-by-domain basis would not be forbidden under
> the 
> .biz/info/org proposed contracts. This means that the registries
> could 
> charge $100,000/yr for sex.biz, $25,000/yr for movies.org, etc. if
> they 
> wanted to -- it would not be forbidden the way the proposed
> contracts are 
> currently written. This would represent a powerful pricing weapon
> for 
> registries, and a fundamental shift in possible domain name
> pricing, that 
> could lead them to emulate .tv-style price schedules.
> 
> One can read the proposed contracts at:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-28jul06.htm
> 
> Vint said it would be "suicide" for a registry to do it, because
> there'd be 
> the 6-month notice period to raise prices and the ability for
> registrants 
> to renew for up to 10 years at "old prices", that supposedly
> "protects" 
> registrants. Personally, as a business, my time horizon is a lot
> longer 
> than 10 years. I wonder if Vint felt introducing "SiteFinder" was
> suicide, 
> too....history has shown registries will do whatever they can get
> away 
> with, in order to maximize profits long-term and short-term.
> 
> I don't think Vint understands the business at all, to think that a
> lag of 
> 10 years will deter a profit-maximizing registry, esp. VeriSign
> should it 
> try to match this contractual precedent in .com (and history shows
> VeriSign 
> will always try to get "more", especially if "another registry" is
> able to 
> do something -- they used that tactic in .com renegotiations,
> saying 
> various terms were already in the .net contract, for instance).
> 
> Just to show one possible future, if PIR feels pressure or has a
> desire to 
> clean up porn from .org, it could announce that pussy.org (check
> its Alexa 
> ranking) will have its renewal price be $1 billion/yr. If it takes
> 10 years 
> to do it, many would wait, and it would not be considered "suicide"
> for 
> PIR. Who will stand against that as "we're protecting the internet
> and 
> children from porn", PIR might argue? Leaving this temptation in
> the 
> contract will likely become a slippery slope, in my opinion,
> leading to 
> profit-maximizing behaviour by registries to emulate .tv. Acting in
> the 
> interests of their shareholders, registries are *compelled* to
> maximize 
> profits.
> 
>   It can be used as a political weapon, too. If a registry
> disagreed with 
> the views or content of a website for which they were the registry,
> they 
> could raise the renewal price to $100 billion/yr. 10 years later,
> that 
> website would not exist at that address, and nothing in the
> contracts would 
> forbid this pricing behaviour. More likely, it would be used for
> profit 
> maximization (if Google.com is a $100 billion company, "certainly
> they are 
> benefiting from their domain name, and can afford our $1 billion/yr
> renewal 
> fee" one might say -- see the net neutrality debate and tiered
> pricing for 
> websites that phone and cable companies are pushing....). How far
> away is 
> tiered domain name pricing??
> 
> ICANN would be opening up a Pandora's Box through this contractual 
> loophole, to not forbid .tv style pricing. The mistake would not be
> able to 
> be corrected, as the contracts explicitly say that Consensus
> Policies do 
> not apply to pricing issues. Since presumptive renewal exists in
> these new 
> deals, the contracts are essentially going to live with ICANN
> forever, if 
> approved.
> 
> If this pricing power eventually got extended to .com, nothing
> would 
> prevent the renewal fee for Yahoo.com, GoDaddy.com, Google.com,
> Tucows.com, 
> Business.com, Sex.com or any other domain in a registry with
> similar terms 
> to reach $1 billion per year, or any other price that VeriSign or
> other 
> registry operators wanted to maximize its profits (net-neutrality
> debate is 
> similar, for bandwidth pricing to websites). You can imagine my 
> VeriSignSucks.com won't last longer than 10 years, if VeriSign had
> the 
> power to raise the renewal fee to $1 billion/year. :)
> 
> I believe that it is very important that this loophole be closed,
> in order 
> to not create the precedent that VeriSign could later exploit for
> .com, and 
> to protect registrants of .biz/org/info. If it is "suicide", as
> Vint 
> suggested, then surely a registry that would supposedly never use
> the power 
> would agree to remove the temptation by adding an appropriate term
> to the 
> contract. A registry not willing to add that term....well, you know
> what 
> they might be tempted to do later. If your business horizon is the
> next 
> quarter, this won't impact you. If it's beyond 10 years, it could
> impact 
> you. Can you live with that uncertainty??
> 
> Feel free to spread the word on the mailing lists or media, and
> contact 
> Vint (vint at google.com) or John Jeffrey (jeffrey at icann.org) or other
> ICANN 
> staffers if you want to confirm things and voice your concerns.
> Time is of 
> the essence, as the public comment period ends next Monday.
> Registrants DO 
> NOT know what is coming (the public comment board is almost empty),
> as it's 
> the summer holidays! (typical ICANN tactic, introduce 500+ page
> contracts 
> for public comment when everyone is on holiday)
> 
> Public comments can be sent using the addresses at:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-28jul06.htm
> 
> (be sure to send to all 3 email addresses for all 3 contracts, and
> also 
> click the link in the email ICANN will send you to authenticate
> your email 
> address, otherwise your comment doesn't get received)
> 
> There are a lot of other reasons to be opposed to the proposed
> contracts, 
> such as the presumptive renewal, the ability to sell traffic data,
> the 
> removal of price caps, etc. I will be writing a longer document
> soon, but 
> wanted to give everyone a heads-up, so that you can take
> appropriate action 
> on your own now, and corroborate things independently with Vint
> Cerf, John 
> Jeffrey or other ICANN people.
> 
> These are fundamentally flawed contracts, and should not be
> approved by 
> ICANN. The precedents these contracts would create are ominous,
> even worse 
> then the .com proposed settlement agreement (that the DoC has yet
> to 
> approve). Why is ICANN even renegotiating these registry
> agreements, when 
> the existing terms don't expire for several years in some cases,
> and the 
> GNSO PDP process for registry services is ongoing??
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George
> 416-588-0269
> 
> 
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri Aug 25 23:50:59 2006
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 12:50:59 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposals
Message-ID: <f31ae3560608252050n641c1ed0lb2d2313044bb4774@mail.gmail.com>

<http://info.intgovforum.org/wsl.php>

IGF Workshop proposals received by the August 24 deadline.  May be a
couple more to come.

34 proposals in total -- I wished there's been a few more, but
understand the difficulties involved in putting togther a proposal.

Adam
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Aug 26 01:20:10 2006
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 01:20:10 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposals
Message-ID: <s4efa1d9.032@gwia202.syr.edu>

HI, Adam
Thanks for keeping us informed! 

>>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 8/25/2006 11:50:59 PM >>>
>May be a couple more to come.

Shouldn't you adhere to your own rules? A Deadline is a deadline. Some
of us really had to sweat to make it. 

>34 proposals in total -- I wished there's been a few more

The number 34 is a good one, if you ask me. The IGF SEcretariat has
stated  that they have room for about 30 workshops. Less need to fight
over who gets in, eh? 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From seiiti.lists at googlemail.com  Sat Aug 26 10:24:09 2006
From: seiiti.lists at googlemail.com (Seiiti Arata)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 11:24:09 -0300
Subject: [governance] AG meeting - September
Message-ID: <ecd95cb50608260724u6275aa1q36fd79780ddb90b2@mail.gmail.com>

Hi - I am not sure: will AG meeting be in 6-7 September or 8-9?

Is there any public information on it?

Tks!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060826/46289737/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060826/46289737/attachment.txt>

From jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca  Sat Aug 26 19:40:51 2006
From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 19:40:51 -0400
Subject: [Fwd: [governance] GIGANET]
In-Reply-To: <44EF0814.8020101@umontreal.ca>
References: <44EF0814.8020101@umontreal.ca>
Message-ID: <44F0DC03.1090309@umontreal.ca>

Hi Wolfgang or anyone else involved in this,

Are there any further details about the plans for the GIGNANET event 
before the IGF, specifically about

A) who can apply to participate in the GIGANET meeting that was being 
planned for before the IGF
B) how the application process etc is going to work
and, perhaps most importantly at this stage
C)when and where it would take place

If not, just a preliminary indication of who the event is open to and 
what pre-IGF dates should be left open would be much appreciated.

Feel free to respond off list.

Thanks in advance,

Jeremy Shtern

Université de Montréal
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:     [governance] GIGANET
> Date:     Sun, 25 Jun 2006 12:21:06 +0200
> From:     Wolfgang Kleinwächter 
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> Reply-To:     governance at lists.cpsr.org, Wolfgang Kleinwächter 
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> To:     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>
>
>
> Dear list,
>
> attached is the final report of then recent academic IG symposium in 
> Rathen.
> Wolfgang
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sun Aug 27 10:57:17 2006
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 23:57:17 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposals
In-Reply-To: <s4efa1d9.031@gwia202.syr.edu>
References: <s4efa1d9.031@gwia202.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f31ae3560608270757v4c91067g9f73bdbcf75e856b@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/26/06, Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> HI, Adam
> Thanks for keeping us informed!
>
> >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 8/25/2006 11:50:59 PM >>>
> >May be a couple more to come.
>
> Shouldn't you adhere to your own rules? A Deadline is a deadline. Some
> of us really had to sweat to make it.
>

Effort made getting the proposals in is very much appreciated. I know
it wasn't easy.  But a couple of organizers seem to have asked for an
extra couple of days to finish off their proposals.  I don't know who
or why, but am happy to give people the chance. As we asked for
everyone to try and include all stakeholders, I am expecting some
civil society colleagues might be involved.

I want the MAG to be liberal in how we judge workshop proposals and
setting a precedent about the deadline might be unhelpful when it
comes to the selection process. I want as many viable workshops as
possible, they are the key part of the IGF.

Adam


> >34 proposals in total -- I wished there's been a few more
>
> The number 34 is a good one, if you ask me. The IGF SEcretariat has
> stated  that they have room for about 30 workshops. Less need to fight
> over who gets in, eh?
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ki_chango at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 27 16:59:05 2006
From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 13:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Question: eVote
Message-ID: <20060827205905.42032.qmail@web54712.mail.yahoo.com>

Avri,
the instructions request for the e-vote to be sent to:
'igc-voters at igcaucus.org', and the reply button would send it to
'igc-voters at tla-group.com'... is it all right either way as you seem
to suggest? thanks,

Mawaki
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at psg.com  Sun Aug 27 17:11:37 2006
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:11:37 -0400
Subject: [governance] Question: eVote
In-Reply-To: <20060827205905.42032.qmail@web54712.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060827205905.42032.qmail@web54712.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <FF7EC065-553C-4EC4-B556-6F4712A74605@psg.com>

hi,

no, it needs to come to igcaucus.org

if it says both, i still have a problem.

thanks for pointing it out.

a.

On 27 aug 2006, at 16.59, Mawaki Chango wrote:

> Avri,
> the instructions request for the e-vote to be sent to:
> 'igc-voters at igcaucus.org', and the reply button would send it to
> 'igc-voters at tla-group.com'... is it all right either way as you seem
> to suggest? thanks,
>
> Mawaki
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at psg.com  Sun Aug 27 17:32:44 2006
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:32:44 -0400
Subject: [governance] Question: eVote - correction
In-Reply-To: <FF7EC065-553C-4EC4-B556-6F4712A74605@psg.com>
References: <20060827205905.42032.qmail@web54712.mail.yahoo.com> <FF7EC065-553C-4EC4-B556-6F4712A74605@psg.com>
Message-ID: <614E6BAD-7A59-40B9-8E52-B0600ECBB436@psg.com>

Hi,

I am so used to making mistakes (weeks of them) in setting this up i  
assumed it was wrong when it wasn't.

igc-voters at tla-group.com is the same as igc-voters at igcaucus.org   
(different names, same machine) and works, i tested it, but i would  
have known it would work if i had just stopped to think for a second.

it is igcaucus.com that does not exist.

and if you just do a reply to igc-voters-eVote at tla-group.com then it  
comes to me as that is an admin address.

btw,  for anyone on this list who is not on the igc-voters list, i am  
running an experimental question on that mailing list at the moment  
leading up to the charter vote.  i am trying to figure out whether  
the system is useable as is or whether i need to take the time to put  
a web front end on it.  the test is in the form of a poll asking the  
voters on the list to tell me what they think i should do.   it is a  
one day poll, and i will go with the majority opinion.

a.

note: i suggest we keep discussions about the mechanics of the vote  
on igc-voters at igcaucus.org. though of course this list is open to  
whatever folks want to discuss - those not invovled in voting may  
just wish to avoid the message about it.


On 27 aug 2006, at 17.11, Avri Doria wrote:

> hi,
>
> no, it needs to come to igcaucus.org
>
> if it says both, i still have a problem.
>
> thanks for pointing it out.
>
> a.
>
> On 27 aug 2006, at 16.59, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>
>> Avri,
>> the instructions request for the e-vote to be sent to:
>> 'igc-voters at igcaucus.org', and the reply button would send it to
>> 'igc-voters at tla-group.com'... is it all right either way as you seem
>> to suggest? thanks,
>>
>> Mawaki
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Mon Aug 28 07:56:07 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:56:07 +0200
Subject: [Fwd: [governance] GIGANET]
In-Reply-To: <44F0DC03.1090309@umontreal.ca>
Message-ID: <C118A677.6AB9%drake@hei.unige.ch>

Hi Jeremy,

What I think we know for sure is that the event will be held at the
conference site on Sunday Oct. 29, attendance will be open, and it will
comprise three roundtable panels (state of the art/field, enhanced
cooperation, and distributed architecture of IG) and a business meeting.
Beyond this, the start-up group is working to hash out the details and
hopefully will have a preliminary announcement within a week or so.

Best,

Bill

> From: Jeremy Shtern <jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca>
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Shtern
> <jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca>
> Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 19:40:51 -0400
> To: Internet Governance Caucus <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [governance] GIGANET]
> 
> Hi Wolfgang or anyone else involved in this,
> 
> Are there any further details about the plans for the GIGNANET event
> before the IGF, specifically about
> 
> A) who can apply to participate in the GIGANET meeting that was being
> planned for before the IGF
> B) how the application process etc is going to work
> and, perhaps most importantly at this stage
> C)when and where it would take place
> 
> If not, just a preliminary indication of who the event is open to and
> what pre-IGF dates should be left open would be much appreciated.
> 
> Feel free to respond off list.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Jeremy Shtern
> 
> Université de Montréal
>> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject:     [governance] GIGANET
>> Date:     Sun, 25 Jun 2006 12:21:06 +0200
>> From:     Wolfgang Kleinwächter
>> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>> Reply-To:     governance at lists.cpsr.org, Wolfgang Kleinwächter
>> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>> To:     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear list,
>> 
>> attached is the final report of then recent academic IG symposium in
>> Rathen.
>> Wolfgang
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Aug 30 02:47:01 2006
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:47:01 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] the continuing NN debate
In-Reply-To: <20060830030612.67133DB448@smtp3.electricembers.net>
	(parminder@itforchange.net)
References: <20060830030612.67133DB448@smtp3.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <20060830064701.5A46A53811@quill.bollow.ch>

"Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> I know there has been a surfeit of NN news, but this is something forwarded
> to me by somehow who has been passively following the debate. And I think it
> is useful to illustrate that 'how we see' determines 'what we do' vis-�-vis
> the Internet as with everything else. I say this in connection with call for
> a framework convention on the Internet to determine the principles of how we
> see the Internet and what we expect it to do...
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> 
> http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/082006B.shtml 
> 
> Congress Poised to Unravel the Internet 
>     By Jeffrey Chester 
>     The Nation 
> 
>     Friday 18 August 2006 
> 
>     Lured by huge checks handed out by the country's top lobbyists, members
> of Congress could soon strike a blow against Internet freedom as they seek
> to resolve the hot-button controversy over preserving "network neutrality."
[...]

Would the proposed "Framework Convention on the Internet" be effective
at limiting the chances of the business interests for which these
lobbyists are working to co-opt the internet, turning it into
something that primarily serves those commercial interests?

If not, what positive benefits can we expect to come from this
Framework Convention?

If yes, what's the strategy for getting this Framework Convention
adopted, while preventing the really good, practically effective
parts from being taken out prior to the adoption of the Framework
Convention?

Greetings,
Norbert.


-- 
Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                       http://Norbert.ch
President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG        http://SIUG.ch
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Aug 31 03:35:46 2006
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:05:46 +0530
Subject: [governance] the continuing NN debate
In-Reply-To: <20060830064701.5A46A53811@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <20060831073601.497CDC98D5@smtp1.electricembers.net>


Nobert,

> Would the proposed "Framework Convention on the Internet" be effective
> at limiting the chances of the business interests for which these
> lobbyists are working to co-opt the internet, turning it into
> something that primarily serves those commercial interests?
> 
> If not, what positive benefits can we expect to come from this
> Framework Convention?

We need to appreciate the nature of the society from within which we are now
posing these questions. We are a highly 'regulated' society, and though it
may be romantic to think of 'the wild west' kinds of freedoms, the situation
of such 'freedoms' is often not very happy for those who live through them.

And since I cannot escape speaking from a Southern perspective, it is
noteworthy that in developed countries about 35-50 % of GDP goes through
public institutions and this figure is less than 15 % for developing
countries. And this seen together with the fact that GDP per person in
developing countries is a small fraction of that in developed countries, one
can easily see that those who live in developed countries live in a society
which has very strong, and heavily financed, public institutions, which
provide the framework of much of that is good and cherished in these
societies.        

(Though I surely think everyone has a right to engage with the levels of
regulation, and kinds of regulation, and move towards a better and a freer
society.) 

So when our 'real' world is so regulated and filled with all kinds of law, I
cannot understand how the digital world - which is reconstituting our
'reality' in so many ways - can be without laws and regulations. I think to
expect so is mere wishful thinking, and more importantly, contrary to our
common interests.

And if there are some who really wants to live in places with less law and
regulation, I'd invite them to live in less developed countries with poor
institutional structures, and if someone is aspiring for even more 'freedom'
some conflict ridden regions of the world will be the place to go. I do not
intend to be sarcastic - I merely want to make the point that law and
regulation are useful and necessary, and make our societies what they are
today. 

As globalization has been doing before it, the information society
phenomenon, and the digital world, is used by the dominant interests to
escape public interest regulation, the civil society cannot afford to help
their cause. Unfortunately, they often do it by default. 

The simple question is: Are the various international declarations and
agreements on rights etc useful to us or not. So why would such agreements
with respect to information society issues, and technology development and
use, not be useful. 

> 
> If yes, what's the strategy for getting this Framework Convention
> adopted, while preventing the really good, practically effective
> parts from being taken out prior to the adoption of the Framework
> Convention?

The strategy is for us to be there and fight it out, abstaining is not a
solution.

Thanks for your interest in the issue, and giving me an opportunity to
explain.

Parminder 
________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 12:17 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] the continuing NN debate
> 
> "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> > I know there has been a surfeit of NN news, but this is something
> forwarded
> > to me by somehow who has been passively following the debate. And I
> think it
> > is useful to illustrate that 'how we see' determines 'what we do' vis-à-
> vis
> > the Internet as with everything else. I say this in connection with call
> for
> > a framework convention on the Internet to determine the principles of
> how we
> > see the Internet and what we expect it to do...
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> >
> > http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/082006B.shtml
> >
> > Congress Poised to Unravel the Internet
> >     By Jeffrey Chester
> >     The Nation
> >
> >     Friday 18 August 2006
> >
> >     Lured by huge checks handed out by the country's top lobbyists,
> members
> > of Congress could soon strike a blow against Internet freedom as they
> seek
> > to resolve the hot-button controversy over preserving "network
> neutrality."
> [...]
> 
> Would the proposed "Framework Convention on the Internet" be effective
> at limiting the chances of the business interests for which these
> lobbyists are working to co-opt the internet, turning it into
> something that primarily serves those commercial interests?
> 
> If not, what positive benefits can we expect to come from this
> Framework Convention?
> 
> If yes, what's the strategy for getting this Framework Convention
> adopted, while preventing the really good, practically effective
> parts from being taken out prior to the adoption of the Framework
> Convention?
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert.
> 
> 
> --
> Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                       http://Norbert.ch
> President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG        http://SIUG.ch
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From db at dannybutt.net  Thu Aug 31 04:00:34 2006
From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 20:00:34 +1200
Subject: [governance] Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <5A96CE2D-50B3-4C2A-9E4B-74118E678C16@igc.org>
References: <r02010500-1046-44C3442700B811DBB6D3001124E13D4E@[192.168.2.3]> <5A96CE2D-50B3-4C2A-9E4B-74118E678C16@igc.org>
Message-ID: <D72EF7B9-19F4-4B5F-B3F0-8C8E260713AB@dannybutt.net>

Seeing as Parminder has raised the issue, I thought a few people here  
might be interested in this comment piece on Net Neutrality (aimed at  
Australasian media scholars and policy-makers, not the development  
community), which has proved to be widely unpopular :).

Regards,

Danny

----------------------------

Net Neutrality: No Easy Answers
<http://www.dannybutt.net/digital/2006/06/21/net-neutrality-no-easy- 
answers/>

Comment piece for Media International Australia, June 2006. http:// 
www.emsah.uq.edu.au/mia/
Pre-print, please do not cite or quote without permission.

Danny Butt, Suma Media Consulting

The concept of "Network Neutrality" has received a great deal of  
attention in the press recently, mostly due to so-far unsuccessful US  
telecommunications legislation proposals that required Internet  
Service Providers (ISPs) to carry any and all Internet traffic  
equally, rather than being able to prioritise certain traffic or  
charge differential rates for different kinds of content.

For the proponents of Net Neutrality, there has been and should be a  
clear separation between the provision of physical network  
infrastructure and the provision of content. Much as in the telephone  
system, the ISPs should be treated as "common carriers" which are in  
the business of providing access to all content on the Internet. In  
the U.S., for example, legislation until recently required cable  
television providers to carry all content packages and provide the  
latest technologies in all areas they served, even if it would be  
more economically efficient to provide only those content packages  
with which they had direct relationships. The policy justification  
for legislating for this openness springs from the limited  
competition in the telco/ISP/broadband area, meaning that users don't  
have true competition due to high switching costs and limited choice.

Net Neutrality proponents wish to see something similar for the  
Internet: a requirement that all ISPs provide access to all content  
on the Internet without different charges or reduced performance for  
content not approved or owned by the ISP itself. They want to see  
ISPs continue to charge purely on speed and volume rather than  
providing some services for free/cheap and making others more expensive.

At first glance, the issue seems like a straightforward benefit for  
consumers, worthy of public policy interventions. But for the ISPs  
and the providers of network services, different issues are at play  
that make it less simple. The Internet has transformed from a  
research network focussed on text and file transfer, to a highly  
flexible media and communications platform capable of emulating both  
the phone system and cable television. There are business pressures  
for ISPs to implement differential provision policies for Internet  
traffic for two reasons.

Firstly, Quality of Service (QoS) policies are required to prioritise  
important, time-sensitive traffic over less important traffic, when  
there are more requests than there is bandwidth available. For  
example, if you are video-conferencing, where maintenance of a  
certain data rate is necessary for uninterrupted viewing, under busy  
traffic conditions ISPs would like to be able to ensure you can see  
your conference uninterrupted, even if it slows down the person  
downloading a copy of a software programme next door. Similarly, if  
you are using Skype or a similar Voice-over-IP application to have an  
audio conversation, you would like to think that this could work even  
if you next door neighbour is downloading movies via a peer-to-peer  
file sharing application, where a few seconds delay is not going to  
make a difference to their experience. In Australia and New Zealand,  
a number of ISPs have already undertaken "bandwidth shaping" trials,  
or limiting the availability of bandwidth to traffic on common  
"ports" used by peer-to-peer applications.

In these examples, "non-neutral policies" that prioritise some types  
of traffic over others are an essential part of giving the customer  
what they want. The problem is that what constitutes benefit for the  
customer and benefit for the ISP's bottom line becomes blurred. This  
is the case when, for example, the ISP is also a telecommunications  
provider, and the extensive use of VoIP may be cannibalising their  
phone revenues, and the suppression of this traffic for "QoS  
purposes" just happens to reduce take up of VoIP. Or the ISP has a  
relationship with a content producer (e.g. major record labels), in  
which case preventing peer-to-peer traffic may play a role in  
encouraging users to download the music content on the ISP's website.

Differentiating between QoS discrimination for valid or anti- 
competitive reasons becomes even more difficult when next generation  
networks offer a "triple play" of voice, Internet, and movies from  
one provider. In this case, the ability to deliver specialised  
content services becomes part of the value proposition for the  
network, and motivates the consumer to purchase these services. Some  
ISPs argue that without the ability to guarantee certain use patterns  
they will not be able to fund the new networks and innovative  
services. For example, they would say, if you were considering  
signing up with ISP X for voice/Internet/movies, but read a review  
that their reliability on voice was not 100%, this would inhibit  
takeup of these new services.

While many small producers and consumer rights advocates (and large  
web companies who are not reliant on deals with highly branded  
content industries) have promoted Net Neutrality as equivalent to the  
deals between cable television networks and content providers, there  
are more complex interactions between content and infrastructure as  
intensive interactive traffic becomes the norm. In particular some of  
the new functionality such as that found in interactive television  
and gaming relies on a sophisticated relationship between content and  
hardware.

A useful analogy can be seen in the gaming console market, where the  
console manufacturers need to innovate at a hardware level as well as  
negotiate deals with content providers to create a portfolio of  
available titles [1]. By maintaining licensing control over who can  
develop titles, console manufacturers are able to capture up to a  
third of the retail value of each game sold, and this is integral to  
their profits. This is crucial because price pressure on consoles  
means that the profit margin on the hardware console is low. For  
console manufacturers, a suggestion that they should all be able to  
play each others' games is infeasible.

The Internet, and the World Wide Web in particular was developed  
around a separation of traffic protocols, user environment, and  
content formats. Part of what made the web so ubiquitous was that you  
could view content on any operating system (Windows, Unix, Mac), via  
any browser (Netscape, Internet Explorer), over any kind of Internet  
connection (modem, LAN, wireless). This is what allowed the network  
to have a sense of neutrality.

However, the shift in the web from a predominantly text-based  
asynchronous information exchange platform, to sophisticated real- 
time applications (audio-visual media in particular), have resulted  
in more diverse, often proprietary platforms that link content,  
transport, and interface in new ways. Examples include Windows Media  
Center, or Apples FairPlay DRM format/iPod hardware/iTunes software.  
This shift is driven by a combination of user-experience requirements  
(users expect integration) and an attempt to gain control of the  
hardware-software environment for areas of growth content to allow  
multiple revenue streams and brand control, along the lines of the  
console model. The degree to which this is a prerequisite for network  
innovation or constitutes anti-competitive behaviour is an policy  
question whose dimensions are complex and with remedies which are  
unclear.

A further complicating factor is that the highly branded content  
(music, movies) that is driving uptake of high-speed data services  
predominantly comes from offline sources where distributors not only  
controlled, but usually financed production. This is a very different  
model from the early Internet, where content was sometimes funded by  
ecommerce or advertising, but more commonly produced on a non- 
commercial basis. Or to put it another way, you can't charge people a  
premium for much of the text-only internet, but you can for episodes  
of Desperate Housewives. And if you're an ISP charging for access to  
those episodes, you're probably paying a lot of money for the rights  
to show them, so you are going to want to prioritise access to those  
over other video content.

The question of what viable economic models will look like under next- 
generation networks is central to the Net Neutrality debate. On one  
hand, it seems unrealistic to expect that the vertically integrated  
content & distribution model has no place on the Internet - to  
exclude it by legal means will probably delay the introduction of  
new, efficient distribution models that users want (see, for example,  
the role of iTunes in kick-starting the digital music downloads  
business). But it is also true that the public policy implications of  
Internet and telephone connectivity are much more substantial than  
those of a console operator or movie theatre: when people discuss the  
importance of information-literacy they are not usually talking about  
access to playing games on an X-Box or being able to watch a Disney  
film. There is a genuine public need for effective access to email  
and Internet communications.

Yet in the new Internet networks all these kinds of information are  
delivered through the same mechanism. A large part of the problem is  
that people in the US (in particular) assumed that the Internet was  
public because the protocol for transferring information is public.  
But the actual physical networks are owned primarily by private  
entities who interconnect via market transactions and they have many  
incentives to recoup their investment/seek profit by tying their  
access offering to what people actually want, i.e. content.  
Especially when, as Richard Bennett has noted, there is no money to  
be made in being an ISP without those services, and the Internet  
backbone providers are almost always telcos who are offsetting their  
costs with voice services [2].

The business models were different back in the early 1990s when it  
was primarily research institutions who owned the pipes, but that's  
not "neutral" or "public" in the way a government service is public.  
At least part of the blame for the current predicament can be laid at  
the feet of the "traditional Internet folks" who avoided government  
involvement in the Internet like the plague, and believed that a free  
market was the only way of preserving freedom of expression. A review  
of the history of other public utilities shows that in a market  
environment, governments might be the only mechanism that can  
realistically be subject to effective political influence in the  
public interest.

In summary, the Net Neutrality issue is not as simple as it might  
first appear. There could be genuine suppression of innovation from  
simplistic anti-discrimination legislation, yet imperfect competition  
is a feature of these networks which requires public policy remedies.  
The most important activity over the next few years will be  
clarifying what the most important public benefits of network access  
are, and developing mechanisms for supporting those benefits. In a  
rapidly changing network environment, these will need to be more  
sophisticated than simply arguing for a status quo, or worse,  
implementing poor legislation that is unresponsive to the business  
models that will shape the Internet's future.

Danny Butt  <http://www.dannybutt.net> is a consultant in new media,  
culture, and development, and partner at Suma Media Consulting  
<http://www.sumamedia.com>.

[1] For an excellent overview of the value chains in this sector, see  
Johns J. (2006)"Video games production networks: value capture, power  
relations and embeddedness." Journal of Economic Geography 6(2): 
151-180; doi:10.1093/jeg/lbi001

[2] See comment on Tim Berners-Lee's weblog: Berners-Lee, T. (2006)  
"Neutrality of the Net" , Accessed 27th May 2006.

-- 
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


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Aug 31 08:19:14 2006
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:49:14 +0530
Subject: [governance] Net Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <D72EF7B9-19F4-4B5F-B3F0-8C8E260713AB@dannybutt.net>
Message-ID: <20060831121920.3912FC9AF9@smtp1.electricembers.net>


Danny, I think this is an excellent analysis. 

The issue is not 'net neutrality', the issue is the public interest
objectives associated with the Internet. I myself believe that when Internet
is increasingly dominating so many sectors in so many ways, a simple
principle of undifferentiated Internet will simply not carry. 

Many technologists at first did not engage with public policy at all, and
now when some dangers of such a position are very evident, they are ready to
engage with it only in terms of some technical principles. And NN is a
technical principle, and it may in some situations serve public interest and
at other times it may not.

We need to deal with public policy in terms of clear sociopolitical values
and principles. This was the reason that when we had earlier in March made
the theme proposal for IGF meeting - though we took off from the NN debate -
we framed the issue as 'public-ness of the Internet'. And we also argued
that NN principle in itself says nothing. It is the publicness of the
Internet that is at stake.

And it can only be protected by first framing higher level principles of
what is the Internet and what are its sociopolitical objectives. And
subsequently specific law and regulation is informed by it. 

Parminder     

 
________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny Butt [mailto:db at dannybutt.net]
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 1:31 PM
> To: Internet Governance Caucus
> Subject: [governance] Net Neutrality
> 
> Seeing as Parminder has raised the issue, I thought a few people here
> might be interested in this comment piece on Net Neutrality (aimed at
> Australasian media scholars and policy-makers, not the development
> community), which has proved to be widely unpopular :).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Danny
> 
> ----------------------------
> 
> Net Neutrality: No Easy Answers
> <http://www.dannybutt.net/digital/2006/06/21/net-neutrality-no-easy-
> answers/>
> 
> Comment piece for Media International Australia, June 2006. http://
> www.emsah.uq.edu.au/mia/
> Pre-print, please do not cite or quote without permission.
> 
> Danny Butt, Suma Media Consulting
> 
> The concept of "Network Neutrality" has received a great deal of
> attention in the press recently, mostly due to so-far unsuccessful US
> telecommunications legislation proposals that required Internet
> Service Providers (ISPs) to carry any and all Internet traffic
> equally, rather than being able to prioritise certain traffic or
> charge differential rates for different kinds of content.
> 
> For the proponents of Net Neutrality, there has been and should be a
> clear separation between the provision of physical network
> infrastructure and the provision of content. Much as in the telephone
> system, the ISPs should be treated as "common carriers" which are in
> the business of providing access to all content on the Internet. In
> the U.S., for example, legislation until recently required cable
> television providers to carry all content packages and provide the
> latest technologies in all areas they served, even if it would be
> more economically efficient to provide only those content packages
> with which they had direct relationships. The policy justification
> for legislating for this openness springs from the limited
> competition in the telco/ISP/broadband area, meaning that users don't
> have true competition due to high switching costs and limited choice.
> 
> Net Neutrality proponents wish to see something similar for the
> Internet: a requirement that all ISPs provide access to all content
> on the Internet without different charges or reduced performance for
> content not approved or owned by the ISP itself. They want to see
> ISPs continue to charge purely on speed and volume rather than
> providing some services for free/cheap and making others more expensive.
> 
> At first glance, the issue seems like a straightforward benefit for
> consumers, worthy of public policy interventions. But for the ISPs
> and the providers of network services, different issues are at play
> that make it less simple. The Internet has transformed from a
> research network focussed on text and file transfer, to a highly
> flexible media and communications platform capable of emulating both
> the phone system and cable television. There are business pressures
> for ISPs to implement differential provision policies for Internet
> traffic for two reasons.
> 
> Firstly, Quality of Service (QoS) policies are required to prioritise
> important, time-sensitive traffic over less important traffic, when
> there are more requests than there is bandwidth available. For
> example, if you are video-conferencing, where maintenance of a
> certain data rate is necessary for uninterrupted viewing, under busy
> traffic conditions ISPs would like to be able to ensure you can see
> your conference uninterrupted, even if it slows down the person
> downloading a copy of a software programme next door. Similarly, if
> you are using Skype or a similar Voice-over-IP application to have an
> audio conversation, you would like to think that this could work even
> if you next door neighbour is downloading movies via a peer-to-peer
> file sharing application, where a few seconds delay is not going to
> make a difference to their experience. In Australia and New Zealand,
> a number of ISPs have already undertaken "bandwidth shaping" trials,
> or limiting the availability of bandwidth to traffic on common
> "ports" used by peer-to-peer applications.
> 
> In these examples, "non-neutral policies" that prioritise some types
> of traffic over others are an essential part of giving the customer
> what they want. The problem is that what constitutes benefit for the
> customer and benefit for the ISP's bottom line becomes blurred. This
> is the case when, for example, the ISP is also a telecommunications
> provider, and the extensive use of VoIP may be cannibalising their
> phone revenues, and the suppression of this traffic for "QoS
> purposes" just happens to reduce take up of VoIP. Or the ISP has a
> relationship with a content producer (e.g. major record labels), in
> which case preventing peer-to-peer traffic may play a role in
> encouraging users to download the music content on the ISP's website.
> 
> Differentiating between QoS discrimination for valid or anti-
> competitive reasons becomes even more difficult when next generation
> networks offer a "triple play" of voice, Internet, and movies from
> one provider. In this case, the ability to deliver specialised
> content services becomes part of the value proposition for the
> network, and motivates the consumer to purchase these services. Some
> ISPs argue that without the ability to guarantee certain use patterns
> they will not be able to fund the new networks and innovative
> services. For example, they would say, if you were considering
> signing up with ISP X for voice/Internet/movies, but read a review
> that their reliability on voice was not 100%, this would inhibit
> takeup of these new services.
> 
> While many small producers and consumer rights advocates (and large
> web companies who are not reliant on deals with highly branded
> content industries) have promoted Net Neutrality as equivalent to the
> deals between cable television networks and content providers, there
> are more complex interactions between content and infrastructure as
> intensive interactive traffic becomes the norm. In particular some of
> the new functionality such as that found in interactive television
> and gaming relies on a sophisticated relationship between content and
> hardware.
> 
> A useful analogy can be seen in the gaming console market, where the
> console manufacturers need to innovate at a hardware level as well as
> negotiate deals with content providers to create a portfolio of
> available titles [1]. By maintaining licensing control over who can
> develop titles, console manufacturers are able to capture up to a
> third of the retail value of each game sold, and this is integral to
> their profits. This is crucial because price pressure on consoles
> means that the profit margin on the hardware console is low. For
> console manufacturers, a suggestion that they should all be able to
> play each others' games is infeasible.
> 
> The Internet, and the World Wide Web in particular was developed
> around a separation of traffic protocols, user environment, and
> content formats. Part of what made the web so ubiquitous was that you
> could view content on any operating system (Windows, Unix, Mac), via
> any browser (Netscape, Internet Explorer), over any kind of Internet
> connection (modem, LAN, wireless). This is what allowed the network
> to have a sense of neutrality.
> 
> However, the shift in the web from a predominantly text-based
> asynchronous information exchange platform, to sophisticated real-
> time applications (audio-visual media in particular), have resulted
> in more diverse, often proprietary platforms that link content,
> transport, and interface in new ways. Examples include Windows Media
> Center, or Apples FairPlay DRM format/iPod hardware/iTunes software.
> This shift is driven by a combination of user-experience requirements
> (users expect integration) and an attempt to gain control of the
> hardware-software environment for areas of growth content to allow
> multiple revenue streams and brand control, along the lines of the
> console model. The degree to which this is a prerequisite for network
> innovation or constitutes anti-competitive behaviour is an policy
> question whose dimensions are complex and with remedies which are
> unclear.
> 
> A further complicating factor is that the highly branded content
> (music, movies) that is driving uptake of high-speed data services
> predominantly comes from offline sources where distributors not only
> controlled, but usually financed production. This is a very different
> model from the early Internet, where content was sometimes funded by
> ecommerce or advertising, but more commonly produced on a non-
> commercial basis. Or to put it another way, you can't charge people a
> premium for much of the text-only internet, but you can for episodes
> of Desperate Housewives. And if you're an ISP charging for access to
> those episodes, you're probably paying a lot of money for the rights
> to show them, so you are going to want to prioritise access to those
> over other video content.
> 
> The question of what viable economic models will look like under next-
> generation networks is central to the Net Neutrality debate. On one
> hand, it seems unrealistic to expect that the vertically integrated
> content & distribution model has no place on the Internet - to
> exclude it by legal means will probably delay the introduction of
> new, efficient distribution models that users want (see, for example,
> the role of iTunes in kick-starting the digital music downloads
> business). But it is also true that the public policy implications of
> Internet and telephone connectivity are much more substantial than
> those of a console operator or movie theatre: when people discuss the
> importance of information-literacy they are not usually talking about
> access to playing games on an X-Box or being able to watch a Disney
> film. There is a genuine public need for effective access to email
> and Internet communications.
> 
> Yet in the new Internet networks all these kinds of information are
> delivered through the same mechanism. A large part of the problem is
> that people in the US (in particular) assumed that the Internet was
> public because the protocol for transferring information is public.
> But the actual physical networks are owned primarily by private
> entities who interconnect via market transactions and they have many
> incentives to recoup their investment/seek profit by tying their
> access offering to what people actually want, i.e. content.
> Especially when, as Richard Bennett has noted, there is no money to
> be made in being an ISP without those services, and the Internet
> backbone providers are almost always telcos who are offsetting their
> costs with voice services [2].
> 
> The business models were different back in the early 1990s when it
> was primarily research institutions who owned the pipes, but that's
> not "neutral" or "public" in the way a government service is public.
> At least part of the blame for the current predicament can be laid at
> the feet of the "traditional Internet folks" who avoided government
> involvement in the Internet like the plague, and believed that a free
> market was the only way of preserving freedom of expression. A review
> of the history of other public utilities shows that in a market
> environment, governments might be the only mechanism that can
> realistically be subject to effective political influence in the
> public interest.
> 
> In summary, the Net Neutrality issue is not as simple as it might
> first appear. There could be genuine suppression of innovation from
> simplistic anti-discrimination legislation, yet imperfect competition
> is a feature of these networks which requires public policy remedies.
> The most important activity over the next few years will be
> clarifying what the most important public benefits of network access
> are, and developing mechanisms for supporting those benefits. In a
> rapidly changing network environment, these will need to be more
> sophisticated than simply arguing for a status quo, or worse,
> implementing poor legislation that is unresponsive to the business
> models that will shape the Internet's future.
> 
> Danny Butt  <http://www.dannybutt.net> is a consultant in new media,
> culture, and development, and partner at Suma Media Consulting
> <http://www.sumamedia.com>.
> 
> [1] For an excellent overview of the value chains in this sector, see
> Johns J. (2006)"Video games production networks: value capture, power
> relations and embeddedness." Journal of Economic Geography 6(2):
> 151-180; doi:10.1093/jeg/lbi001
> 
> [2] See comment on Tim Berners-Lee's weblog: Berners-Lee, T. (2006)
> "Neutrality of the Net" , Accessed 27th May 2006.
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Aug 29 23:06:04 2006
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:36:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] the continuing NN debate
In-Reply-To: <C118A677.6AB9%drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <20060830030612.67133DB448@smtp3.electricembers.net>



I know there has been a surfeit of NN news, but this is something forwarded
to me by somehow who has been passively following the debate. And I think it
is useful to illustrate that 'how we see' determines 'what we do' vis-à-vis
the Internet as with everything else. I say this in connection with call for
a framework convention on the Internet to determine the principles of how we
see the Internet and what we expect it to do...

Parminder 


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/082006B.shtml 

Congress Poised to Unravel the Internet 
    By Jeffrey Chester 
    The Nation 

    Friday 18 August 2006 

    Lured by huge checks handed out by the country's top lobbyists, members
of Congress could soon strike a blow against Internet freedom as they seek
to resolve the hot-button controversy over preserving "network neutrality."
The telecommunications reform bill now moving through Congress threatens to
be a major setback for those who hope that digital media can foster a more
democratic society. The bill not only precludes net neutrality safeguards
but also eliminates local community oversight of digital communications
provided by cable and phone giants. It sets the stage for the privatized,
consolidated and unregulated communications system that is at the core of
the phone and cable lobbies' political agenda. 

    In both the House and Senate versions of the bill, Americans are
described as "consumers" and "subscribers," not citizens deserving
substantial rights when it comes to the creation and distribution of digital
media. A handful of companies stand to gain incredible monopoly power from
such legislation, especially AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon. They
have already used their political clout in Washington to secure for the
phone and cable industries a stunning 98 percent control of the US
residential market for high-speed Internet. 

    Alaska Republican Senator Ted Stevens, the powerful Commerce Committee
chair, is trying to line up votes for his "Advanced Telecommunications and
Opportunities Reform Act." It was Stevens who called the Internet a "series
of tubes" as he tried to explain his bill. Now the subject of well-honed
satirical jabs from The Daily Show, as well as dozens of independently made
videos, Stevens is hunkering down to get his bill passed by the Senate when
it reconvenes in September. 

    But thanks to the work of groups like Save the Internet, many Senate
Democrats now oppose the bill because of its failure to address net
neutrality. (Disclosure: The Center for Digital Democracy, where I work, is
a member of that coalition.) Oregon Democrat Senator Ron Wyden, Maine
Republican Olympia Snowe and South Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan have joined
forces to protect the US Internet. Wyden has placed a "hold" on the bill,
requiring Stevens (and the phone and cable lobbies) to strong-arm sixty
colleagues to prevent a filibuster. But with a number of GOP senators in
tight races now fearful of opposing net neutrality, the bill's chances for
passage before the midterm election are slim. Stevens, however, may be able
to gain enough support for passage when Congress returns for a lame-duck
session. 

    Don't Ask, Don't Tell 

    Thus far, the strategy of the phone and cable lobbies has been to
dismiss concerns about net neutrality as either paranoid fantasies or
political discontent from progressives. "It's a made-up issue," AT&T CEO Ed
Whitacre said in early August at a meeting of state regulators. New
Hampshire Republican Senator John Sununu claims that net neutrality is "what
the liberal left have hung their hat on," suggesting that the outcry over
Internet freedom is more partisan than substantive. Other critics of net
neutrality, including many front groups, have tried to frame the debate
around unsubstantiated fears about users finding access to websites blocked,
pointing to a 2005 FCC policy statement that "consumers are entitled to
access the lawful Internet content of their choice." But the issue of
blocking has been purposefully raised to shift the focus from what should be
the real concerns about why the phone and cable giants are challenging
federal rules requiring nondiscriminatory treatment of digital content. 

    Verizon, Comcast and the others are terrified of the Internet as we know
it today. Net neutrality rules would jeopardize their far-reaching plans to
transform our digital communications system. Both the cable and phone
industries recognize that if their broadband pipes (now a monopoly) must be
operated in an open and neutral fashion, they will face real
competition--and drastically reduced revenues--from an ever-growing number
of lower-cost phone and video providers. Alcatel, a major technology company
helping Verizon and AT&T build their broadband networks, notes in one
business white paper that cable and phone companies are "really competing
with the Internet as a business model, which is even more formidable than
just competing with a few innovative service aggregators such as Google,
Yahoo and Skype." (Skype is a telephone service provider using the
Internet.) 

    Policy Racket 

    The goal of dominating the nation's principal broadband pipeline serving
all of our everyday (and ever-growing) communications needs is also a major
motivation behind opposition to net neutrality. Alcatel and other broadband
equipment firms are helping the phone and cable industries build what will
be a reconfigured Internet--one optimized to generate what they call "triple
play" profits from "high revenue services such as video, voice and
multimedia communications." Triple play means generating revenues from a
single customer who is using a bundle of services for phone, TV and PC--at
home, at work or via wireless devices. The corporate system emerging for the
United States (and elsewhere in the world) is being designed to boost how
much we spend on services, so phone and cable providers can increase what
they call our "ARPU" (average revenue per user). This is the "next
generation" Internet system being created for us, one purposefully designed
to facilitate the needs of a mass consumerist culture. 

    Absent net neutrality and other safeguards, the phone/cable plan seeks
to impose what is called a "policy-based" broadband system that creates
"rules" of service for every user and online content provider. How much one
can afford to spend would determine the range and quality of digital media
access. Broadband connections would be governed by ever-vigilant network
software engaged in "traffic policing" to insure each user couldn't exceed
the "granted resources" supervised by "admission control" technologies.
Mechanisms are being put in place so our monopoly providers can
"differentiate charging in real time for a wide range of applications and
events." Among the services that can form the basis of new revenues, notes
Alcatel, is online content related to "community, forums, Internet access,
information, news, find your way (navigation), marketing push, and health
monitoring." 

    Missing from the current legislative debate on communications is how the
plans of cable and phone companies threaten civic participation, the free
flow of information and meaningful competition. Nor do the House or Senate
versions of the bill insure that the public will receive high-speed Internet
service at a reasonable price. According to market analysts, the costs US
users pay for broadband service is more than eight times higher than what
subscribers pay in Japan and South Korea. (Japanese consumers pay a mere 75
cents per megabit. South Koreans are charged only 73 cents. But US users are
paying $6.10 per megabit. Internet service abroad is also much faster than
it is here.) 

    Why are US online users being held hostage to higher rates at slower
speeds? Blame the business plans of the phone and cable companies. As
technology pioneer Bob Frankston and PBS tech columnist Robert Cringely
recently explained , the phone and cable companies see our broadband future
as merely a "billable event." Frankston and Cringely urge us to be part of a
movement where we--and our communities--are not just passive generators of
corporate profit but proactive creators of our own digital futures. That
means we would become owners of the "last mile" of fiber wire, the key link
to the emerging broadband world. For about $17 a month, over ten years, the
high-speed connections coming to our homes would be ours--not in perpetual
hock to phone or cable monopolists. Under such a scenario, notes Cringely,
we would just pay around $2 a month for super-speed Internet access. 

    Regardless of whether Congress passes legislation in the fall,
progressives need to create a forward-looking telecom policy agenda. They
should seek to insure online access for low-income Americans, provide public
oversight of broadband services, foster the development of digital
communities and make it clear that the public's free speech rights online
are paramount. It's now time to help kill the Stevens "tube" bill and work
toward a digital future where Internet access is a right--and not dependent
on how much we can pay to "admission control."

________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance