From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Fri Dec 1 04:21:13 2006 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 09:21:13 -0000 Subject: [governance] New ICANN participation website References: <456EEDC2.6080605@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <000601c7152a$0d5ee100$0500a8c0@HOME> Just a quick announcement about a website I have set up for ICANN to provide remote participation for the Sao Paulo meeting starting on Monday. You can find it at: http://sp.icann.org/ It is broadly the same as the IGF2006.info that Jeremy Malcolm and I set up for the IGF, except it is official. I was approached by ICANN's communications head and asked if I would consider doing something similar. After some umming and erring on my part I decided that better me than someone else so I have been killing myself this week setting it up. The way ICANN sees it, it is very much a pilot site - although I know they are hoping it will prove its worth so it can become a more permanent fixture. As such I encourage you all to use it as much as you can. It is the same very simple registration process, wherein you immediately get your own blog and posting rights to the site. Because ICANN already has its own systems, processes, supporting organisations etc etc, unlike the IGF, I have set up two levels of registered user so those at the head of the various bodies will have the ability to create new chatrooms and forums. Hopefully this will encourage people in charge to interact with the site (rather than ignore or fear it), plus get everyone else to approach those in charge (or find out who it is) - for example, ask a Board member to set up a chatroom during the Board meeting. I have yet to set up all those accounts so bear with me. But it is an incredibly open website and covers the meeting pretty well I think, although of course any and all suggestions are welcome. If anyone's interested, I'm still not sure if I'm going to Sau Paulo or whether I'll stay in the UK, which might actually be more useful from an online participation perspective. If people want to complain about me personally setting up this site, feel free to email me, although you can expect a robust response. But apart from that, most importantly, please do use it. It opens up a wealth of opportunities and my hope is that if people find it useful it will encourage them (and that includes ICANN staff) to interact more online which - I hope I am right in assuming - everyone on this list views as a good thing. Oh, also I understand that through being tied up with this for a week, I have inadvertently delayed the sending of the letter to the IGF Secretariat about future online interaction between stakeholders. My sincerest apologies, I will get on the case straight away and post the letter as a last opportunity for people to put their names to it. The ICANN site again is at http://sp.icann.org/. Kieren McCarthy ____________________________________________________________ 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 Fri Dec 1 05:11:19 2006 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:11:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] ITU IG Resolution In-Reply-To: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043961@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043961@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <954259bd0612010211m27d2ed4eof35ee38ed648469a@mail.gmail.com> Dear Wolfgang, dear all, Just some clarifications you may find interesting on "enhanced cooperation" and the ITU plenipotentiary Resolution 102 adopted in Antalya. I hope these few elements will be useful to help clarify some of the aspects discussed in this thread, as I know it is hard to make sense of the decisions adopted in Antalya from the outside :-) As you know, there is a distinction within the Tunis Agenda between para 69 that recognizes the need for "enhanced cooperation, in the future" and paragraph 71 that refers to "the process towards enhanced cooperation". The first one is a goal, the second is the way to achieve it. The full text of paragraph 69 is : "We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation, in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues." The expression "government's roles and responsibilities" of course refers to paragraph 35 a) of Tunis, and specifically its second sentence. Paragraph 70 further indicates that "such cooperation should include the development of globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical internet resources". Paragraph 71 is actually composed of two distinct sentences. The first one, and most quoted, says : "The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN Secretary-General, involving all relevant organizations by the end of the first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their respective roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal process, and responsive to innovation". This transversal process is not clearly defined and interrogations among governments as well as civil society remain as to what has actually begun under the auspices of Nitin Desai. The second sentence, less often referred to, is : "Relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation". This second sentence has been interpreted during the negociations in Antalya as meaning an "internal" process within relevant organizations, in that case the ITU. This is the rationale for the important paragraphs 5 and 6 of the part "resolves to instruct the Secretary General" of Resolution 102. According to these paragraphs, the ITU SG is instructed : 5 "to take the necessary steps in ITU's own internal process towards enhanced cooperation on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet as expressed in paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda" 6 "as a concrete step, to organize consultations on these issues among the ITU Membership and other relevant stakeholders, in order to prepare and submit proposals, based on those consultations and contributions from the ITU Membership, to the 2007 session of the Council, through the Working Group on WSIS (WG-WSIS). " The exact modalities of these consultations during 2007 naturally have to be determined and suggestions on that topic will certainly be useful. It is the occasion to mention that, in parallel, the ITU Plenipot has adopted another Resolution (GT/PLEN/7) establishing a Working Group to conduct a "study on the participation of all relevant stakeholders in the activities of the Union related to the World Summit on the Information society", with rather detailed terms of reference that include the "draft[ing] of possible amendments to the ITU basic texts that might be needed in order to facilitate the participation of all relevant stakeholders in the activities of ITU related to WSIS". This parallel process can play a role in discussing appropriate modalities for the consultations above. But there again, the process and the working methods of the group have to be established and these things do take time in the ITU framework. Last but not least, the formulation "management of Internet domain names and addresses and other internet resources within the mandate of ITU" was a compromise formulation between governments who wanted to keep the limitative expression "domain names and addresses" and those who wanted the broader expression of "Internet resources". The addition of the expression "within the mandate of ITU" is a caveat that on the one hand limits the potentially extensive expression "Internet resources" within the boundaries of the existing ITU mandate (hence no mission creep) and on the other hand allows for an evolution of thie scope of action, should the ITU mandate be refined in that respect in future ITU Plenipots. In general terms, the ITU Plenipot in Antalya was, among other things, an exercise in translating the results of WSIS in the ITU framework. I'll be in Sao Paolo next week for the ICANN meeting and will be happy to discuss those issues further with those who will attend. Looking forward to seeing some of you there. Best to you all Bertrand On 11/27/06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > Dear list, > > it is worth to "study" the final ITU PP Press release. > > http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2006/27.html > > Under the discussed items (Section II: Looking Ahead), which sets the > priorities for the next four years, next to WSIS implementation with regard > to Action Lines there is the "Internet enhanced cooperation" as a second > priority. What does it mean? Priority six is the convening of a World > Telecommunication Policy Forum in 2009 for Internet related public policy > issues. It says "such as intreroperabiloity and convergence" but under such > a general healdine everything can be disucssed. is this a counter-forum to > the IGF, dominated by governments without civil society? The study process > whether CS will become included or not in ITU will be over only in 2010 and > then ITU will make a decision how to invite CS. Obvioulsy they want to build > the house first and then invite the inhabitants. > > And here is what Mr. Toure said at the closing press conference: "Along > with my dedicated staff and colleagues at ITU, I will build bridges to a > digital future through the active and meaningful participation of all > stakeholders, including the private sector and civil society dealing with > ICT. I believe that teamwork is the key to success." > > With regard to IG he added: "The membership has set a task to deal with > International Public Policy issues related to the internet in which ITU has > been involved for many years in developing standards and providing > services." Responding to a question on ITU's role in internet governance and > management of the internet, Dr Touré said, "ITU is not looking at taking > over internet governance. ITU very well positioned to manage internet > resources and will continue to contribute to the growth of the internet in > its area of expertise and along with all stakeholders." > > Also the language of the headline of the Press Release is interesting and > worth to study. It says "ITU Conference signals enhanced international > cooperation in ICT - Plenipotentiary Conference endorses expanded mandate > for ITU < > https://server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de/newsroom/press_releases/2006/27.html> > ." What does it mean? What is the "expanded mandate". Is "Enhanced > Cooperation on Internet Governance" as defined bt the Tunis Summit now part > of a bigger process of "enhanced international cooperation in ICT". Is Tunis > subordinated? Is there a linkage? Does somebody think that ICANN is a > subsidary body of the ITU with limited responsibilities for some elements of > the DNS like new gTLDs? Toure says that ITU is not looking at taking over > Internet Governance but is "very well positioned to manage internet > resources". Very interesting and slippery language which gives a lot of > space for interpretation. > > Best wishes (and prepare your 2009 Travel Budget for two big Internet > Governance Conferences: IGF in Cairo and WTPF elswhere). > > wolfgang > > > > ________________________________ > > Fra: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] > Sendt: ma 27-11-2006 02:25 > Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller; jeanette at wz-berlin.de > Cc: ajp at glocom.ac.jp > Emne: Re: [governance] ITU IG Resolution > > > > Jeanette, Adam, Milton, everyone, > > Re the USG stance re ccTLDs and sovereign nations, remember I > deconstructed that on this list right after the Dept of Commerce's NTIA > issued its '4 principles' statement June '05: > > USG now recognizes governments of nations have final say over their own > ccTLDs, not usg or icann. Or whomever happens to be operating it at > the moment. That's realpolitik 101 of ccTLDs these days. > > June 05 the US DOC/NTIA said: " Governments have legitimate interest in > the management of their country code top level domains (ccTLD). The > United States recognizes that governments have legitimate public policy > and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of their ccTLD. > As such, the United States is committed to working with the > international community to address these concerns, bearing in mind the > fundamental need to ensure stability and security of the Internet's > DNS." > > My impression is ICANN has gotten the message and is working harder to > assist governments with ccTLD concerns of one sort or anothers. ICANN > will need more support from governments, not just USG, in the next moves > in the chess game as Wolfgang put it, than in the past. > > (And of course, if explicit pro-IPR/UDRP language can be inserted in > bilateral trade agreements, all the better from the perspective of this > US admin and oh yeah the usual suspect powerhouse DC lobby groups.) > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>> jeanette at wz-berlin.de 11/24/2006 12:10 PM >>> > > > Milton Mueller schrieb: > > Adam: > > These free trade agreements that attempt to globalize US anti-privacy > > > Whois policies are truly evil things, and indicate the degree to > which > > US of A policy is driven by intellectual property interests. > > > > But I am not sure what they have to do with the ITU, except that the > > USA has been promoting WTO and trade agreements as a way of > bypassing > > ITU power over the international telecom sector for a decade now. > > It seems, the USG also bypasses ICANN and assumes that contracting > governments have full control over the management of their ccTLD. One > wonders what the ccNSO is for if the US government can negotiate all > relevant matters in bilateral contracts, no? > jeanette > > > > >>>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 11/24/2006 6:04 AM >>> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 11/24/06 12:34 AM, "Bret Fausett" > > wrote: > >>> That's an amazing resolution. My hat is off to anyone who can > write > > six > >>> pages on the management of Internet domain names and addresses > and > > not > >>> mention ICANN even once! > >> Amazing perhaps, but also entirely predictable; did anyone really > > believe > >> the spin that the Tunis Agenda constituted a unanimous > > intergovernmental > >> bear hug for ICANN? Moreover, while the TA called for enhanced > > cooperation > >> on public policies to be started by the UN > > Secretary-General---involving all > >> relevant organizations and stakeholders---by the end of the first > > quarter of > >> 2006, it seems that not much has happened besides some sotto vocci, > >> selective bilateral/small-n consultations. Not surprising then > that > >> governments would want to see the agenda carried forward on a > > multilateral > >> basis in the ITU. Of course, the "involving all stakeholders" > > language may > >> be of little practical consequence in the ITU without reforms that > > will not > >> be forthcoming in the near term. > >> > >> Some other notable bits of word-craft for deconstruction: > >> > >> "the development of Internet Protocol (IP)-based networks and the > > Internet, > >> taking into account the requirements, features and interoperability > > of > >> next-generation networks (NGN);" > >> > >> " Member States represent the interests of the population of the > > country or > >> territory for which a ccTLD has been delegated;" > > > > > > > > This is an interesting problem. The US (USTR) is writing clauses > > into bilateral free trade agreements requiring the ccTLDs of the > > country signing the FTA to adopt some form of dispute resolution > > policy. Example, words from the US/AU agreement goes on to also > > indicate whois "each Party shall require that the management of its > > country-code top-level domain (ccTLD) provide an appropriate > > procedure for the settlement of disputes, based on the principles > > established in the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy. > > > > 2. Each Party shall require that the management of its ccTLD provide > > > online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact > > information for domain-name registrants." > > > > Search string such as "ccTLD free trade agreement" in google finds a > > bunch. > > > > I would think one way to read this is that US also thinks member > > states control ccTLDs and can enforce rules on them. Not what I > > thought the US position was in WSIS. But I might be getting > > hot&bothered over a non-issue... > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> " the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other > > Internet > >> resources within the mandate of ITU." [phrase appears five times > in > > the > >> text] > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Bill > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Dec 1 06:56:36 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 17:26:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITU IG Resolution In-Reply-To: <3629.68.198.123.72.1164926580.squirrel@webmail.apc.org> Message-ID: <20061201115645.B06225C72@smtp2.electricembers.net> Willie wrote: > I wasn't sure whether Milton's suggestion of looking at the analogy of the > free software movement meant getting an exact equivalent or rather > producing a simulation of 'enhanced cooperation', which could include a > legal-type instrument addressing the ideal-type public policy principles > for the management of critical internet resources and then getting some > kind of rolling symbolic buy in from governments...like an inverse of the > bilateral free trade agreements.. > I think this is the only way Milton's suggestion can be interpreted - I mean as a broad ' legal-type instrument addressing the ideal-type public policy principles'. However, there seems to be a confusion whether the 'enhanced cooperation' on public policy issues mandated in Tunis agenda is meant only for issues connected to 'critical internet resources' or whether the term has a wider ambit covering all Internet policy issues at the global level. A few posts in this string seem to suggest the narrow conception of 'enhanced cooperation'. My reading of the document however is that it is clearly the later - though the language of the document does shows the strains of a complexly negotiated document, where some countries were going to great lengths in order to minimize any new public policy roles at the global level. Para 58 and 59 clearly states that a broader rather than a narrow conception of public policy is to be taken. 58. We recognize that Internet governance includes more than Internet naming and addressing. It also includes other significant public policy issues such as, inter alia, critical Internet resources, the security and safety of the Internet, and developmental aspects and issues pertaining to the use of the Internet. 59. We recognize that Internet governance includes social, economic and technical issues including affordability, reliability and quality of service. Para 60 says that many of these important public policy issues 'require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms". Para 61 is very important, though it is not often referred to in the post Tunis period. It clearly speaks of initiating an inclusive multi-lateral process. And it also speaks of a suitable framework or mechanisms. Since this is in continuation of the concerns about important 'public policy issues requiring attention' (para 60) such a process, framework and mechanism is clearly about IG related public policy issues. 61. We are convinced that there is a need to initiate, and reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil society and international organizations, in their respective roles. This process could envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanisms, where justified, thus spurring the ongoing and active evolution of the current arrangements in order to synergize the efforts in this regard. Apparently after this 'agreement' on higher level principles and broad directions things were unable to work towards a clear process, and a somewhat loose concept of 'enhanced cooperation' was introduced. However when it first appears in para 69 it is still about a broad and inclusive conception of public policy issues, as above 69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues. Only in para 70 does the phrase 'public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources' appear. 70. Using relevant international organizations, such cooperation should include the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources. In this regard, we call upon the organizations responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet to contribute to creating an environment that facilitates this development of public policy principles. However, here too this phrase about critical Internet resources is meant to be inclusive of these issues, and not exclusive of others. It is a call for ICANNs of this world to heed. I think it is evident that the Tunis agenda is clear on calling for an inclusive multilateral and multi-stakeholder process to address all IG related public policy issues and not only those related to critical Internet resources. The term 'enhanced cooperation' used later is also inclusive of all such issues. 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: wcurrie at apc.org [mailto:wcurrie at apc.org] > Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 4:13 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: RE: [governance] ITU IG Resolution > > 'An early and pro-active engagement with the 'public policy and its > institutional arrangement issues' can still serve to give a greater handle > to the civil society to promote (and safeguard) public interest.' > > I agree with Parminder that we need to engage the issue directly and think > Adam's suggestion of a letter to Ntin Desai from the IGC is a good start, > followed by engaging the new UN SG and ITU SG in the new year. > > I wasn't sure whether Milton's suggestion of looking at the analogy of the > free software movement meant getting an exact equivalent or rather > producing a simulation of 'enhanced cooperation', which could include a > legal-type instrument addressing the ideal-type public policy principles > for the management of critical internet resources and then getting some > kind of rolling symbolic buy in from governments...like an inverse of the > bilateral free trade agreements.. > > the frontier on this issue is still there: USG, some developed country > governments, ICANN, ISOC and the private sector on one side vs EU, ITU, > most developing country governments and civil society on the other.. > is this a case of maximising support around a single narrow set of demands > reagarding internet resources or putting together the broad range of > public policy issues on IG broadly understood. > > My inclination is to go for the latter but use what was narrowly agreed - > enhanced cooperation - as the 'wedge' issue. Broadening it would put > pressure on the developing countries that are uncomfortable with rights > issues, but it may be possible to extract some of the democratic > developing countries to take a lead such as India, Brazil and South > Africa..and have three frontiers - 1. the hegemonic US bloc (USG, Japan, > Australia, ICANN, private sector, 2. the democratic bloc (EU, democratic > developing countries, civil society with Amnesty International) and 3. the > authoritarian bloc (ITU, China, Iran etc)- this, of course, may just be > wishful thinking aloud...when one thinks say of the rigidity of the G77 or > how India is operating within the US sphere of influence over nuclear and > economic issues... > > willie > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Mueller at syr.edu Fri Dec 1 12:47:04 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 12:47:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] ITU IG Resolution Message-ID: >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 11/30/2006 5:58 PM >>> >This fits with what I'm thinking: a letter asking for >progress/update, why aren't we being told, and we would like to be >involved. And cc'ing govt and others we know interested to see if >they will also then ask the same questions might be helpful. Sounds good to me ____________________________________________________________ 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 Fri Dec 1 14:01:21 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 14:01:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship Message-ID: ICANN's 8-year experiment in nongovernmental governance of the Internet's domain name system all but came to an end November 30. The U.S. Department of Commerce announced that it, and not ICANN, would be the ultimate "decider" when it comes to dot com. Dot com is the largest and most valuable Internet top level domain, accounting for about 50% of the global market. Read the complete story at the IGP site: http://internetgovernance.org/news.html#ICANNVeriSignSettlement_113006 ____________________________________________________________ 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 veni at veni.com Fri Dec 1 16:15:42 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:15:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200612012113.kB1LDRg3020050@mxr.isoc.bg> When you say "most valuable", I guess you mean the US? Here's an interesting story: An American (Milton) is discussing an US department, dealing with an US company, about something that concerns US customers. But your picture would not be full if you don't involve the US-based non-profit, which is the only one in the equation that has international approach on a number of issues. I start to think that if ICANN didn't exist it, we would have to create it, or else all the steam would go to the government :) veni P.S. Why don't you ask someone from the 10 million .de domain name holders, if they consider .com as "most valuable TLD"? At 02:01 PM 01.12.2006 '?.'Ъ▄Ж -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: >ICANN's 8-year experiment in nongovernmental governance of the >Internet's domain name system all but came to an end November 30. The >U.S. Department of Commerce announced that it, and not ICANN, would be >the ultimate "decider" when it comes to dot com. Dot com is the largest >and most valuable Internet top level domain, accounting for about 50% of >the global market. > >Read the complete story at the IGP site: >http://internetgovernance.org/news.html#ICANNVeriSignSettlement_113006 >____________________________________________________________ >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 Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Dec 2 03:49:02 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 09:49:02 +0100 Subject: SV: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship References: Message-ID: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F304399C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear Milton, thanks very much for posting this. What are the consequences of this statement? Does it mean that the DOC will claim final authority over all gTLDs? Or is the .co,m case just an exception, unique and can be explained only with the special history? And what about .net? The 2000 contract included both .org and .net. The original idea was to allocate .org and .net to two new registries to stimulate competition. But .net was re-allocated to VeriSign. If the DOC says it is respionsible for "compeition" does it mean the .net contract needs also approval and has to be reconsidered? Or is competition seen as an internal US affa5ri, ignoring the rest of the world? Best regards wolfgang ________________________________ Fra: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] Sendt: fr 01-12-2006 20:01 Til: Governance Emne: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship ICANN's 8-year experiment in nongovernmental governance of the Internet's domain name system all but came to an end November 30. The U.S. Department of Commerce announced that it, and not ICANN, would be the ultimate "decider" when it comes to dot com. Dot com is the largest and most valuable Internet top level domain, accounting for about 50% of the global market. Read the complete story at the IGP site: http://internetgovernance.org/news.html#ICANNVeriSignSettlement_113006 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Dec 2 07:02:18 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 13:02:18 +0100 Subject: SV: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F304399C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F304399C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <9BAC7018-5F2E-48EF-9284-8B224497F59C@psg.com> On 2 dec 2006, at 09.49, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > Does it mean that the DOC will claim final authority over all gTLDs? i think it means that the us gov will claim authority over anything, any time they want to. especially when it comes to things that others might think come under ICANN's purview. 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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Sat Dec 2 07:43:09 2006 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 13:43:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] ITU IG Resolution In-Reply-To: <456EEA73.6060202@bertola.eu.org> References: <456EEA73.6060202@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <457174DD.5080002@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Milton Mueller ha scritto: >> the free >> software movement has gained leverage over the policy debate regarding >> its issues by creating its own institution -- the general public license >> -- embodying its values. Are there analogues that could be pursued in >> the IG arena? > On the Internet, you need to attach added value to something for people > to embrace it. So, can we imagine anything practically feasible and > having sensible advantages over the present DNS system and arrangements? I think this does not need to be a technical approach (the GPL isn't either). We can also come up with legal or institutional responses that incorporate the values of CS. Wolfgang had such an idea when he asked if ICANN could also enter into a Joint Project Agreement with the EU and others. Not sure if this would be CS-driven and so on, but that's the sort of out-of-the-box-thinking that's needed here. Another one is the A2K treaty proposal for WIPO that came out of CS. The dynamic coalition on the framework convention could be a space to develop these ideas. I also would be interested in hearing about its membership, working plan etc. Best, Ralf PS: By the way: Do people see a strategic or tactical problem if CS folks are a) coordinators of a CS caucus and at the same time b) coordinators of a multi-stakeholder coalition on the same subject? This does apply at least to Parminer for IG and myself for privacy. I was thinking of stepping down as Privacy Caucus coordinator, but the caucus is not very active anyway and I am afraid it could die. But in general, I see potential problems if you can't be a loud and outspoken CS advocacy coordinator anymore, because you have to be a "neutral" multistakeholder facilitator at the same time. ____________________________________________________________ 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 Dec 2 12:55:10 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 12:55:10 -0500 Subject: SV: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship Message-ID: As of now the decision applies only to .com. But .com is half the global domain name market, and about 70% of the gTLD market. (That, by the way, is apparently what Veni means by it being "most valuable." And of course it's crazy to suggests that .com is an "American" domain, I guess he hasn't seen the millions of .com names registered by Chinese, German, British, French, etc., etc., etc., companies). Looking to the future, it is unclear whether we will remain in the world of ".com exceptionalism" or whether this becomes a precedent. The decision suggests that on any controversial, high-stakes issue, the buck cannot stop with ICANN. The US Commerce Dept. is *permanently* a critical feature of the gTLD regulatory process. I do not think DoC would claim final authority over smaller, newer gTLDs. But remember that VeriSign is not just the .com operator, it is also the operational source of the root zone file. And the governing document for both is the old Cooperative Agreement that goes back to the NSF days and was taken over by Commerce in 1997. What this recent decision does is make it clearer than ever that we are never getting rid of that mechanism. >>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter 12/2/2006 3:49:02 AM >>> Dear Milton, thanks very much for posting this. What are the consequences of this statement? Does it mean that the DOC will claim final authority over all gTLDs? Or is the .co,m case just an exception, unique and can be explained only with the special history? And what about .net? The 2000 contract included both .org and .net. The original idea was to allocate .org and .net to two new registries to stimulate competition. But .net was re-allocated to VeriSign. If the DOC says it is respionsible for "compeition" does it mean the .net contract needs also approval and has to be reconsidered? Or is competition seen as an internal US affa5ri, ignoring the rest of the world? Best regards wolfgang ________________________________ Fra: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] Sendt: fr 01-12-2006 20:01 Til: Governance Emne: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship ICANN's 8-year experiment in nongovernmental governance of the Internet's domain name system all but came to an end November 30. The U.S. Department of Commerce announced that it, and not ICANN, would be the ultimate "decider" when it comes to dot com. Dot com is the largest and most valuable Internet top level domain, accounting for about 50% of the global market. Read the complete story at the IGP site: http://internetgovernance.org/news.html#ICANNVeriSignSettlement_113006 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Dec 2 13:05:57 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 19:05:57 +0100 Subject: SV: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <82F21B5C-1CE9-4B7A-9AF4-AD513010CCB6@psg.com> On 2 dec 2006, at 18.55, Milton Mueller wrote: > What this recent decision does is make it clearer than ever that we > are never getting rid of that mechanism. that is a very long time. while i may be very cynical about the role of the US Gov and DOC, i do not believe that is is never. something will precipitate a change sooner or later, and moves like this are very likely to spur the imaginations of those who want to find a way out of this situation. of course part of the problem is that some, perhaps many, think this is a good thing. 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 froomkin at law.miami.edu Sat Dec 2 14:16:31 2006 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 14:16:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: SV: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It also reminds us that at times the DoC is more interested (or, if you prefer, more effective) in securing the public interest than ICANN. On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Milton Mueller wrote: > As of now the decision applies only to .com. But .com is half the global domain name market, and about 70% of the gTLD market. (That, by the way, is apparently what Veni means by it being "most valuable." And of course it's crazy to suggests that .com is an "American" domain, I guess he hasn't seen the millions of .com names registered by Chinese, German, British, French, etc., etc., etc., companies). > > Looking to the future, it is unclear whether we will remain in the world of ".com exceptionalism" or whether this becomes a precedent. The decision suggests that on any controversial, high-stakes issue, the buck cannot stop with ICANN. The US Commerce Dept. is *permanently* a critical feature of the gTLD regulatory process. > > I do not think DoC would claim final authority over smaller, newer gTLDs. But remember that VeriSign is not just the .com operator, it is also the operational source of the root zone file. And the governing document for both is the old Cooperative Agreement that goes back to the NSF days and was taken over by Commerce in 1997. What this recent decision does is make it clearer than ever that we are never getting rid of that mechanism. > >>>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter 12/2/2006 3:49:02 AM >>> > Dear Milton, > > thanks very much for posting this. > > What are the consequences of this statement? Does it mean that the DOC will claim final authority over all gTLDs? Or is the .co,m case just an exception, unique and can be explained only with the special history? And what about .net? The 2000 contract included both .org and .net. The original idea was to allocate .org and .net to two new registries to stimulate competition. But .net was re-allocated to VeriSign. If the DOC says it is respionsible for "compeition" does it mean the .net contract needs also approval and has to be reconsidered? Or is competition seen as an internal US affa5ri, ignoring the rest of the world? > > Best regards > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Fra: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] > Sendt: fr 01-12-2006 20:01 > Til: Governance > Emne: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship > > > > ICANN's 8-year experiment in nongovernmental governance of the > Internet's domain name system all but came to an end November 30. The > U.S. Department of Commerce announced that it, and not ICANN, would be > the ultimate "decider" when it comes to dot com. Dot com is the largest > and most valuable Internet top level domain, accounting for about 50% of > the global market. > > Read the complete story at the IGP site: > http://internetgovernance.org/news.html#ICANNVeriSignSettlement_113006 > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- 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 aizu at anr.org Sat Dec 2 14:34:09 2006 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 04:34:09 +0900 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: References: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F304399C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <9BAC7018-5F2E-48EF-9284-8B224497F59C@psg.com> Message-ID: I naiively had thought that USG/DOC has had the ultimate authority over .com and any other resources, despite, or in addition to ICANN's authority which is under the mercy of USG anyway with the MoU. Is there any really new element between DOC and VeriSign to the existing cooperative agreement? Does VeriSingh have more "freedom" than before? Has ICANN really been undermined (looks like)? Are these change very clear, or subject of interpretation? Thanks, izumi 2006/12/2, Avri Doria : > > On 2 dec 2006, at 09.49, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > > > Does it mean that the DOC will claim final authority over all gTLDs? > > i think it means that the us gov will claim authority over anything, > any time they want to. especially when it comes to things that > others might think come under ICANN's purview. > > 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 > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.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 ca at rits.org.br Sun Dec 3 07:56:36 2006 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 10:56:36 -0200 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: <200612012113.kB1LDRg3020050@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <200612012113.kB1LDRg3020050@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <4572C984.8050406@rits.org.br> I guess it would be better to ask the companies using airbus.com, bayer.com, siemens.com, bombardier.com (all non-US, all among the most important in the world, all these URL leading to their root portals), among thousands of others, if this is important to them. Veni, being lightheaded on such a serious issue does not help the organization you belong to. If Icann did not exist, may be we would have the opportunity to finally create an autonomous, pluralist, truly international, government-independent organization. --c.a. Veni Markovski wrote: > When you say "most valuable", I guess you mean the US? > Here's an interesting story: > > An American (Milton) is discussing an US department, dealing with an US > company, about something that concerns US customers. But your picture > would not be full if you don't involve the US-based non-profit, which is > the only one in the equation that has international approach on a number > of issues. > > I start to think that if ICANN didn't exist it, we would have to create > it, or else all the steam would go to the government :) > > veni > > P.S. Why don't you ask someone from the 10 million .de domain name > holders, if they consider .com as "most valuable TLD"? > > At 02:01 PM 01.12.2006 '?.'Ъ▄Ж -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: >> ICANN's 8-year experiment in nongovernmental governance of the >> Internet's domain name system all but came to an end November 30. The >> U.S. Department of Commerce announced that it, and not ICANN, would be >> the ultimate "decider" when it comes to dot com. Dot com is the largest >> and most valuable Internet top level domain, accounting for about 50% of >> the global market. >> >> Read the complete story at the IGP site: >> http://internetgovernance.org/news.html#ICANNVeriSignSettlement_113006 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > > Sincerely, > Veni Markovski > http://www.veni.com > > check also my blog: > http://blog.veni.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 veni at veni.com Sun Dec 3 09:43:32 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 09:43:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: <4572C984.8050406@rits.org.br> References: <200612012113.kB1LDRg3020050@mxr.isoc.bg> <4572C984.8050406@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <200612031624.kB3GOrjC016041@mxr.isoc.bg> Dear Carlos... At 10:56 AM 03.12.2006 '?.'Ъ▄Ж -0200, Carlos Afonso wrote: >I guess it would be better to ask the companies >using airbus.com, bayer.com, siemens.com, >bombardier.com (all non-US, all among the most >important in the world, all these URL leading to >their root portals), among thousands of others, if this is important to them. How about telekom.de, or all others ending at .de? Or all ending at .co.uk? >Veni, being lightheaded on such a serious issue >does not help the organization you belong to. Carlos, having a sense of humour is always vital for any organization. >If Icann did not exist, may be we would have the >opportunity to finally create an autonomous, >pluralist, truly international, government-independent organization. ... do you really believe that such an organization could have any impact on governments? Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ 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 Dec 3 11:56:04 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 14:56:04 -0200 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: <200612031624.kB3GOrjC016041@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <200612012113.kB1LDRg3020050@mxr.isoc.bg> <4572C984.8050406@rits.org.br> <200612031624.kB3GOrjC016041@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <006794F5-8415-489F-9123-C16B649B4D0C@psg.com> On 3 dec 2006, at 12.43, Veni Markovski wrote: > > >> If Icann did not exist, may be we would have the opportunity to >> finally create an autonomous, pluralist, truly international, >> government-independent organization. > > ... do you really believe that such an organization could have any > impact on governments? > yes. e.g. amnesty international does 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 veni at veni.com Sun Dec 3 12:13:21 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:13:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: <006794F5-8415-489F-9123-C16B649B4D0C@psg.com> References: <200612012113.kB1LDRg3020050@mxr.isoc.bg> <4572C984.8050406@rits.org.br> <200612031624.kB3GOrjC016041@mxr.isoc.bg> <006794F5-8415-489F-9123-C16B649B4D0C@psg.com> Message-ID: <200612031710.kB3HAHt2016927@mxr.isoc.bg> I didn't know AI has anything to do with the Internet, mainly the DNS / root servers / IP? Let's be serious, for at least 5 minutes, can we? It's one thing to talk about organizations that monitor / criticize governments, and which has built its statute based on a history that has had nothing to do with governments. It's quite different to talk about organization, that was created in order to take something from a particular government, at a point when no other governments were interested in it. So, when comparing apples, compare them with apples, not with pears. Also, if we have to talk about an example of an organization that did something similar to what AI did in the Internet field, I'd like to talk real issues, not theoretical ones. I have the honor to be chair of an organization that was created from individuals, sued a couple of governments, and managed to make them understand that what ISOC-Bulgaria says about the Internet, is what they should be doing. Now, can an international organization do that in 250 countries and teritories? I doubt it. Can ISOC chapters do that? In certain countries - yes. In certain - may be. In certain - hardly. So, instead of blaming ICANN for the fact that it's doing its job in the best way it can (and that does not mean the work can't be done better; but for the time being there's no one else who can do it better), and arguing that it's a problem of the leadership / staff / board / lobby / etc., perhaps it's better to think about improving the Internet penetration, the affordable access to the Internet, etc. Hardly anyone of the one billion users cares about ICANN. The only people who care seem to be the ones who have the funding and the time to build their lives around ICANN. Life does not start, neither it ends with ICANN. I prefer to deal with the fact that there are places, where if you publish something on the web, your computers may be confiscated by the police. Or if you search for "HIV", you may be blamed as HIV-positive, and your life ruined. Etc., etc. veni At 02:56 PM 03.12.2006 '?.'Ъ▄Ж -0200, Avri Doria wrote: >On 3 dec 2006, at 12.43, Veni Markovski wrote: > >> >> >>>If Icann did not exist, may be we would have the opportunity to >>>finally create an autonomous, pluralist, truly international, >>>government-independent organization. >> >>... do you really believe that such an organization could have any >>impact on governments? > > >yes. > >e.g. amnesty international does > >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 Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ 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 Dec 3 12:25:20 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:25:20 -0500 Subject: SV: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship Message-ID: >>> froomkin at law.miami.edu 12/2/2006 2:16:31 PM >>> >It also reminds us that at times the DoC is more interested (or, if you >prefer, more effective) in securing the public interest than ICANN. Only if you consider copyright and trademark interests to be the public interest. 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 mueller at syr.edu Sun Dec 3 12:37:24 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:37:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship Message-ID: >>> aizu at anr.org 12/2/2006 2:34:09 PM >>> >I naiively had thought that USG/DOC has had the ultimate authority >over .com and any other resources, despite, or in addition to ICANN's >authority which is under the mercy of USG anyway with the MoU. > >Is there any really new element between DOC and VeriSign to the existing >cooperative agreement? Yes. VeriSign's control of .com began with a National Science Foundation "cooperative agreement" starting in 1991, which was switched to the Commerce Dept in 1997. But the whole idea of ICANN was that assignment and regulation of gTLD registries, including VeriSign, would be delegated to ICANN. The Nov. 30 decision is quite significant because Commerce is giving up on using ICANN to renew .com, it asserts that it must have final say on any aspect of the registry contract. Nothing like that formally existed before. >Does VeriSingh have more "freedom" than before? No, it has less in some respects. >Has ICANN really been undermined (looks like)? Yes, because its registry agreement for .com is now formally reviewed and approved by Commerce, rather than the decision being fully delegated to ICANN. If you are VeriSign, you negotiate primarily with Commerce about .com, not ICANN. >Are these change very clear, or subject of interpretation? Oh, anything can be "interpreted" in different ways, that's what you pay PR flaks for, and that's why certain apologists will never concede anything. Just read the agreement, to me it's very clear that this is (yet another) significant departure from the concept of an independent, globalized Internet governance authority and a another step toward stronger US control. ____________________________________________________________ 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 Dec 3 12:38:15 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:38:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship Message-ID: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2006/icanncom_fact_113006.htm at the bottom of this fact sheet is a link to the formal legal document. >>> George Sadowsky 12/2/2006 3:20:17 PM >>> Milton, Would you please post a couple of authoritative references to this report? I didn't see any in your blog entry. Thanks, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~At 2:01 PM -0500 12/1/06, Milton Mueller wrote: >ICANN's 8-year experiment in nongovernmental governance of the >Internet's domain name system all but came to an end November 30. The >U.S. Department of Commerce announced that it, and not ICANN, would be >the ultimate "decider" when it comes to dot com. Dot com is the largest >and most valuable Internet top level domain, accounting for about 50% of >the global market. > >Read the complete story at the IGP site: >http://internetgovernance.org/news.html#ICANNVeriSignSettlement_113006 >____________________________________________________________ >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 Sun Dec 3 12:45:59 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:45:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship References: Message-ID: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F30439AE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Is there any offcial comment by the USG on the ITU Resolution 102 from Antalya? Is there some interpretation what means what? US Government obviously has supported (or watered down and when yes what was the earlier version?) the text. You will find in the adopted text seven times "enhanced cooperation", half a dozen times "domain names and IP addresses" but ICANN is not mentioned at all. Is this a new US double-strategy? Or a farewell to "private sector leadership"? wolfgang -----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Sun 12/3/2006 6:37 PM To: aizu at anr.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship >>> aizu at anr.org 12/2/2006 2:34:09 PM >>> >I naiively had thought that USG/DOC has had the ultimate authority >over .com and any other resources, despite, or in addition to ICANN's >authority which is under the mercy of USG anyway with the MoU. > >Is there any really new element between DOC and VeriSign to the existing >cooperative agreement? Yes. VeriSign's control of .com began with a National Science Foundation "cooperative agreement" starting in 1991, which was switched to the Commerce Dept in 1997. But the whole idea of ICANN was that assignment and regulation of gTLD registries, including VeriSign, would be delegated to ICANN. The Nov. 30 decision is quite significant because Commerce is giving up on using ICANN to renew .com, it asserts that it must have final say on any aspect of the registry contract. Nothing like that formally existed before. >Does VeriSingh have more "freedom" than before? No, it has less in some respects. >Has ICANN really been undermined (looks like)? Yes, because its registry agreement for .com is now formally reviewed and approved by Commerce, rather than the decision being fully delegated to ICANN. If you are VeriSign, you negotiate primarily with Commerce about .com, not ICANN. >Are these change very clear, or subject of interpretation? Oh, anything can be "interpreted" in different ways, that's what you pay PR flaks for, and that's why certain apologists will never concede anything. Just read the agreement, to me it's very clear that this is (yet another) significant departure from the concept of an independent, globalized Internet governance authority and a another step toward stronger US control. ____________________________________________________________ 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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sun Dec 3 13:01:29 2006 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 13:01:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: <200612031710.kB3HAHt2016927@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <200612012113.kB1LDRg3020050@mxr.isoc.bg> <4572C984.8050406@rits.org.br> <200612031624.kB3GOrjC016041@mxr.isoc.bg> <006794F5-8415-489F-9123-C16B649B4D0C@psg.com> <200612031710.kB3HAHt2016927@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410612031001xb11a31fn25c2b4fac794abb7@mail.gmail.com> Dear Veni, *An appreciative reflection on your post, even if more interpretive than direct.* ** *Regarding Guarding* privacy or at least the "chance" to act with some privacy (referencing your note: "Or if you search for "HIV", you may be blamed as HIV-positive, and your life ruined. Etc., etc." .. the following may seem at a slant but is intended to agree that group governance over individuals is an extremely crucial topic, here regarding electronic networks. And overreaching may be remarkably tempting. There is some talk that the newly tested natrualistic xrays of persons whole-body at airports might very soon find their ways far "afield" from LANS. Check out the Internet to see inside bodies, by individual's names - and all that this implies (except for promises of certain body parts to be masked. At least sort of, since weapons might be so concealed)... Sic transit Identity. Who should monitor, and monitor the monitors? Best wishes, Linda. On 12/3/06, Veni Markovski wrote: > > I didn't know AI has anything to do with the > Internet, mainly the DNS / root servers / IP? > > Let's be serious, for at least 5 minutes, can we? > It's one thing to talk about organizations that > monitor / criticize governments, and which has > built its statute based on a history that has had > nothing to do with governments. It's quite > different to talk about organization, that was > created in order to take something from a > particular government, at a point when no other > governments were interested in it. > So, when comparing apples, compare them with apples, not with pears. > > Also, if we have to talk about an example of an > organization that did something similar to what > AI did in the Internet field, I'd like to talk > real issues, not theoretical ones. I have the > honor to be chair of an organization that was > created from individuals, sued a couple of > governments, and managed to make them understand > that what ISOC-Bulgaria says about the Internet, > is what they should be doing. Now, can an > international organization do that in 250 > countries and teritories? I doubt it. Can ISOC > chapters do that? In certain countries - yes. In > certain - may be. In certain - hardly. > > So, instead of blaming ICANN for the fact that > it's doing its job in the best way it can (and > that does not mean the work can't be done better; > but for the time being there's no one else who > can do it better), and arguing that it's a > problem of the leadership / staff / board / lobby > / etc., perhaps it's better to think about > improving the Internet penetration, the > affordable access to the Internet, etc. Hardly > anyone of the one billion users cares about > ICANN. The only people who care seem to be the > ones who have the funding and the time to build > their lives around ICANN. Life does not start, > neither it ends with ICANN. I prefer to deal with > the fact that there are places, where if you > publish something on the web, your computers may > be confiscated by the police. Or if you search > for "HIV", you may be blamed as HIV-positive, and your life ruined. Etc., > etc. > > veni > > > At 02:56 PM 03.12.2006 '?.'Ъ▄Ж -0200, Avri Doria wrote: > > >On 3 dec 2006, at 12.43, Veni Markovski wrote: > > > >> > >> > >>>If Icann did not exist, may be we would have the opportunity to > >>>finally create an autonomous, pluralist, truly international, > >>>government-independent organization. > >> > >>... do you really believe that such an organization could have any > >>impact on governments? > > > > > >yes. > > > >e.g. amnesty international does > > > >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 > > > Sincerely, > Veni Markovski > http://www.veni.com > > check also my blog: > http://blog.veni.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff (Ph.D., J.D.) (914) 769 3652 InterNetizen, ARPANet-Internet 47+ years... Design/Implementation/Documentation GML Markup System prescursor to HTML. ... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Mueller at syr.edu Sun Dec 3 13:22:24 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 13:22:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] Draft GAC Whois Principles for Sao Paulo meeting Message-ID: DRAFT GAC PRINCIPLES ON WHOIS/PRIVACY ============================ A U.S.-led Task Force in ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) released version 3 of its "Whois "Principles" in preparation for the ICANN meeting in Brazil, where it will be debated and finalized. European countries pushed back against U.S. Government efforts to stop ICANN from respecting privacy concerns in its handling of domain name registrant contact data, but their efforts were only partially successful. The current draft contains much that is objectionable, including a very broad definition of the purpose of Whois that is inconsistent with the one adopted by ICANN's policy making Council, the GNSO. Download document here: http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/DraftGACWhoisPrinciples.pdf 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 veni at veni.com Sun Dec 3 14:47:07 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 14:47:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F30439AE@server1.medienkomm. uni-halle.de> References: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F30439AE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <200612031941.kB3JfQo5021060@mxr.isoc.bg> At 06:45 PM 03.12.2006 '?.'Ъ▄Ж +0100, Wolfgang KleinwДchter wrote: >Is there any offcial comment by the USG on the >ITU Resolution 102 from Antalya? Is there some >interpretation what means what? US Government >obviously has supported (or watered down and >when yes what was the earlier version?) the >text. You will find in the adopted text seven >times "enhanced cooperation", half a dozen times >"domain names and IP addresses" but ICANN is not >mentioned at all. Is this a new US >double-strategy? Or a farewell to "private sector leadership"? Wolfgang, you surely know that these discussion are held behind closed doors, and no information is allowed to leak. We can all interprete as much as we want, and find ourselves engaged in useless discussions - that's not a problem. But do you really want this? Say, your conference on ICANN in Prague was quite a substential one. May be someday you will have it as part of the ITU Telecom - may be even next year in Sofia? This is where we could contribute, and this is where we can make a difference. Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ 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 Mon Dec 4 04:12:53 2006 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 22:12:53 +1300 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F30439AE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F30439AE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <57F898F6-9624-4C8F-91E4-B908ECF14A23@dannybutt.net> Hasn't it always been the case that the government of the US (or any economically powerful free-market economy) gives the "private sector" a "leadership role" when that is coextensive with geopolitical interests? I always saw ICANN as being on a USG leash that would be pulled whenever convenient, or if it became too international - regardless of the formal wording of the MoU. Hopefully we can now dispense with the distracting fiction that ICANN was an model of a mythical user- led global internet. The primary actors in that organisation have always been more or less in accord with USG interests, gestures against "government control" notwithstanding. From my POV, a truly multistakeholder process advocated by civil society has to assert multilateralism as one of its strongest principles, rather than using idealist antipathy to any governmental involvement as a way of avoiding the questions about who actually has the power in IG arrangements. Danny On 04/12/2006, at 6:45 AM, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > > Is there any offcial comment by the USG on the ITU Resolution 102 > from Antalya? Is there some interpretation what means what? US > Government obviously has supported (or watered down and when yes > what was the earlier version?) the text. You will find in the > adopted text seven times "enhanced cooperation", half a dozen times > "domain names and IP addresses" but ICANN is not mentioned at all. > Is this a new US double-strategy? Or a farewell to "private sector > leadership"? > > wolfgang > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Sun 12/3/2006 6:37 PM > To: aizu at anr.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN > relationship > >>>> aizu at anr.org 12/2/2006 2:34:09 PM >>> >> I naiively had thought that USG/DOC has had the ultimate authority >> over .com and any other resources, despite, or in addition to ICANN's >> authority which is under the mercy of USG anyway with the MoU. >> >> Is there any really new element between DOC and VeriSign to the > existing >> cooperative agreement? > > Yes. > > VeriSign's control of .com began with a National Science Foundation > "cooperative agreement" starting in 1991, which was switched to the > Commerce Dept in 1997. But the whole idea of ICANN was that assignment > and regulation of gTLD registries, including VeriSign, would be > delegated to ICANN. > > The Nov. 30 decision is quite significant because Commerce is > giving up > on using ICANN to renew .com, it asserts that it must have final > say on > any aspect of the registry contract. Nothing like that formally > existed > before. > >> Does VeriSingh have more "freedom" than before? > > No, it has less in some respects. > >> Has ICANN really been undermined (looks like)? > > Yes, because its registry agreement for .com is now formally reviewed > and approved by Commerce, rather than the decision being fully > delegated > to ICANN. If you are VeriSign, you negotiate primarily with Commerce > about .com, not ICANN. > >> Are these change very clear, or subject of interpretation? > > Oh, anything can be "interpreted" in different ways, that's what you > pay PR flaks for, and that's why certain apologists will never concede > anything. > > Just read the agreement, to me it's very clear that this is (yet > another) significant departure from the concept of an independent, > globalized Internet governance authority and a another step toward > stronger US control. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 04:29:36 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 09:29:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F30439AE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F30439AE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfie, On 12/3/06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > > Is there any offcial comment by the USG on the ITU Resolution 102 from Antalya? Perhaps the .com news is a reaction to the ITU Resolution 102?? ;-) -- 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 ca at rits.org.br Mon Dec 4 06:46:01 2006 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 09:46:01 -0200 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: References: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F30439AE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <45740A79.4080709@rits.org.br> If so, it would be an overreaction by far -- ITU is far from putting its act together. It is a 150-year old organization which might take several years to conclude its reform. At the end of it, it would not quite probably be multistakeholder anyway (several of its texts affirm it is already multistakeholder, as it includes governments and companies in its Board!), so what is the point of the resolution's exercise? Looks like last words from the Utusmi group... The USG seems to like to make the ICANN Board suffer. After every declaration of this kind, ICANN has to spend weeks trying to convince all of the world that it is not quite so (it is, unfortunately -- real life is hard) and so on. --c.a. McTim wrote: > Wolfie, > > On 12/3/06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter > wrote: >> >> Is there any offcial comment by the USG on the ITU Resolution 102 from >> Antalya? > > Perhaps the .com news is a reaction to the ITU Resolution 102?? ;-) > ____________________________________________________________ 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 Dec 4 07:29:47 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 13:29:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F30439AE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi, I've not seen an official statement, but David Gross is quoted in an IHT piece on the Plenipot, nothing surprising. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/03/technology/btitu.php Clearly there will be continuing work on security issues (which the US has supported), now additionally framed as enhanced cooperation. Whether such cooperation will be construed as also including the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues concerning names and numbers is another story. One suspects there will be calls for that from some quarters, but it's hard to see how a consensus could be reached. Cheers, Bill On 12/3/06 6:45 PM, "Wolfgang Kleinwächter" wrote: > > Is there any offcial comment by the USG on the ITU Resolution 102 from > Antalya? Is there some interpretation what means what? US Government obviously > has supported (or watered down and when yes what was the earlier version?) the > text. You will find in the adopted text seven times "enhanced cooperation", > half a dozen times "domain names and IP addresses" but ICANN is not mentioned > at all. Is this a new US double-strategy? Or a farewell to "private sector > leadership"? > > wolfgang > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Sun 12/3/2006 6:37 PM > To: aizu at anr.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship > >>>> aizu at anr.org 12/2/2006 2:34:09 PM >>> >> I naiively had thought that USG/DOC has had the ultimate authority >> over .com and any other resources, despite, or in addition to ICANN's >> authority which is under the mercy of USG anyway with the MoU. >> >> Is there any really new element between DOC and VeriSign to the > existing >> cooperative agreement? > > Yes. > > VeriSign's control of .com began with a National Science Foundation > "cooperative agreement" starting in 1991, which was switched to the > Commerce Dept in 1997. But the whole idea of ICANN was that assignment > and regulation of gTLD registries, including VeriSign, would be > delegated to ICANN. > > The Nov. 30 decision is quite significant because Commerce is giving up > on using ICANN to renew .com, it asserts that it must have final say on > any aspect of the registry contract. Nothing like that formally existed > before. > >> Does VeriSingh have more "freedom" than before? > > No, it has less in some respects. > >> Has ICANN really been undermined (looks like)? > > Yes, because its registry agreement for .com is now formally reviewed > and approved by Commerce, rather than the decision being fully delegated > to ICANN. If you are VeriSign, you negotiate primarily with Commerce > about .com, not ICANN. > >> Are these change very clear, or subject of interpretation? > > Oh, anything can be "interpreted" in different ways, that's what you > pay PR flaks for, and that's why certain apologists will never concede > anything. > > Just read the agreement, to me it's very clear that this is (yet > another) significant departure from the concept of an independent, > globalized Internet governance authority and a another step toward > stronger US control. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 ******************************************************* William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland http://www.cpsr.org/Members/wdrake ******************************************************* ____________________________________________________________ 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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 09:25:12 2006 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 09:25:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: <57F898F6-9624-4C8F-91E4-B908ECF14A23@dannybutt.net> References: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F30439AE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <57F898F6-9624-4C8F-91E4-B908ECF14A23@dannybutt.net> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410612040625v24211852y7ca8aeb0a2db746f@mail.gmail.com> Dear Danny, What you write accepting multilateral roles across the board, as I read it, seems very sensible in that *university think=tanks for instance* have usually relied on *budgetings* that translate often into quasi or real private sector endeavors in significant parts rather than purely civil society endeavors (or, certainly grass roots endeavors). I don't meant this pessimistically; overheard at World Bank once: 'Budgets are what stand between (in the good sense as well as others) Governments and Projects'. A review of the history of computing itself seems to support this inclusive POV and render it not unpalatable. (Sidebar: You seem both a realist and an idealist at the same time, nice work! Classic and romantic mixes, as perceived here .. just an interpretation of course). :) Linda.. On 12/4/06, Danny Butt wrote: > > Hasn't it always been the case that the government of the US (or any > economically powerful free-market economy) gives the "private sector" > a "leadership role" when that is coextensive with geopolitical > interests? > > I always saw ICANN as being on a USG leash that would be pulled > whenever convenient, or if it became too international - regardless > of the formal wording of the MoU. Hopefully we can now dispense with > the distracting fiction that ICANN was an model of a mythical user- > led global internet. The primary actors in that organisation have > always been more or less in accord with USG interests, gestures > against "government control" notwithstanding. > > From my POV, a truly multistakeholder process advocated by civil > society has to assert multilateralism as one of its strongest > principles, rather than using idealist antipathy to any governmental > involvement as a way of avoiding the questions about who actually has > the power in IG arrangements. > > Danny > > On 04/12/2006, at 6:45 AM, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > > > > > Is there any offcial comment by the USG on the ITU Resolution 102 > > from Antalya? Is there some interpretation what means what? US > > Government obviously has supported (or watered down and when yes > > what was the earlier version?) the text. You will find in the > > adopted text seven times "enhanced cooperation", half a dozen times > > "domain names and IP addresses" but ICANN is not mentioned at all. > > Is this a new US double-strategy? Or a farewell to "private sector > > leadership"? > > > > wolfgang > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > Sent: Sun 12/3/2006 6:37 PM > > To: aizu at anr.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN > > relationship > > > >>>> aizu at anr.org 12/2/2006 2:34:09 PM >>> > >> I naiively had thought that USG/DOC has had the ultimate authority > >> over .com and any other resources, despite, or in addition to ICANN's > >> authority which is under the mercy of USG anyway with the MoU. > >> > >> Is there any really new element between DOC and VeriSign to the > > existing > >> cooperative agreement? > > > > Yes. > > > > VeriSign's control of .com began with a National Science Foundation > > "cooperative agreement" starting in 1991, which was switched to the > > Commerce Dept in 1997. But the whole idea of ICANN was that assignment > > and regulation of gTLD registries, including VeriSign, would be > > delegated to ICANN. > > > > The Nov. 30 decision is quite significant because Commerce is > > giving up > > on using ICANN to renew .com, it asserts that it must have final > > say on > > any aspect of the registry contract. Nothing like that formally > > existed > > before. > > > >> Does VeriSingh have more "freedom" than before? > > > > No, it has less in some respects. > > > >> Has ICANN really been undermined (looks like)? > > > > Yes, because its registry agreement for .com is now formally reviewed > > and approved by Commerce, rather than the decision being fully > > delegated > > to ICANN. If you are VeriSign, you negotiate primarily with Commerce > > about .com, not ICANN. > > > >> Are these change very clear, or subject of interpretation? > > > > Oh, anything can be "interpreted" in different ways, that's what you > > pay PR flaks for, and that's why certain apologists will never concede > > anything. > > > > Just read the agreement, to me it's very clear that this is (yet > > another) significant departure from the concept of an independent, > > globalized Internet governance authority and a another step toward > > stronger US control. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > -- > 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 > > > > > -- > Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff (Ph.D., J.D.) > InterNetizen, ARPANet forward; Presenter,/ Intervenor Internet > Governance Forum Athens 2006, WSIS/SMSI Tunis -II '05; WSIS Geneva '03. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Dec 4 09:37:39 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 12:37:39 -0200 Subject: [governance] ITU IG Resolution In-Reply-To: <457174DD.5080002@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <456EEA73.6060202@bertola.eu.org> <457174DD.5080002@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <457432B3.1090209@bertola.eu.org> Ralf Bendrath ha scritto: > PS: By the way: Do people see a strategic or tactical problem if CS > folks are > a) coordinators of a CS caucus and at the same time > b) coordinators of a multi-stakeholder coalition on the same subject? > > This does apply at least to Parminer for IG and myself for privacy. Also, I might be "sort of" coordinating the Bill of Rights coalition, with a handful of other people... I think it's not a problem as long as we don't try to use our caucus hat to push our own issues (unless, of course, the caucus as a whole wants to do that) and we don't neglect one responsibility for the others. -- 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 vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Dec 4 09:40:41 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 12:40:41 -0200 Subject: [governance] IGF at the ICANN meeting Message-ID: <45743369.8090606@bertola.eu.org> All, I'm in the Sao Paulo ICANN meeting, and one of the agenda items today for the "plenary" (Public Forum) was a report from the IGF. At a certain point, Ayesha Hassan from ICC (business) and Lynn St. Amour from ISOC (technical community) were invited to the podium to give a "stakeholder perspective" on the IGF, and so I felt obliged to grab the mike and politely say that, hey, there is another stakeholder in the discussion, i.e. civil society, and add some positive notes on how good it was to start talking to each other in Athens, provided that sooner or later we find a way to release some practical results out of the IGF process. Several other caucus members took the floor afterwards. Separately, I had a chat with Markus, who confirmed to me that the Feb 13th meeting is meant to wrap-up Athens and discuss how to organize the Rio meeting, and specifically whether to have a new MAG, given that the current one had a mandate clearly limited to Athens and will expire after the wrap-up. We should develop a proposal / position to be released for the February meeting, possibly accompanied by informal discussion with other constituencies as well. -- 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 aizu at anr.org Mon Dec 4 10:42:21 2006 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 00:42:21 +0900 Subject: Fwd: [governance] IGF at the ICANN meeting In-Reply-To: References: <45743369.8090606@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: Just to follow, Markus said Feb 13 date for Open Consultation of IGF is tentative, subject to UN calender to be decided at the General Assembly shortly. izumi 2006/12/4, Vittorio Bertola : > All, > > I'm in the Sao Paulo ICANN meeting, and one of the agenda items today > for the "plenary" (Public Forum) was a report from the IGF. At a certain > point, Ayesha Hassan from ICC (business) and Lynn St. Amour from ISOC > (technical community) were invited to the podium to give a "stakeholder > perspective" on the IGF, and so I felt obliged to grab the mike and > politely say that, hey, there is another stakeholder in the discussion, > i.e. civil society, and add some positive notes on how good it was to > start talking to each other in Athens, provided that sooner or later we > find a way to release some practical results out of the IGF process. > Several other caucus members took the floor afterwards. > > Separately, I had a chat with Markus, who confirmed to me that the Feb > 13th meeting is meant to wrap-up Athens and discuss how to organize the > Rio meeting, and specifically whether to have a new MAG, given that the > current one had a mandate clearly limited to Athens and will expire > after the wrap-up. We should develop a proposal / position to be > released for the February meeting, possibly accompanied by informal > discussion with other constituencies as well. > -- > 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 Mueller at syr.edu Mon Dec 4 12:18:29 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 12:18:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship Message-ID: >>> db at dannybutt.net 12/4/2006 4:12 AM >>> >I always saw ICANN as being on a USG leash that would be >pulled whenever convenient, or if it became too international >- regardless of the formal wording of the MoU. Always on a leash, yes; the point however was that when it was created the promise was otherwise. And we came very close to getting rid of the leash. I still think it is valid and important to push for keeping the Internet more in the realm of civil society and business and relying on govts only for minimal, well-defined, well constrained law enforcement needs. >Hopefully we >can now dispense with the distracting fiction that ICANN >was an model of a mythical user- led global internet. The Internet _was_ largely user-led; the governmental instrusions have come late. USG had no official control over the root until 1997. The model or founding concept was a valid one, and preferable in many respects to an intergovernmental organization. >The primary actors in that organisation have >always been more or less in accord with USG interests, >gestures against "government control" notwithstanding. This is only partially correct, it drastically understates the level of conflict and tension within the dominant political coalition that created ICANN. >From my POV, a truly multistakeholder process advocated >by civil society has to assert multilateralism as one of its >strongest principles, rather than using idealist antipathy to >any governmental involvement as a way of avoiding the >questions about who actually has the power in IG >arrangements. Two errors here: first, those of us opposing inappropriate and repressive forms of govt involvement in the Internet cannot be accused of "avoiding questions about who actually has power" by any sane person who reads. We've been making very pointed statements about who has power, and how state power and private interest intersect in the ICANN regime, long before people wanted to hear it. And have earned significant enmity from both those who have power and those who make a career out of avoiding facing those questions. Second, your appeal to "multilateralism" is in fact a way of avoiding precisely those questions. The issue of power gets dissolved into UN-style blather about the "family of nations" and the incredible assumption that national states perfectly represent their people. Multilateralism simply means multiple governments, many of them undemocratic and overtly repressive, negotiating with each other, looking out for their geopolitical, strategic and interests. It is very hard, for example, to make a case that "multi-lateralizing" control of the root improves anything or adds any value to the internet, while it is easy to show how it could create new problems and create the potential for holding the internet hostage to geopolitical concerns. "Multi-stakeholder" ism likewise obscures rather than clarifies. We need a new global governance regime and in entering into it we must as a principle be deeply aware of the fact that the Internet's growth and much of its value came from the fact that govts had no regulation or control over how it initially evolved. We need to define a proper division of labor between state/interstate coercion and constrain, which should be minimal, and Internet operation and content, which should remain with PS/CS. ____________________________________________________________ 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Mon Dec 4 13:59:15 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 19:59:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45747003.8030003@wz-berlin.de> Hi, > We need a new global governance regime and in entering into it we must > as a principle be deeply aware of the fact that the Internet's growth > and much of its value came from the fact that govts had no regulation or > control over how it initially evolved. This was definitely true for the past. I am not sure its still true for the present. I believe that any self governance mechanism must prove that it is able to produce at least equally good results as an (inter-)governmental regime. A crucial part of this "equally good" would be reliable rules and appeals mechanisms. In order to gain the trust and the legitimacy they need, private governance mechanisms need to develop an equivalent to the rule of law. I am not sure ICANN takes its own rules seriously enough to deserve the responsibility it has. jeanette We need to define a proper > division of labor between state/interstate coercion and constrain, which > should be minimal, and Internet operation and content, which should > remain with PS/CS. > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 veni at veni.com Mon Dec 4 13:57:21 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 13:57:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: ITU and the internet Message-ID: <200612041851.kB4IpZcv021929@mxr.isoc.bg> FYI. This is very relevant to the opinions expressed in the last few days about the new JPA between ICANN and the USG. >U.N. Agency Wants to Nourish the Internet, Not Govern It > >Jean-Marc FerrИ/I.T.U., via Agence France-Presse ≈ Getty Images >Hamadoun TourИ, the incoming secretary general >of the International Telecommunication Union, at >a meeting after his election last month. > >By VICTORIA SHANNON >Published: December 4, 2006 >HONG KONG, Dec. 3 ≈ When David A. Gross heard >last month that the International >Telecommunication Union, a United Nations >agency, wanted to lowercase the ⌠i■ in Internet >as a matter of official policy, he did not know >whether to be alarmed or amused. > >⌠We immediately thought, ▒Gee, what▓s up with >that?▓ ■ Mr. Gross, the coordinator for >international communications and information >policy at the State Department, said. ⌠Who made >the decision and on what basis? We didn▓t have a >clue if this was something insignificant or significant.■ > >The agency eventually decided to leave the >capital I. But to some business representatives, >Internet activists and officials of >English-speaking governments, the case of the >small-i Internet was a new warning that the >organization might be looking to exert its >influence over the Internet▓s management. > >This week in Hong Kong, the agency, representing >191 countries and 650 companies, is putting on >the telecommunications industry▓s biggest >gathering, called ITU Telecom World, attracting >about 70,000 people. But some of the >conference▓s attention will be focused on the >role of the International Telecommunication >Union itself. Should it concern itself with >Internet governance ≈ a role that its Western >members find particularly objectionable ≈ or >should it focus on ground-level issues, like >access to telecommunications in developing countries? > >Hamadoun TourИ of Mali, who was recently elected >secretary general of the agency, its >highest-ranking official, favors the latter approach. > >⌠I wouldn▓t want to see the I.T.U. trying to >take over Internet governance,■ he said at his first news conference. > >But underlying tensions about the direction of >the agency, which has its origins in the era of >the telegraph, have troubled it since the >Internet became such a prominent part of the >world▓s telecommunications networks. > >In simpler times, the agency▓s role as a global >arbiter of radio frequencies and standards >helped make it possible for the telegraph and >the telephone to cross borders. But with the >spread of the Internet in recent years, its >basic standards were adopted voluntarily as more >and more computer networks joined in worldwide >and data traveled over the existing telephone infrastructure. > >Mr. TourИ ▓s predecessor, Yoshio Utsumi, who >turns over the office in January, has called the >Internet a ⌠utility■ to be managed for the >public good, but the agency▓s precise role was never made specific. > >For Lyndall Shope-Mafole, a South African >delegate and director general of her country▓s >department of communications, the International >Telecommunication Union is the only global forum >where the views of developing nations can be >heard on a range of issues, like allocating >radio frequencies, defining international >standards and securing universal access to communications. > >⌠With all its warts and wrinkles, the I.T.U. is >still very important,■ she said. ⌠We don▓t have any other framework.■ > >Mr. TourИ, who has served since 1998 as director >of the agency▓s Telecommunication Development >Bureau, stressed that he was intent on >protecting the agency from the political >football Internet governance had become. > >⌠We are not talking about the I.T.U. taking over >governance here,■ he said. ⌠We▓re talking about >the I.T.U. continuing the mandate that it has >been doing in contributing to the growth of the >Internet over all of these years.■ > >At the top of his agenda for 2007 is bringing >digital communication to those who do not yet >have it. Second will be to enlist the agency▓s >members and expertise on the broad matter of >cybersecurity, perhaps at the level of an >international treaty s in areas including >computer fraud and spam ≈ matters that the conference will take up Friday. > >⌠Security in cyberspace can only be brokered >worldwide by I.T.U.,■ Mr. TourИ asserted, >⌠because it is the only nonpolitical place in >the whole U.N. system where all the parties are >still talking to one another.■ As an example, he >cited a security report issued in his name last >year that was signed by both Syria and the >United States. ⌠We▓re the only one who can talk to everyone,■ he said. > >Mr. Gross of the State Department acknowledged >the agency▓s usefulness. ⌠One of the great >things about the I.T.U.,■ he said, ⌠is it has >changed over the years, from telegraph to >telephone to Internet. We don▓t want a major >international institution to become obsolete >just because it couldn▓t change as the world changes.■ Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ 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 Mon Dec 4 15:51:07 2006 From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 12:51:07 -0800 Subject: [governance] World Health Organization and intellectual property Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061204125006.043aefb0@peoplewho.org> Countries meet in Geneva on innovation, public health and intellectual property GENEVA -- WHO Member States and other stakeholders will meet in Geneva from 4-8 December to initiate talks aimed at increasing research and development for medicines and other medical products tailored to the needs of poor populations. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/events/advisories/2006/ma23/en/index.html ____________________________________________________________ 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 Tue Dec 5 15:36:14 2006 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 09:36:14 +1300 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: <45747003.8030003@wz-berlin.de> References: <45747003.8030003@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <2BB4A9F5-456D-42CE-A0C9-25C11E4E4FE0@dannybutt.net> Thanks Milton, Linda and Jeanette for comments. Milton, I could talk for a long time about the users and (more importantly for the developmental dimension) potential users who were *not* visible in the early days of Internet coordination. I think it's easier to just look at the gender/ethnic mix in the photographs from the after-parties. The fact that the exclusions were not formalised doesn't make them any less real. And these exclusions are, in my view, also what made the USG happy to have a body like ICANN in power. It's absolutely unthinkable that a similar body with powerful blocs from (say) predominantly Muslim nations would ever be given decision-making autonomy by the USG. I think Jeanette's suggestion below reflects my own point of view. The onus is on self-governing bodies responsible for critical infrastructure to demonstrate inclusiveness and effectiveness to the level that intergovernmental mechanisms can demonstrate. By this I mean the bodies really need to gain at least the level of trust and legitimacy in the eyes of all, not just in the eyes of those currently doing well out of the status quo (including Euro-US dominated civil society). Until this can be shown in practice (not in theory), I cant see how ICANN is better than say the ITU. (Please don't talk meetings being "open for anyone to attend" - we all want these intergovernmental bodies to be more open and accountable. But I think we need to start that critique with a recognition of the global legitimacy that intergovernmental bodies have been able to achieve much more effectively than ICANN or any of the other IG self-governing bodies. And realise that you can't get four billion people onto a discussion list or meeting room, so direct democracy won't get you there.) Best Danny On 05/12/2006, at 7:59 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > I believe that any self governance mechanism must prove that it is > able to produce at least equally good results as an (inter-) > governmental regime. A crucial part of this "equally good" would be > reliable rules and appeals mechanisms. In order to gain the trust > and the legitimacy they need, private governance mechanisms need to > develop an equivalent to the rule of law. I am not sure ICANN takes > its own rules seriously enough to deserve the responsibility it has. ____________________________________________________________ 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Dec 5 18:47:06 2006 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:47:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] 'Most websites' failing disabled Message-ID: <20061205234706.52679.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all, In light of ongoing discussions about accessibility between the world's rich and poor countries, this survey highlights huge problems on accessibility for the world's 600 million people with disabilities, or 10% of the world's population. 80% of this group lives in developing countries. Cheers David 'Most websites' failing disabled Most (97%) of the leading websites around the world are failing to provide the most basic accessibility standards for people with disabilities. The survey was across 5 sectors in 20 countries. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6210068.stm --------- David Goldstein address: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home) "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ 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 Wed Dec 6 03:14:18 2006 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 09:14:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] 'Most websites' failing disabled In-Reply-To: <20061205234706.52679.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061205234706.52679.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks David for having that nose. Nyangkwe On 12/6/06, David Goldstein wrote: > Hi all, > > In light of ongoing discussions about accessibility between the world's rich and poor countries, this survey highlights huge problems on accessibility for the world's 600 million people with disabilities, or 10% of the world's population. 80% of this group lives in developing countries. > > Cheers > David > > 'Most websites' failing disabled > Most (97%) of the leading websites around the world are failing to provide the most basic accessibility standards for people with disabilities. > > The survey was across 5 sectors in 20 countries. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6210068.stm > > > --------- > > David Goldstein > address: 4/3 Abbott Street > COOGEE NSW 2034 > AUSTRALIA > email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au > phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home) > > "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon 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 bnkuerbi at syr.edu Wed Dec 6 06:00:46 2006 From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 06:00:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGP Newsletter, Vol 1.06 Message-ID: ====================================== Internet Governance Project Newsletter ====================================== Current events in Internet Governance and the activities of the Internet Governance Project. http://www.internetgovernance.org Volume 1.06 December 5, 2006 ======== Contents ======== [1] NEW DOT COM AGREEMENT [2] GAC DRAFT WHOIS PRINCIPLES RELEASED [3] TURKEYS COMING HOME TO ROOST: ITU PLENIPOT [4] US INFLUENCE OVER INTERNET RESOURCES GROWING? [5] IG FORUM ADVISORS MEET IN GENEVA IN FEBRUARY [6] DEVELOPMENT AS A STATE OF MIND ==================================================== [1] NEW DOT COM AGREEMENT: COMMERCE IS "THE DECIDER" ==================================================== ICANN's 8-year experiment in nongovernmental governance of the Internet's domain name system all but came to an end November 30, 2006. The U.S. Department of Commerce announced that it, and not ICANN, would be the ultimate "decider" when it comes to dot com. Dot com is the largest and most valuable Internet top level domain, accounting for about 50% of global domain name registrations. Several months ago ICANN and VeriSign privately agreed on a new .com registry agreement in the process of settling litigation. The new deal became intensely controversial because it gave VeriSign a renewal expectancy and permitted the company to raise wholesale prices for .com registrations by a maximum of 7 percent a year. This week the Commerce Department approved that agreement -- and simultaneously asserted broad new regulatory powers for itself. In a potentially fatal blow to ICANN's autonomy, Commerce asserted sweeping approval powers over any future Registry Agreement. From now on the Commerce Department, not ICANN's policy making process, will provide the final word on renewal of the lucrative .com license. This approval power extends into the future indefinitely. Not only will Commerce continue to ensure the Internet root's "security and stability," it will now ensure that the .com agreement provides "reasonable price, terms, and conditions." That leaves ICANN with little substantive power over .com. VeriSign's competitors and the registrars who sell .com names at retail are sure to howl in pain over VeriSign's success in gaining "renewal expectancy" and its new price-increase capability. But the real story here is the Commerce Department's institutionalization of its regulatory role, and the tacit vote of no confidence in ICANN and its processes. Only two months after the Commerce Department, ICANN, the EU and many media outlets hailed the new "Joint Project Agreement" with ICANN as a big step toward a fully privatized, autonomous global governance authority, the Commerce Department has basically said that ICANN lacks the legitimacy and authority to act as the steward of the public interest in regulating the world's largest registry. From now on .com operates under US political oversight. Read the DoC announcement: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2006/icanncom_fact_113006.htm ========================================= [2] DRAFT GAC PRINCIPLES ON WHOIS/PRIVACY ========================================= Download document here: http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/DraftGACWhoisPrinciples.pdf European countries pushed back against U.S. Government efforts to stop ICANN from respecting privacy concerns in its handling of domain name registrant contact data, but their efforts were only partially successful. The current draft contains much that is objectionable, including a very broad definition of the purpose of Whois that is inconsistent with the one adopted by ICANN's policy making Council, the GNSO. A U.S.-led Task Force in ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) released version 3 of its "Whois "Principles" in preparation for the ICANN meeting in Brazil, where it will be debated and finalized. ICANN's registrar contract forces domain name registrars to indiscriminately publish to anyone on the Internet all domain name registrants' name, address, email and telephone number. While that data is convenient to many, it has also led to spammers harvesting the data and various kinds of identity theft and slamming. European data protection experts have made it known for several years that ICANN's current Whois policy conflicts with their national law and with EU data protection principles. In April, ICANN's GNSO began to seriously consider restricting published Whois data to only the data essential to ICANN's technical coordination purposes. That is when the US Government, in an intervention similar to its action in the .xxx top level domain, started pushing the GAC to develop "policy principles" that would counter the GNSO. The US position was dictated by trademark and copyright interests, who routinely data-mine Whois and insist on open publication of contact information so that it will be easier for their lawyers to serve process on people they accuse of violations. Of course, the GAC's role in ICANN is advisory only... ================================= [3] TURKEYS COMING HOME TO ROOST? ================================= Tunis Agenda Used to Reassert ITU's Quest for Internet Authority At its Plenopotentiary Conference in Turkey, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) made it clear that it is not going to go away quietly and leave the Internet and its U.S.-dominated governance arrangements alone. It passed a long and wordy resolution on "ITU's role with regard to international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and the management of Internet resources, including domain names and addresses." The resolution utilized those aspects of the WSIS Tunis Agenda calling for "enhanced cooperation" to enable governments to develop "globally applicable public policy principles" and asserting that "all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance." The ITU resolved to organize consultations on IG issues among the ITU membership The ITU initiative can be seen as a predictable effort to fill the vacuum left by the efforts of some governments to prevent the IG Forum from developing any agreed public policy principles, and by the lack of any publicly visible UN response to, much less progress on, the Tunis Agenda's call for "enhanced cooperation" elsewhere. As we claimed almost exactly a year ago, WSIS resolved nothing. We'd like to provide a link to the resolution but, um, you can't download it on the web unless you're an ITU member. ====================================================== [4] US INFLUENCE OVER INTERNET RESOURCES STRENGTHENING ====================================================== Several recent developments suggest increasing influence for US institutions in shaping Internet governance. The most obvious one is of course the DoC approval of the .com agreement, which subjected the largest registry, VeriSign, to direct regulatory oversight by the USG. However, two other important legal developments indicate the increasing relevance of US-based law to the property dimensions of Internet resources. First, ICANN is facing litigation brought by a subsidiary of US-based insurance conglomerate AIG over control of a ccTLD. The plaintiff has been trying to recover $23 million from the Republic of Congo for the past 15 years and, given the Congo's refusal to remit, is now seeking control of the .cg domain as a creditor garnishing property. ICANN filed to have the suit dismissed but suffered an initial rebuff from the Los Angeles County court. The California legal system will soon decide whether or not the suit will go to trial. ICANN has posted the documents here: http://www.icann.org/general/litigation-c-itoh.htm The second development concerns the nature of rights to IP-address blocks. Reported on by IGP last April , arguments were heard October 23rd in US District Court (Northern District of California). At this stage, the Court is considering ARIN's argument that a 2001 order be modified to require that the plaintiff (Kremen) sign a Registration Services Agreement and pay for IP-address resources. In addition, ARIN has requested the suit be dismissed. The financial motive is clear; at stake is the IP-address block Kremen was legally awarded in 2001 and which ARIN refuses to remit. The outcome will clarify the applicability of US law pertaining to IP-address blocks, and more generally the applicability of property concepts to IP addresses. These developments make it clear why ICANN desires to extract itself from the clutches of national (i.e., US) law, as expressed in its recent strategic plan draft . But according to its own hired expert, the feasibility of this seems unlikely, simply because ICANN is a creature of private law, not public international law. More importantly, if ICANN did escape US law, would it not also escape formal accountability? This is the quandary created by the ICANN regime's attempt to create a global governance mechanism without any real international agreements. In the absence of a binding global agreement, ICANN is arguably made more accountable to the Internet community through its subjection to the well established, transparent, and enforceable application of domestic, private law - even if it is in the U.S. We can apologize to our compatriots in other countries for the bias, but private law has to be based somewhere, and until and unless other, equally strong forms of accountability are created we would not like to see ICANN slip away. ================================================= [5] IG FORUM ADVISORY GROUP WILL MEET IN FEBRUARY ================================================= The Internet Governance Forum's Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) will meet on 12 February (tentative date) in Geneva, Switzerland to review and assess the Athens meeting, and there will be open public consultations on the 13th. The open consultations will include translation into the 6 UN languages. According to one diplomat, "part of the Agenda of the February meeting will be...modalities for multi-stakeholder interaction." The Forum Secretariat should also be encouraged to take up the status of the Advisory Group itself: should a new one be created for the next forum? You are invited to provide the Forum with feedback at this site: http://intgovforum.org/forum/ ============================================================== [6] LEAPFROGGING, DEVELOPMENT, ICTs: A CONTRARIAN AFRICAN VIEW ============================================================== In his keynote speech to the Caribbean Internet Governance Forum, African civil society participant and Syracuse University doctoral student Mawaki Chango challenges the mindset which views ICTs as a way of "catching up." Download the text of the speech here: http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/MC-Keynote-Grenada.pdf ========================= 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Dec 6 13:53:15 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:53:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: <2BB4A9F5-456D-42CE-A0C9-25C11E4E4FE0@dannybutt.net> References: <45747003.8030003@wz-berlin.de> <2BB4A9F5-456D-42CE-A0C9-25C11E4E4FE0@dannybutt.net> Message-ID: <4577119B.2040409@wz-berlin.de> > I think Jeanette's suggestion below reflects my own point of view. The > onus is on self-governing bodies responsible for critical infrastructure > to demonstrate inclusiveness and effectiveness to the level that > intergovernmental mechanisms can demonstrate. By this I mean the bodies > really need to gain at least the level of trust and legitimacy in the > eyes of all, not just in the eyes of those currently doing well out of > the status quo (including Euro-US dominated civil society). Until this > can be shown in practice (not in theory), I cant see how ICANN is better > than say the ITU. On further reflection, we should not glorify intergovernmental processes and institutions. Even if the ITU is more inclusive as far as participation of governments is concerned, we don't know much about balances of powers between governments. And even if there are formal mechanisms of accountability, we don't know whether they are effective. ICANN is much more transparent than any intergovernmental organization. This is why we can observe its shortcomings on a regular basis. I wouldn't be able to say if closed intergovernmental organizations such as the ITU violate or stretch their own rules more or less than ICANN. What seems safe to say is trust in an organization requires better performance. jeanette > > (Please don't talk meetings being "open for anyone to attend" - we all > want these intergovernmental bodies to be more open and accountable. But > I think we need to start that critique with a recognition of the global > legitimacy that intergovernmental bodies have been able to achieve much > more effectively than ICANN or any of the other IG self-governing > bodies. And realise that you can't get four billion people onto a > discussion list or meeting room, so direct democracy won't get you there.) > > Best > > Danny > > On 05/12/2006, at 7:59 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> I believe that any self governance mechanism must prove that it is >> able to produce at least equally good results as an >> (inter-)governmental regime. A crucial part of this "equally good" >> would be reliable rules and appeals mechanisms. In order to gain the >> trust and the legitimacy they need, private governance mechanisms need >> to develop an equivalent to the rule of law. I am not sure ICANN takes >> its own rules seriously enough to deserve the responsibility it has. > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 veni at veni.com Wed Dec 6 15:18:33 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:18:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: <4577119B.2040409@wz-berlin.de> References: <45747003.8030003@wz-berlin.de> <2BB4A9F5-456D-42CE-A0C9-25C11E4E4FE0@dannybutt.net> <4577119B.2040409@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <200612062012.kB6KCYAj020882@mxr.isoc.bg> At 07:53 PM 06.12.2006 '?.'Ъ▄Ж +0100, you wrote: >On further reflection, we should not glorify >intergovernmental processes and institutions. >Even if the ITU is more inclusive as far as >participation of governments is concerned, we >don't know much about balances of powers between >governments. And even if there are formal >mechanisms of accountability, we don't know whether they are effective. > >ICANN is much more transparent than any >intergovernmental organization. This is why we >can observe its shortcomings on a regular basis. >I wouldn't be able to say if closed >intergovernmental organizations such as the ITU >violate or stretch their own rules more or less >than ICANN. What seems safe to say is trust in >an organization requires better performance. Shall I understand your words, that you believe while change within ICANN is possible (either ways), within the ITU it's not likely to happen? As someone who has been dealing with all different organizations around ICANN, I've reached to the conclusion, that if a change is needed, it can be achieved anywhere. However, in some cases it's more difficult, and I am not particularly sure that sometimes it's worth paying the price for that. Perhaps each of us has memories from the WSIS and how things happened there. The major achievement of the ICANN process is that it involved right from the beginning the business and the civil society. In fact, regardless of what people think about the US government, it was exactly that very same government that let the process start. And today the GAC changes are aiming at improving their participation within ICANN, not in exluding them, or excluding ICANN from the processes. Only mutually beneficial cooperation will have success at the end. Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ 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 aizu at anr.org Wed Dec 6 15:58:21 2006 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 05:58:21 +0900 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: References: <45747003.8030003@wz-berlin.de> <2BB4A9F5-456D-42CE-A0C9-25C11E4E4FE0@dannybutt.net> <4577119B.2040409@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: Hi, I am still not able to asess how much departure the new dot com agreement of USG with VeriSign would bring to the current ICANN framework. (I need my homework bit more, I mean). Having been involved with ICANN mostly on AtLarge area for so many years now, I could tell organizational shortcomings of the ICANN relatively easily. Some of these are expressed in the recently agreed "self-review" of ALAC: http://icannwiki.org/ALAC:Self_Assessment_and_Next_Steps I also like to add my recent observation about ITU, in their standard-making process around NGN (Next Generation Network). It is very much done in a traditional ITU way, in the working group, where most of the works are done by the sector members, meaing private company or industry people who are technical expert, with some government people also involved. All the draft document, members of the group etc are not for the public, thus it is hard to trace what is being discussed. Some of the so called "technical" standards involves public policy issues, such as security, identity management, which directly relate to privacy, but since these are all kept behind, it is almost impossible for policy people to provide any inputs or influence. In that sense, yes, ICANN is much more open and transparent and, therefore easier to track by us, civil society, about the possible policy areas. izumi 2006/12/7, Jeanette Hofmann : > > > > I think Jeanette's suggestion below reflects my own point of view. The > > onus is on self-governing bodies responsible for critical infrastructure > > > to demonstrate inclusiveness and effectiveness to the level that > > intergovernmental mechanisms can demonstrate. By this I mean the bodies > > really need to gain at least the level of trust and legitimacy in the > > eyes of all, not just in the eyes of those currently doing well out of > > the status quo (including Euro-US dominated civil society). Until this > > can be shown in practice (not in theory), I cant see how ICANN is better > > > than say the ITU. > > On further reflection, we should not glorify intergovernmental processes > and institutions. Even if the ITU is more inclusive as far as > participation of governments is concerned, we don't know much about > balances of powers between governments. And even if there are formal > mechanisms of accountability, we don't know whether they are effective. > > ICANN is much more transparent than any intergovernmental organization. > This is why we can observe its shortcomings on a regular basis. I > wouldn't be able to say if closed intergovernmental organizations such > as the ITU violate or stretch their own rules more or less than ICANN. > What seems safe to say is trust in an organization requires better > performance. > > jeanette -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From db at dannybutt.net Thu Dec 7 01:36:29 2006 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 19:36:29 +1300 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: <4577119B.2040409@wz-berlin.de> References: <45747003.8030003@wz-berlin.de> <2BB4A9F5-456D-42CE-A0C9-25C11E4E4FE0@dannybutt.net> <4577119B.2040409@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: Hi Jeanette/all I find it interesting that internet culture is so hostile to the idea of government that even mild recognition quickly becomes "glorification" :7. I have no great love for intergovernmental systems, but they do some things relatively well, or at least better than existing alternatives. Geographical diversity and due process would be high on my list. While I think that "transparency" in the development sector is highly overrated (and often a tool to enable ICT-rich organisations to get contracts where "publishing on the internet" is equated with transparency), I agree it is an important component of accountability. However, it's far from the only component, or even the most important. My point is that what constitutes "performance" will be assessed differently by different people, and there is a rather large geopolitical/socio-cultural imbalance in positive evaluations of existing Internet Governance entities. Civil Society's stand on that imbalance will, in my opinion, be critical to its long-term voice in IG arrangements. Or to put it more simply, if CS buys the line that everything is fine as long as it gets seats at the table, then it may soon find itself in an expensive, empty restaurant with bad food and worse company, while the masses eat elsewhere. Regards, Danny On 07/12/2006, at 7:53 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > On further reflection, we should not glorify intergovernmental > processes and institutions. Even if the ITU is more inclusive as > far as participation of governments is concerned, we don't know > much about balances of powers between governments. And even if > there are formal mechanisms of accountability, we don't know > whether they are effective. > > ICANN is much more transparent than any intergovernmental > organization. This is why we can observe its shortcomings on a > regular basis. I wouldn't be able to say if closed > intergovernmental organizations such as the ITU violate or stretch > their own rules more or less than ICANN. What seems safe to say is > trust in an organization requires better performance. ____________________________________________________________ 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Dec 7 01:46:23 2006 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 17:46:23 +1100 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <024e01c719cb$6b7ae4a0$4a02a8c0@IAN> What Danny said...... Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Danny Butt [mailto:db at dannybutt.net] Sent: 07 December 2006 17:36 To: Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship Hi Jeanette/all I find it interesting that internet culture is so hostile to the idea of government that even mild recognition quickly becomes "glorification" :7. I have no great love for intergovernmental systems, but they do some things relatively well, or at least better than existing alternatives. Geographical diversity and due process would be high on my list. While I think that "transparency" in the development sector is highly overrated (and often a tool to enable ICT-rich organisations to get contracts where "publishing on the internet" is equated with transparency), I agree it is an important component of accountability. However, it's far from the only component, or even the most important. My point is that what constitutes "performance" will be assessed differently by different people, and there is a rather large geopolitical/socio-cultural imbalance in positive evaluations of existing Internet Governance entities. Civil Society's stand on that imbalance will, in my opinion, be critical to its long-term voice in IG arrangements. Or to put it more simply, if CS buys the line that everything is fine as long as it gets seats at the table, then it may soon find itself in an expensive, empty restaurant with bad food and worse company, while the masses eat elsewhere. Regards, Danny On 07/12/2006, at 7:53 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > On further reflection, we should not glorify intergovernmental > processes and institutions. Even if the ITU is more inclusive as > far as participation of governments is concerned, we don't know > much about balances of powers between governments. And even if > there are formal mechanisms of accountability, we don't know > whether they are effective. > > ICANN is much more transparent than any intergovernmental > organization. This is why we can observe its shortcomings on a > regular basis. I wouldn't be able to say if closed > intergovernmental organizations such as the ITU violate or stretch > their own rules more or less than ICANN. What seems safe to say is > trust in an organization requires better performance. ____________________________________________________________ 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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.9/573 - Release Date: 05/12/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.9/573 - Release Date: 05/12/2006 ____________________________________________________________ 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 ronda at panix.com Thu Dec 7 06:56:56 2006 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 06:56:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: <43725E8D.3010204@rits.org.br> References: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> <0B1951CB-9B9B-4DE3-974C-90A72EE41233@psg.com> <43725E8D.3010204@rits.org.br> Message-ID: On 12/4/06, Milton Mueller wrote: >We need a new global governance regime and in entering into it we must >as a principle be deeply aware of the fact that the Internet's growth >and much of its value came from the fact that govts had no regulation or >control over how it initially evolved. The myth that government had no regulation or control over how the Internet initially evolved is important to put to rest. The Internet was built under a good form of government leadership. The problem of the myth is that instead of building on the actual model that made it possible to create the Internet, the actual practice is thrown out the window and models are created that have no basis for being with regard to the Internet. Instead of paying serious attention to the history and practice of how the Internet was built, there is the fallacious effort to invent something that has no connection to the Internet and its origin. This is what ICANN has done and unfortunately the efforts to challenge ICANN fall into this same mode. It would be more helpful for those offering such a challenge to be studying the history fo how the Internet was developed and considering the implications of this development toward its future. Following was a talk I gave toward beginning this process: The International Origins of the Internet and the Impact of this Framework on its Future http://ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/nov4talk2.doc best wishes Ronda Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook ____________________________________________________________ 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Dec 7 07:57:57 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:57:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] New dot com agreement changes USG-ICANN relationship In-Reply-To: References: <45747003.8030003@wz-berlin.de> <2BB4A9F5-456D-42CE-A0C9-25C11E4E4FE0@dannybutt.net> <4577119B.2040409@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <45780FD5.90205@wz-berlin.de> Danny, don't take the "glorification" too literally. What I meant to say is that disappointment with private forms of governance should not make us blind for the shortcoming of governmental or intergovernmental forms of governance. At the risk of getting bashed for it, I sometimes wonder if ICANN's transparency has the paradoxical effect of evoking criticism that intergovernmental organizations avoid simply by hiding their failures better. jeanette Danny Butt wrote: > Hi Jeanette/all > > I find it interesting that internet culture is so hostile to the idea > of government that even mild recognition quickly becomes > "glorification" :7. I have no great love for intergovernmental systems, > but they do some things relatively well, or at least better than > existing alternatives. Geographical diversity and due process would be > high on my list. > > While I think that "transparency" in the development sector is highly > overrated (and often a tool to enable ICT-rich organisations to get > contracts where "publishing on the internet" is equated with > transparency), I agree it is an important component of accountability. > However, it's far from the only component, or even the most important. > > My point is that what constitutes "performance" will be assessed > differently by different people, and there is a rather large > geopolitical/socio-cultural imbalance in positive evaluations of > existing Internet Governance entities. Civil Society's stand on that > imbalance will, in my opinion, be critical to its long-term voice in IG > arrangements. > > Or to put it more simply, if CS buys the line that everything is fine > as long as it gets seats at the table, then it may soon find itself in > an expensive, empty restaurant with bad food and worse company, while > the masses eat elsewhere. > > Regards, > > Danny > > > On 07/12/2006, at 7:53 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> On further reflection, we should not glorify intergovernmental >> processes and institutions. Even if the ITU is more inclusive as far >> as participation of governments is concerned, we don't know much >> about balances of powers between governments. And even if there are >> formal mechanisms of accountability, we don't know whether they are >> effective. >> >> ICANN is much more transparent than any intergovernmental >> organization. This is why we can observe its shortcomings on a >> regular basis. I wouldn't be able to say if closed intergovernmental >> organizations such as the ITU violate or stretch their own rules more >> or less than ICANN. What seems safe to say is trust in an >> organization requires better performance. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 karenb at gn.apc.org Thu Dec 7 11:32:56 2006 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:32:56 -0200 Subject: [governance] Africa: Connectivity and Bandwidth Reports Message-ID: <20061207163314.A47411790C6@mail.gn.apc.org> dear all, Some of you would have seen the 'Open Access' paper APC commissioned for the Athens IGF - here it is, extracted, with another piece by russell southwood (balancing act) karen >Africa: Bandwidth Reports > >AfricaFocus Bulletin >Dec 7, 2006 (061207) >(Reposted from sources cited below) > >Editor's Note > >"Bandwidth is the life-blood of the world's knowledge economy, >but it is scarcest where it is most needed ... For those >[African institutions] that can afford it, their costs are >usually thousands of times higher than for their counterparts in >the developed world, and even Africa's most well-endowed centres >of excellence have less bandwidth than a home broadband user in >North America or Europe, and it must be shared amongst hundreds >or even thousands of users. A variety of factors are >responsible for this situation, but the biggest cause is the >high cost of international connections to the global >telecommunication backbones." - Mike Jensen > >This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains excerpts from recent reports >by Mike Jensen for the Association of Progressive >Communications, and by Russell Southwood of Balancing Act, both >focusing on issues of additional bandwidth. > >Another AfricaFocus Bulletin sent out today contains a variety >of reports from Balancing Act's News Update on the IT and >telecommunications sectors in Africa. > >++++++++++++++++++++++end editor's note+++++++++++++++++++++++ > >Open Access: Lowering the Costs of International Bandwidth in >Africa > >Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > >APC Issue Papers > >Mike Jensen > >October 2006 > >[Excerpts only. Full text, with footnotes and maps, available at >http://rights.apc.org/documents/open_access_EN.pdf > >* This paper ... which was finalised in late June 2006, contains >annexes available online: > http://rights.apc.org/documents/fibre_bandwidth_annexes_EN.pdf > >* A South African, Mike Jensen sent his first email more than >twenty years ago. He is an independent consultant with >experience in more than 30 countries in Africa assisting in the >establishment of information and communications systems over the >last 15 years. > >* APC is an international network of civil society organisations >founded in 1990 dedicated to empowering and supporting people >working for peace, human rights, development and protection of >the environment, through the strategic use of information and >communication technology (ICTs). We work to build a world in >which all people have easy, equal and affordable access to the >creative potential of ICTs to improve their lives and create >more democratic and egalitarian societies.] > >Bandwidth is the life-blood of the world's knowledge economy, >but it is scarcest where it is most needed - in the developing >nations of Africa which require low-cost communications to >accelerate their socioeconomic development. Few schools, >libraries, universities and research centres on the continent >have any internet access. For those that can afford it, their >costs are usually thousands of times higher than for their >counterparts in the developed world, and even Africa's most >well-endowed centres of excellence have less bandwidth than a >home broadband user in North America or Europe, and it must be >shared amongst hundreds or even thousands of users. > >A variety of factors are responsible for this situation, but the >biggest cause is the high cost of international connections to >the global telecommunication backbones. This is mainly the >result of the lack of international optic fibre infrastructure, >which is necessary to deliver sufficient volumes of low-cost >bandwidth, and the consequent dependency on much more expensive >satellite bandwidth. Less than twenty of the 54 African >countries have international optic fibre cable connections, and >these are currently controlled by inefficient state-owned >operators which charge monopoly prices while neglecting to build >the national backbones needed to carry local and international >traffic. As a result, circuits from Africa to the US or Europe >usually cost more than US$5000 a month1 , while cross-Atlantic >links between North America and Europe can now be obtained for >US$2.5/Mbps/month and for US$16 30/ Mpbs/month on international >routes in Asia. > >The only large-scale international fibre link in Africa >(SAT-3/WASC/SAFE) connects eight countries on the west coast of >the continent to Europe and the Far East. Operating as a cartel >of monopoly stateowned telecommunication providers, prices have >barely come down since it began operating in 2002. New fibre >projects have been proposed which could break this monopoly and >add many more African countries to the global grid, but most of >these projects are also being developed by state-owned telecom >operators. As a result they are following the same high-priced >SAT-3 business model. Unless interventions are made to reduce >the cost of these existing international fibre links and to >ensure that new fibre infrastructure is quickly built, the >continent will be prevented from tapping its latent potential >and will fall further behind the rest of the world. > >This problem is not unique to Africa. Other developing regions >suffer from the same problem, but it is at its most extreme in >sub-Saharan Africa, which has the lowest teledensity in the >world and the highest unmet demand for telecommunication >services. Fortunately, African governments and the international >community have recently become more aware that action is needed >to improve access to communications and to encourage the >adoption of alternative business models that can significantly >lower the cost of international links. These have centred on >what are known as open access models, which are cost-based and >owned by the public sector (similar to roads and rail lines), >rather than being operated by a club of companies aiming to >maximise profits. > >Most African country telecommunication markets are slowly moving >to a more competitive environment which will ultimately address >pricing and national imbalances in demand and supply. However >the international sector in developing countries is different >from developed nations because the majority of countries have >markets that are too small to justify the cost of deploying many >competing international fibre cables. With each cable able to >carry data at terabit speeds, only one international connection >to a global hub is needed, although a second physically separate >link is also required for backup (redundant connection) >purposes. However achieving competitive pricing between just two >suppliers is infeasible. Thus, in order to ensure cost-based >pricing, a different model of deployment is needed, where the >cable and landing points are operated on a non-profit basis, >extending the models used by internet service providers for >operating national or regional Internet Exchange Points (Ixs). > >This follows a number of recent studies which have identified >public-private partnerships and open access models as a more >appropriate solution for fibre deployment These also build on >precedents set by the oil and gas industries when building >pipelines, in which the basic approach is to establish a Special >Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to operate the facilities. The main >objective of the SPV is not to make a profit, but to facilitate >profits made elsewhere by the participating companies. The aim >is not to exclude incumbent telecom operators from the process, >but to allow the participation of others that might bring >additional funding or other advantages to the table such as >rights of way to build fibre along power or rail routes > >The most viable structure for this approach is likely to be a >two-part system in which national cable landing points are >managed by national associations of bandwidth providers, while >the cable itself is owned by a mix of operators and private or >public investors. Given that the most appropriate place for the >cable landing point is likely to be at the facilities of the >national operator, these would most likely be owned by the >state, but operated by a management company appointed by the >national association of bandwidth providers. > >With the cable itself, different models can be adopted. In one >scenario any entity would be free to invest, either as an >operator, in which case the investment would be tied to >guaranteed amounts of bandwidth, or as a non-user shareholder >who might invest funds or provide a right of way (e.g. a gas >pipeline operator wishing to minimise the cost of operating >their pipeline network). Alternatively, ownership of the cable >can be defined on a national basis with shares held by the same >special purpose companies that operate the landing points. > >In either case, sufficient investment is likely to come from the >much broader base of operators that would be able to access the >bandwidth at cost, and little additional financing would likely >be required However some of the smaller, more remote or less >developed countries might require special assistance, and given >the general interest by the international community in ensuring >more universal access, along with the positive impact on demand >for national backbones that would result from affordable >international connectivity, donors could provide a demand >guarantee that would meet any revenue shortfalls in the early >years. This may be a risk for donors if the demand was not met >over the life of the cable. However, assuming the long-term >business case is sound, they might look to recoup the funding >when traffic increased at a later point. Donors could also be >invited to meet the cost of additional add-drop units on fibre >projects to ensure small and remote communities along the way >can be reached. The choice of these locations would be a matter >for negotiation between the donors and national governments. > >Given the interest of governments in supporting the development >of their nations such as through improved access to health and >education, along with the broader social improvement and >enhanced public services which can be provided through better >connectivity, there is a growing interest amongst a wide range >of stakeholders in ensuring that open access models are adopted. > >The initial focus is likely to be on supporting the adoption of >open access models for the upcoming East African fibre project >(EASSy, see below) which could then be replicated in West and >Central Africa. At the same time SAT-3 and other existing >international fibre cables may be declared essential facilities >serving the public good with regulated pricing. Specific >activities are likely to be: > >* Increased backing for policy makers and regulatory agencies in >Africa to implement policy changes and regulations that allow >open access to international fibre > >* Support to local associations of bandwidth providers to >establish shared international fibre gateways > >* Increased backing for international fibre projects which aim >to provide equal access to all bandwidth providers. > >There is the risk that the entrenched interests of the incumbent >operators and their state-owners will be able to resist efforts >to change national telecom policy, and that the EASSy project >goes ahead as currently planned. Nonetheless, support from a >broad range of stakeholders is expected to substantially improve >the chances of an alternative strategy being adopted, which >could have a major impact on the way international fibre >projects in developing countries are being planned in the >future. > >In summary: > >Most of Africa is as yet unconnected to the global fibre >backbones. > >Optic fibre is the only way to supply sufficient international >low-cost bandwidth. > >As elsewhere, the limited fibre that has been laid in Africa is >not competitively priced, and uses business models developed by >cartels of monopoly telecommunication operators. > >A cable planned for the East coast of Africa (EASSy) which will >have a major impact on bandwidth availability in the region, was >being developed as a club of mostly state monopoly operators >with high prices and low volumes in mind. > >The strategy for the deployment of an open access model for >EASSy is in the process of being legislated by policy makers in >the region. > >The adoption of a low-cost open access model for EASSy would >likely have a major impact on the way new fibre projects are >planned in other regions in Africa. > >1. The Nature of the Problem > >Communication costs in Africa are currently thousands of times >higher than in Europe or North America. This particularly >affects those with the most limited resources: students, >researchers, doctors, scientists, and other public servants, as >well as the general public, who are unable to take full >advantage of the unprecedented access to knowledge the internet >provides. Cheaper bandwidth for African institutions, >particularly governments, schools, universities, libraries and >hospitals would provide widespread access to the wealth of >information available online, facilitate African contributions >to the global economy and increase the likelihood of successful >solutions to African development problems. So in a nutshell, the >constraints on development in Africa caused by the high cost of >communications are not being addressed due to inappropriate >business models used for deploying international fibre >infrastructure. > >The developed world is benefiting from the surplus of optical >fibre cable laid during the dot-com bubble which has coincided >with technology advances that have made speeds of over 1000 >Gigabits per second routine on these fibre links. While those in >the North reap the benefits of these developments, much of the >South, and Africa in particular, has not seen significant >deployment of international fibre. ... > >There is only one intercontinental fibre link to sub-Saharan >Africa (SAT-3) which provides connections to Europe and the Far >East for eight countries along the west coast of the continent >,,, Except for some onward links from South Africa to its >neighbours, and from Sudan to Egypt and from Senegal to Mali, >the remaining 33 African countries are unconnected to the global >optical backbones, and depend on the much more limited and >high-cost bandwidth from satellite links. Even the few countries >that have access to international fibre through SAT-3 are not >seeing the benefits because it is operated as a consortium where >connections are charged at monopoly prices8 by the state-owned >operators which still predominate in most of Africa, and in many >other developing regions. > >As a result, institutions in these countries pay thousands of >dollars a month for internet connections which a home broadband >user in North America would pay US$20 a month for. Aside from >the general dampening effect this has had on uptake, >unaffordable bandwidth has actually excluded African scientists >from gaining access to the services of global research networks >which now expect their member countries to have at least 1Gbps >on international connections in order to access the advanced >services and petabit data sets they now provide. > >In a chicken-and-egg situation, the constraints on demand >resulting from the high tariffs charged by the monopoly >operators have contributed to the slow pace of fibre deployment >and the severe lack of investment in needed infrastructure. Many >of these state-run telecom operators, often mismanaged, >inefficient and suffering from much reduced profits caused by >the collapse of international settlement rates, do not have the >resources to invest the millions of dollars needed to deploy >national and international fibre, and neither do their host >governments. Understandably, few private investors or donors are >interested in financing these moribund organisations that rest >on artificially-closed markets. At the same time, continued >state-operator control over international gateways and national >backbones has meant there are very few opportunities for >investment in privately-operated telecommunication >infrastructure. > >[For detailed sections on SAT-3 and EASSEY omitted, see full >text on the APC website] > >************************************************************* > >Balancing Act's News Update 318 (13th August 2006) > >Top Story: Africa's Transition to Fibre Likely to Be Slower than >Expected, Says New Report > >With the proposed EASSy fibre cable coming on stream in 2008 and >the steady roll-out of national backbone and cross-border links, >it might be expected that the proportion of African traffic >carried by fibre would increase very quickly. This appears >unlikely to happen within the next three to five years, >according to a new report from Balancing Act out this week. > >Currently around 80% of all of Africa's voice and data traffic >is carried by satellite but this figure is likely to fall as the >continent increases fibre links at all levels. The balance of >traffic is almost all carried by the continent's only current >international fibre link, SAT3. > >Based on use of its international traffic database, it estimates >that on the basis of the progress of current plans and with >favourable pricing adjustments on the SAT3 fibre, just over 30% >of the total market in three years time will be carried by >fibre, according to the African Satellite Markets report. > >Why is this transition likely to be so slow given that fibre is >cheaper than satellite for high-volume traffic? There are a >number of factors: > >* The slow speed of competitive national backbone roll-out: It >has taken Nigeria five years to get to a point where Nitel is >supplying sufficient national backbone connections to SAT3 that >there is now a rising flow of traffic on to the SAT3 cable. By >contrast, South Africa's Telkom completed this work prior to the >cable opening and now carries the majority of its traffic over >the fibre link. > >* The lack of inter-country links: Although both SAT3 and the >proposed EASSy cable connect coastal cities there are relatively >few cross-border links in place. Kenya has two sets of links >being built to Nairobi by KDN and Telkom Kenya and a link is >being built from Kenya to Rwanda. But other parts of the >"land-side" infrastructure are at a much earlier stage. For >example, Zamtel has just announced its intention to build its >connection to EASSy (see Telecom News). And in one case >Zimbabwe the transition has gone backwards: Telkom SA financed >a fibre link to the country but TelOne failed to meet the >payments so is now sending its traffic via satellite. > >* The impact of high SAT3 prices on landlocked and "no landing >station" countries: SAT3 consortium member Namibia Telecom is a >"no landing station country" and sends 60% of its voice traffic >via satellite, most of the balance being calls to South Africa. >Why? Because the costs of transiting via South Africa make it >more expensive than sending via satellite. Based on a pricing >survey, the report looks in detail at these market distortions >that have arisen from the position held by the monopoly market >supplier. > >* The lowering of prices on the proposed EASSy cable: Although >final prices have not yet been announced, it is believed that >they will fall in the US$500-1000 range (the lower price >probably being available after a five year period). This will >give users in the largest Sub-Saharan African market, South >Africa, a much cheaper alternative and will drive down what >Telkom SA can charge. Over 3-5 years, this will have the effect >of unlocking some of the market distortion problems identified >in the previous point in the southern African region. However, >it will leave similar problems in West Africa largely >unaffected. > >Sub-Saharan Africa has seen a fourfold increase in the level of >international Internet bandwidth supplied by satellite over the >last four years, from 500 Mbps in 2002 to 1.86 Gbps in 2006. >There are now 71 satellites with full or partial coverage of >Africa and seven more are planned. > >Two major satellite operator acquisitions were completed during >2006: > >- On 3 July 2006, Intelsat announced that it had completed the >acquisition of PanAmSat. Intelsat now therefore operates 25 out >of the 54 satellites over Africa. > >- On 30 March 2006, SES Global completed the acquisition of New >Skies Satellites. SES Global now therefore operates 6 out of 54 >satellites over Africa. > >There have also been moves toward consolidation in the reseller >market as Israel's Gilat Satcom has purchased another Israeli >reseller IP Planet. Both companies have a significant presence >in the African market. Another large reseller with a significant >presence has also been the subject of an unsuccessful bid and a >large African corporate connectivity supplier is up for sale. > >For further details of what's in African Satellite Markets, go >to: http://www.balancingact-africa.com/satmarks.html To order >the report, go to: >http://www.balancingact-africa.com/profiles/order/order_form.php > >************************************************************* >AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication >providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, >with a particular focus on U.S. and international policies. >AfricaFocus Bulletin is edited by William Minter. > >AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus at igc.org. >Please write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the >bulletin, or to suggest material for inclusion. For more >information about reposted material, please contact directly the >original source mentioned. For a full archive and other >resources, see http://www.africafocus.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 Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 21:29:04 2006 From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:29:04 -0800 Subject: [governance] conference keynote: Silicon Valley Challenge Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061207182210.043e7120@peoplewho.org> Kofi Annan challenged Silicon Valley to open up the knowledge society. This speech UN Sarbuland Khan's Opening Keynote the GiiT which he mentions met Monday in New York also see http://www.un-gaid.org/ Global Alliance for ICT and Development from this event http://www.scu.edu/sts/Events/rios/index.cfm is online as well as a summary of three of the workshops. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From mueller at syr.edu Fri Dec 8 21:48:05 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 21:48:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] Four legs good, two legs bad Message-ID: This whole debate about government is getting silly. IGP publications have proposed that ICANN be formally accountable to the rule of law (law being governmental, last time I looked); and that the world's governments negotiate a framework convention to codify in a binding fashion certain principles regarding the Internet (principles which, we hope, will preserve and protect its freedoms rather than undermine them). So rather than getting caught in an Orwellian chant that governments are two-legged and therefore intrinsically bad, to be answered by equally uninteresting bleating that they are four-legged and therefore intrinsically good, it might be better to talk about what you want the governments to do, what you don't want them to do, what institutional mechanisms might be deployed, and what checks and balances might exist to counter the obvious tendency of states to wield power in ways that benefit themselves or certain clients at the expense of the public (especially in international arenas where there is no electorate, no real rule of law, very little enforcability and very weak accountability) >>> db at dannybutt.net 12/7/2006 1:36:29 AM >>> Hi Jeanette/all I find it interesting that internet culture is so hostile to the idea of government that even mild recognition quickly becomes "glorification" :7. I have no great love for intergovernmental systems, but they do some things relatively well, or at least better than existing alternatives. Geographical diversity and due process would be high on my list. While I think that "transparency" in the development sector is highly overrated (and often a tool to enable ICT-rich organisations to get contracts where "publishing on the internet" is equated with transparency), I agree it is an important component of accountability. However, it's far from the only component, or even the most important. My point is that what constitutes "performance" will be assessed differently by different people, and there is a rather large geopolitical/socio-cultural imbalance in positive evaluations of existing Internet Governance entities. Civil Society's stand on that imbalance will, in my opinion, be critical to its long-term voice in IG arrangements. Or to put it more simply, if CS buys the line that everything is fine as long as it gets seats at the table, then it may soon find itself in an expensive, empty restaurant with bad food and worse company, while the masses eat elsewhere. Regards, Danny On 07/12/2006, at 7:53 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > On further reflection, we should not glorify intergovernmental > processes and institutions. Even if the ITU is more inclusive as > far as participation of governments is concerned, we don't know > much about balances of powers between governments. And even if > there are formal mechanisms of accountability, we don't know > whether they are effective. > > ICANN is much more transparent than any intergovernmental > organization. This is why we can observe its shortcomings on a > regular basis. I wouldn't be able to say if closed > intergovernmental organizations such as the ITU violate or stretch > their own rules more or less than ICANN. What seems safe to say is > trust in an organization requires better performance. ____________________________________________________________ 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 Fri Dec 8 21:32:52 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 21:32:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] Rhonda: Message-ID: Rhonda: I could explain at greater length: If we had convened the ITU in 1991 and tried to pass a resolution authorizing any operator in the world to offer a global information service that competed with domestic newspapers, broadcasters and telephone companies and contained politically challenging, pornographic or otehrwise unrestricted information content the answer would have been a resounding NO. Internet globally was built around the liberalization of "value-added services". Governments liberalized that market because it was considered (and at the time, was) small and insiginifcant in terms of revenue and effect on vested interests. Less than 1% of the telecom market at the time. Through that "stealth" mechanism, and through the liberalization of leased circuits, budding ISPs were able to form and interconnect. The unanticipated and (at the time) completely unregulated addition of WWW and html and browsers to the system around 1993. Govts had no official control of domain name or address allocation; they did not even succeed in asserting power over ccTLD assignments until after 2000. You could say that the US government policy of promoting free trade in interntional telecom services contributed to the development of the internet. But the US govt had no idea that it was preparing the way for the internet when it did that, it was more interested in managed informatikon services of the sort offered by AT&T, and in traditional voice telecom. Governments as a collectivity had no specific regulatory powers over the international aspects of the Internet, and they still don't except for ICANN. The US govt promoted and subsidized the internet as a tiny closed network for academics and researchers. The agency that made the decision to open it to the public was not an official policy making organ of the US government but a research foundation and an informal committee of network users within the Federal government. It's mutation into a public mass medium was largely "accidental" and serendipitous. >>> ronda at panix.com 12/7/2006 6:56:56 AM >>> On 12/4/06, Milton Mueller wrote: >We need a new global governance regime and in entering into it we must >as a principle be deeply aware of the fact that the Internet's growth >and much of its value came from the fact that govts had no regulation or >control over how it initially evolved. The myth that government had no regulation or control over how the Internet initially evolved is important to put to rest. The Internet was built under a good form of government leadership. The problem of the myth is that instead of building on the actual model that made it possible to create the Internet, the actual practice is thrown out the window and models are created that have no basis for being with regard to the Internet. Instead of paying serious attention to the history and practice of how the Internet was built, there is the fallacious effort to invent something that has no connection to the Internet and its origin. This is what ICANN has done and unfortunately the efforts to challenge ICANN fall into this same mode. It would be more helpful for those offering such a challenge to be studying the history fo how the Internet was developed and considering the implications of this development toward its future. Following was a talk I gave toward beginning this process: The International Origins of the Internet and the Impact of this Framework on its Future http://ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/nov4talk2.doc best wishes Ronda Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook ____________________________________________________________ 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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Fri Dec 8 21:58:50 2006 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 21:58:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] Four legs good, two legs bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8cbfe7410612081858r45d9920av33c7ed5f266c7b96@mail.gmail.com> Greetings, I trust the following note will be found' in sync' with those proceeding, at least I so intend it to be and in collegial mettle. . I've been at some U.N. / ICT related events lately, and I really *think* and *feel* that to a large extent the burden is ours to explain ICT, computing, information systems. Like anything else (for all of the exciting aura of things new) If it is not something people have been and/or are very familiar with, much seems mysterious. To expect consensus on things mysterious, well, I have seen this is court-laid-down case law over the decades. Law that is going to take some time to reverse or correct, given the persuasiveness of *stare decisis*, things decided. Because the time came and decisions had to be made. (It was believed). As mentioned at IGF-I Athens when civil society met with Renata moderating, I do believe we have a burden of education, and this in turn will bring inclusion and a more recognized voice. Optimistically yours and Respectfully Interfacing, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff. On 12/8/06, Milton Mueller wrote: > > > This whole debate about government is getting silly. > > IGP publications have proposed that ICANN be formally accountable to > the rule of law (law being governmental, last time I looked); and that > the world's governments negotiate a framework convention to codify in a > binding fashion certain principles regarding the Internet (principles > which, we hope, will preserve and protect its freedoms rather than > undermine them). > > So rather than getting caught in an Orwellian chant that governments > are two-legged and therefore intrinsically bad, to be answered by > equally uninteresting bleating that they are four-legged and therefore > intrinsically good, it might be better to talk about what you want the > governments to do, what you don't want them to do, what institutional > mechanisms might be deployed, and what checks and balances might exist > to counter the obvious tendency of states to wield power in ways that > benefit themselves or certain clients at the expense of the public > (especially in international arenas where there is no electorate, no > real rule of law, very little enforcability and very weak > accountability) > > >>> db at dannybutt.net 12/7/2006 1:36:29 AM >>> > Hi Jeanette/all > > I find it interesting that internet culture is so hostile to the idea > > of government that even mild recognition quickly becomes > "glorification" :7. I have no great love for intergovernmental > systems, but they do some things relatively well, or at least better > than existing alternatives. Geographical diversity and due process > would be high on my list. > > While I think that "transparency" in the development sector is highly > > overrated (and often a tool to enable ICT-rich organisations to get > contracts where "publishing on the internet" is equated with > transparency), I agree it is an important component of > accountability. However, it's far from the only component, or even > the most important. > > My point is that what constitutes "performance" will be assessed > differently by different people, and there is a rather large > geopolitical/socio-cultural imbalance in positive evaluations of > existing Internet Governance entities. Civil Society's stand on that > imbalance will, in my opinion, be critical to its long-term voice in > IG arrangements. > > Or to put it more simply, if CS buys the line that everything is fine > > as long as it gets seats at the table, then it may soon find itself > in an expensive, empty restaurant with bad food and worse company, > while the masses eat elsewhere. > > Regards, > > Danny > > > On 07/12/2006, at 7:53 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > On further reflection, we should not glorify intergovernmental > > processes and institutions. Even if the ITU is more inclusive as > > far as participation of governments is concerned, we don't know > > much about balances of powers between governments. And even if > > there are formal mechanisms of accountability, we don't know > > whether they are effective. > > > > ICANN is much more transparent than any intergovernmental > > organization. This is why we can observe its shortcomings on a > > regular basis. I wouldn't be able to say if closed > > intergovernmental organizations such as the ITU violate or stretch > > their own rules more or less than ICANN. What seems safe to say is > > trust in an organization requires better performance. > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > InterNetizen, ARPANet-Internet forward. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From baptista at cynikal.net Fri Dec 8 21:58:09 2006 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 21:58:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Four legs good, two legs bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <457A2641.6040303@cynikal.net> Then of course there is the fundamental lesson learned that the internet find the rule of law irrelevant. Which of course is why ICANN is obsolete: http://www.publicroot.org/news-2006-11-26-Pirates.html http://www.publicroot.org/news-2006-12-03-Pirates.html Of course this will take time to propagate - and until then the WSIS gravey train continues to rumble along at a very slow pace. Cheers joe baptista Milton Mueller wrote: >This whole debate about government is getting silly. > >IGP publications have proposed that ICANN be formally accountable to >the rule of law (law being governmental, last time I looked); and that >the world's governments negotiate a framework convention to codify in a >binding fashion certain principles regarding the Internet (principles >which, we hope, will preserve and protect its freedoms rather than >undermine them). > >So rather than getting caught in an Orwellian chant that governments >are two-legged and therefore intrinsically bad, to be answered by >equally uninteresting bleating that they are four-legged and therefore >intrinsically good, it might be better to talk about what you want the >governments to do, what you don't want them to do, what institutional >mechanisms might be deployed, and what checks and balances might exist >to counter the obvious tendency of states to wield power in ways that >benefit themselves or certain clients at the expense of the public >(especially in international arenas where there is no electorate, no >real rule of law, very little enforcability and very weak >accountability) > > > >>>>db at dannybutt.net 12/7/2006 1:36:29 AM >>> >>>> >>>> >Hi Jeanette/all > >I find it interesting that internet culture is so hostile to the idea > >of government that even mild recognition quickly becomes >"glorification" :7. I have no great love for intergovernmental >systems, but they do some things relatively well, or at least better >than existing alternatives. Geographical diversity and due process >would be high on my list. > >While I think that "transparency" in the development sector is highly > >overrated (and often a tool to enable ICT-rich organisations to get >contracts where "publishing on the internet" is equated with >transparency), I agree it is an important component of >accountability. However, it's far from the only component, or even >the most important. > >My point is that what constitutes "performance" will be assessed >differently by different people, and there is a rather large >geopolitical/socio-cultural imbalance in positive evaluations of >existing Internet Governance entities. Civil Society's stand on that >imbalance will, in my opinion, be critical to its long-term voice in >IG arrangements. > >Or to put it more simply, if CS buys the line that everything is fine > >as long as it gets seats at the table, then it may soon find itself >in an expensive, empty restaurant with bad food and worse company, >while the masses eat elsewhere. > >Regards, > >Danny > > >On 07/12/2006, at 7:53 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > >>On further reflection, we should not glorify intergovernmental >>processes and institutions. Even if the ITU is more inclusive as >>far as participation of governments is concerned, we don't know >>much about balances of powers between governments. And even if >>there are formal mechanisms of accountability, we don't know >>whether they are effective. >> >>ICANN is much more transparent than any intergovernmental >>organization. This is why we can observe its shortcomings on a >>regular basis. I wouldn't be able to say if closed >>intergovernmental organizations such as the ITU violate or stretch >>their own rules more or less than ICANN. What seems safe to say is >>trust in an organization requires better performance. >> >> > >____________________________________________________________ >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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Dec 8 22:19:45 2006 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 14:19:45 +1100 Subject: [governance] Four legs good, two legs bad In-Reply-To: <457A2641.6040303@cynikal.net> Message-ID: <004d01c71b40$e1fb7b00$4a02a8c0@IAN> How do I get a .pirates domain name? Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Joe Baptista [mailto:baptista at cynikal.net] Sent: 09 December 2006 13:58 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller Cc: db at dannybutt.net Subject: Re: [governance] Four legs good, two legs bad Then of course there is the fundamental lesson learned that the internet find the rule of law irrelevant. Which of course is why ICANN is obsolete: http://www.publicroot.org/news-2006-11-26-Pirates.html http://www.publicroot.org/news-2006-12-03-Pirates.html Of course this will take time to propagate - and until then the WSIS gravey train continues to rumble along at a very slow pace. Cheers joe baptista Milton Mueller wrote: >This whole debate about government is getting silly. > >IGP publications have proposed that ICANN be formally accountable to >the rule of law (law being governmental, last time I looked); and that >the world's governments negotiate a framework convention to codify in a >binding fashion certain principles regarding the Internet (principles >which, we hope, will preserve and protect its freedoms rather than >undermine them). > >So rather than getting caught in an Orwellian chant that governments >are two-legged and therefore intrinsically bad, to be answered by >equally uninteresting bleating that they are four-legged and therefore >intrinsically good, it might be better to talk about what you want the >governments to do, what you don't want them to do, what institutional >mechanisms might be deployed, and what checks and balances might exist >to counter the obvious tendency of states to wield power in ways that >benefit themselves or certain clients at the expense of the public >(especially in international arenas where there is no electorate, no >real rule of law, very little enforcability and very weak >accountability) > > > >>>>db at dannybutt.net 12/7/2006 1:36:29 AM >>> >>>> >>>> >Hi Jeanette/all > >I find it interesting that internet culture is so hostile to the idea > >of government that even mild recognition quickly becomes >"glorification" :7. I have no great love for intergovernmental >systems, but they do some things relatively well, or at least better >than existing alternatives. Geographical diversity and due process >would be high on my list. > >While I think that "transparency" in the development sector is highly > >overrated (and often a tool to enable ICT-rich organisations to get >contracts where "publishing on the internet" is equated with >transparency), I agree it is an important component of >accountability. However, it's far from the only component, or even >the most important. > >My point is that what constitutes "performance" will be assessed >differently by different people, and there is a rather large >geopolitical/socio-cultural imbalance in positive evaluations of >existing Internet Governance entities. Civil Society's stand on that >imbalance will, in my opinion, be critical to its long-term voice in >IG arrangements. > >Or to put it more simply, if CS buys the line that everything is fine > >as long as it gets seats at the table, then it may soon find itself >in an expensive, empty restaurant with bad food and worse company, >while the masses eat elsewhere. > >Regards, > >Danny > > >On 07/12/2006, at 7:53 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > >>On further reflection, we should not glorify intergovernmental >>processes and institutions. Even if the ITU is more inclusive as >>far as participation of governments is concerned, we don't know >>much about balances of powers between governments. And even if >>there are formal mechanisms of accountability, we don't know >>whether they are effective. >> >>ICANN is much more transparent than any intergovernmental >>organization. This is why we can observe its shortcomings on a >>regular basis. I wouldn't be able to say if closed >>intergovernmental organizations such as the ITU violate or stretch >>their own rules more or less than ICANN. What seems safe to say is >>trust in an organization requires better performance. >> >> > >____________________________________________________________ >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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.15/579 - Release Date: 07/12/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.15/579 - Release Date: 07/12/2006 ____________________________________________________________ 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 baptista at cynikal.net Fri Dec 8 23:20:25 2006 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:20:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] Four legs good, two legs bad In-Reply-To: <004d01c71b40$e1fb7b00$4a02a8c0@IAN> References: <004d01c71b40$e1fb7b00$4a02a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <457A3989.4000708@cynikal.net> You'll have to contact the administrator. See the link on the english text to the taproot report. That contains the contact details. regards joe baptista Ian Peter wrote: >How do I get a .pirates domain name? > > > >Ian Peter > >-----Original Message----- >From: Joe Baptista [mailto:baptista at cynikal.net] >Sent: 09 December 2006 13:58 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller >Cc: db at dannybutt.net >Subject: Re: [governance] Four legs good, two legs bad > >Then of course there is the fundamental lesson learned that the internet >find the rule of law irrelevant. Which of course is why ICANN is obsolete: > >http://www.publicroot.org/news-2006-11-26-Pirates.html >http://www.publicroot.org/news-2006-12-03-Pirates.html > >Of course this will take time to propagate - and until then the WSIS >gravey train continues to rumble along at a very slow pace. > >Cheers >joe baptista > >Milton Mueller wrote: > > > >>This whole debate about government is getting silly. >> >>IGP publications have proposed that ICANN be formally accountable to >>the rule of law (law being governmental, last time I looked); and that >>the world's governments negotiate a framework convention to codify in a >>binding fashion certain principles regarding the Internet (principles >>which, we hope, will preserve and protect its freedoms rather than >>undermine them). >> >>So rather than getting caught in an Orwellian chant that governments >>are two-legged and therefore intrinsically bad, to be answered by >>equally uninteresting bleating that they are four-legged and therefore >>intrinsically good, it might be better to talk about what you want the >>governments to do, what you don't want them to do, what institutional >>mechanisms might be deployed, and what checks and balances might exist >>to counter the obvious tendency of states to wield power in ways that >>benefit themselves or certain clients at the expense of the public >>(especially in international arenas where there is no electorate, no >>real rule of law, very little enforcability and very weak >>accountability) >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>db at dannybutt.net 12/7/2006 1:36:29 AM >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>Hi Jeanette/all >> >>I find it interesting that internet culture is so hostile to the idea >> >>of government that even mild recognition quickly becomes >>"glorification" :7. I have no great love for intergovernmental >>systems, but they do some things relatively well, or at least better >>than existing alternatives. Geographical diversity and due process >>would be high on my list. >> >>While I think that "transparency" in the development sector is highly >> >>overrated (and often a tool to enable ICT-rich organisations to get >>contracts where "publishing on the internet" is equated with >>transparency), I agree it is an important component of >>accountability. However, it's far from the only component, or even >>the most important. >> >>My point is that what constitutes "performance" will be assessed >>differently by different people, and there is a rather large >>geopolitical/socio-cultural imbalance in positive evaluations of >>existing Internet Governance entities. Civil Society's stand on that >>imbalance will, in my opinion, be critical to its long-term voice in >>IG arrangements. >> >>Or to put it more simply, if CS buys the line that everything is fine >> >>as long as it gets seats at the table, then it may soon find itself >>in an expensive, empty restaurant with bad food and worse company, >>while the masses eat elsewhere. >> >>Regards, >> >>Danny >> >> >>On 07/12/2006, at 7:53 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>On further reflection, we should not glorify intergovernmental >>>processes and institutions. Even if the ITU is more inclusive as >>>far as participation of governments is concerned, we don't know >>>much about balances of powers between governments. And even if >>>there are formal mechanisms of accountability, we don't know >>>whether they are effective. >>> >>>ICANN is much more transparent than any intergovernmental >>>organization. This is why we can observe its shortcomings on a >>>regular basis. I wouldn't be able to say if closed >>>intergovernmental organizations such as the ITU violate or stretch >>>their own rules more or less than ICANN. What seems safe to say is >>>trust in an organization requires better performance. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>____________________________________________________________ >>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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ 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 Fri Dec 8 23:33:39 2006 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:33:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] Rhonda: Message-ID: Hi Ronda, Milton, everyone, I'll agree and disagree with both of you to help clear things up : ) Yes the ITU (and the EU, and the japanese govt to name a few names) were not friendly to the early net. The EC only in '95 and Japan in '96 ended policies that were actively hostile to the Internet - and I suppose actively seeking to stifle it couild be seen as 'regulating' the net from the start. But the other elephant in the room is of course the US dept of defense and the various contracts passed on to NSF before the Dept of Commerce and ICANN came into the picture. In other words the glorious early Internet days were brought to you by the same folks who brought us...but I digress. And the guy I mean institution who ran the name system out of his back pocket back then was not 'regulated' by the government. Rather he was paid (his university) by the USG, which is a type of involvement ; ). And everyone loves him RIP, etc, and of course I am certainly not implying there was anything wrong, just noting the historical facts. Final correction is the question of how conscious or unconscious was the USG and other governments signing on to trade in services and specifically telecom services liberalization, as to what that might mean for the Internet. That did indeed open the door to the Internet around the world going from a resource only accessible by a few academics and other net tech players, versus the general service it has become. In my opinion and recollection the Clinton/Gore admin knew exactly what it was doing by promoting a 'global information infrastructure' starting in 94. Other governments saw what was going on and wanted to get in the action too. After all they were all using the net to communicate about all of this - and maybe kinda figured others would want to be able to do the same as them. So give governements credit and blame them as you wish, point is life in the virtual fishbowl was made possible by the folks who created the tank. Which gets back to Milton's point in his other note re the framework convention, and what specifically should be the Internet governance regime of the future. Maybe we can refocus on that rather than the past? What kind of fishbowl do we want to co--create multistakeholder style, next? Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> mueller at syr.edu 12/8/2006 9:32 PM >>> Rhonda: I could explain at greater length: If we had convened the ITU in 1991 and tried to pass a resolution authorizing any operator in the world to offer a global information service that competed with domestic newspapers, broadcasters and telephone companies and contained politically challenging, pornographic or otehrwise unrestricted information content the answer would have been a resounding NO. Internet globally was built around the liberalization of "value-added services". Governments liberalized that market because it was considered (and at the time, was) small and insiginifcant in terms of revenue and effect on vested interests. Less than 1% of the telecom market at the time. Through that "stealth" mechanism, and through the liberalization of leased circuits, budding ISPs were able to form and interconnect. The unanticipated and (at the time) completely unregulated addition of WWW and html and browsers to the system around 1993. Govts had no official control of domain name or address allocation; they did not even succeed in asserting power over ccTLD assignments until after 2000. You could say that the US government policy of promoting free trade in interntional telecom services contributed to the development of the internet. But the US govt had no idea that it was preparing the way for the internet when it did that, it was more interested in managed informatikon services of the sort offered by AT&T, and in traditional voice telecom. Governments as a collectivity had no specific regulatory powers over the international aspects of the Internet, and they still don't except for ICANN. The US govt promoted and subsidized the internet as a tiny closed network for academics and researchers. The agency that made the decision to open it to the public was not an official policy making organ of the US government but a research foundation and an informal committee of network users within the Federal government. It's mutation into a public mass medium was largely "accidental" and serendipitous. >>> ronda at panix.com 12/7/2006 6:56:56 AM >>> On 12/4/06, Milton Mueller wrote: >We need a new global governance regime and in entering into it we must >as a principle be deeply aware of the fact that the Internet's growth >and much of its value came from the fact that govts had no regulation or >control over how it initially evolved. The myth that government had no regulation or control over how the Internet initially evolved is important to put to rest. The Internet was built under a good form of government leadership. The problem of the myth is that instead of building on the actual model that made it possible to create the Internet, the actual practice is thrown out the window and models are created that have no basis for being with regard to the Internet. Instead of paying serious attention to the history and practice of how the Internet was built, there is the fallacious effort to invent something that has no connection to the Internet and its origin. This is what ICANN has done and unfortunately the efforts to challenge ICANN fall into this same mode. It would be more helpful for those offering such a challenge to be studying the history fo how the Internet was developed and considering the implications of this development toward its future. Following was a talk I gave toward beginning this process: The International Origins of the Internet and the Impact of this Framework on its Future http://ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/nov4talk2.doc best wishes Ronda Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook ____________________________________________________________ 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 laina at getit-multimedia.com Sat Dec 9 00:58:16 2006 From: laina at getit-multimedia.com (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 21:58:16 -0800 Subject: FW: [governance] Rhonda:another data point Message-ID: <00c501c71b57$05f7f770$67c0010a@travellaptop> Ditto to what Lee on historical facts worth noting in objectivity (i.e without credit or blame) and just to add one more point, there were some involved in the negotiating of Art 9 of the International Telecommunications Regulations in 1988, under the World Administrative Telegraph and Telephone conference in Melbourne, who also meant it to apply to the Internet (ART 9- allowed for these networks to operate outside the ambit of the "normal" public infrastructure rules. Best, Laina -----Original Message----- From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 8:34 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; ronda at panix.com; Milton Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] Rhonda: Hi Ronda, Milton, everyone, I'll agree and disagree with both of you to help clear things up : ) Yes the ITU (and the EU, and the japanese govt to name a few names) were not friendly to the early net. The EC only in '95 and Japan in '96 ended policies that were actively hostile to the Internet - and I suppose actively seeking to stifle it couild be seen as 'regulating' the net from the start. But the other elephant in the room is of course the US dept of defense and the various contracts passed on to NSF before the Dept of Commerce and ICANN came into the picture. In other words the glorious early Internet days were brought to you by the same folks who brought us...but I digress. And the guy I mean institution who ran the name system out of his back pocket back then was not 'regulated' by the government. Rather he was paid (his university) by the USG, which is a type of involvement ; ). And everyone loves him RIP, etc, and of course I am certainly not implying there was anything wrong, just noting the historical facts. Final correction is the question of how conscious or unconscious was the USG and other governments signing on to trade in services and specifically telecom services liberalization, as to what that might mean for the Internet. That did indeed open the door to the Internet around the world going from a resource only accessible by a few academics and other net tech players, versus the general service it has become. In my opinion and recollection the Clinton/Gore admin knew exactly what it was doing by promoting a 'global information infrastructure' starting in 94. Other governments saw what was going on and wanted to get in the action too. After all they were all using the net to communicate about all of this - and maybe kinda figured others would want to be able to do the same as them. So give governements credit and blame them as you wish, point is life in the virtual fishbowl was made possible by the folks who created the tank. Which gets back to Milton's point in his other note re the framework convention, and what specifically should be the Internet governance regime of the future. Maybe we can refocus on that rather than the past? What kind of fishbowl do we want to co--create multistakeholder style, next? Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> mueller at syr.edu 12/8/2006 9:32 PM >>> Rhonda: I could explain at greater length: If we had convened the ITU in 1991 and tried to pass a resolution authorizing any operator in the world to offer a global information service that competed with domestic newspapers, broadcasters and telephone companies and contained politically challenging, pornographic or otehrwise unrestricted information content the answer would have been a resounding NO. Internet globally was built around the liberalization of "value-added services". Governments liberalized that market because it was considered (and at the time, was) small and insiginifcant in terms of revenue and effect on vested interests. Less than 1% of the telecom market at the time. Through that "stealth" mechanism, and through the liberalization of leased circuits, budding ISPs were able to form and interconnect. The unanticipated and (at the time) completely unregulated addition of WWW and html and browsers to the system around 1993. Govts had no official control of domain name or address allocation; they did not even succeed in asserting power over ccTLD assignments until after 2000. You could say that the US government policy of promoting free trade in interntional telecom services contributed to the development of the internet. But the US govt had no idea that it was preparing the way for the internet when it did that, it was more interested in managed informatikon services of the sort offered by AT&T, and in traditional voice telecom. Governments as a collectivity had no specific regulatory powers over the international aspects of the Internet, and they still don't except for ICANN. The US govt promoted and subsidized the internet as a tiny closed network for academics and researchers. The agency that made the decision to open it to the public was not an official policy making organ of the US government but a research foundation and an informal committee of network users within the Federal government. It's mutation into a public mass medium was largely "accidental" and serendipitous. >>> ronda at panix.com 12/7/2006 6:56:56 AM >>> On 12/4/06, Milton Mueller wrote: >We need a new global governance regime and in entering into it we must >as a principle be deeply aware of the fact that the Internet's growth >and much of its value came from the fact that govts had no regulation or >control over how it initially evolved. The myth that government had no regulation or control over how the Internet initially evolved is important to put to rest. The Internet was built under a good form of government leadership. The problem of the myth is that instead of building on the actual model that made it possible to create the Internet, the actual practice is thrown out the window and models are created that have no basis for being with regard to the Internet. Instead of paying serious attention to the history and practice of how the Internet was built, there is the fallacious effort to invent something that has no connection to the Internet and its origin. This is what ICANN has done and unfortunately the efforts to challenge ICANN fall into this same mode. It would be more helpful for those offering such a challenge to be studying the history fo how the Internet was developed and considering the implications of this development toward its future. Following was a talk I gave toward beginning this process: The International Origins of the Internet and the Impact of this Framework on its Future http://ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/nov4talk2.doc best wishes Ronda Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook ____________________________________________________________ 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 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Dec 9 05:02:56 2006 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 11:02:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Four legs good, two legs bad In-Reply-To: <004d01c71b40$e1fb7b00$4a02a8c0@IAN> References: <004d01c71b40$e1fb7b00$4a02a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <457A89D0.7070707@echnaton.serveftp.com> Ian Peter wrote: > How do I get a .pirates domain name? > > > > Ian Peter > Hi Ian, for the moment, to get a .pirates domain you must be a pirate. :) pirates. 7200 IN SOA ns1.nsnoc.com. admin.pirates. 2006101712 7200 7200 604800 7200 pirates. 3600 IN MX 20 echnaton.serveftp.com. Just send an email to admin at pirates. on server echnaton.serveftp.com. Or send me an email to discuss the details. For the moment there are the pirates-party pirates all over the world and the Racines Libres Pirates of the Cesidian Root who count as real pirates. But I am shure there are more pirates than us. Cheers Peter and Karin > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Baptista [mailto:baptista at cynikal.net] > Sent: 09 December 2006 13:58 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller > Cc: db at dannybutt.net > Subject: Re: [governance] Four legs good, two legs bad > > Then of course there is the fundamental lesson learned that the internet > find the rule of law irrelevant. Which of course is why ICANN is obsolete: > > http://www.publicroot.org/news-2006-11-26-Pirates.html > http://www.publicroot.org/news-2006-12-03-Pirates.html > > Of course this will take time to propagate - and until then the WSIS > gravey train continues to rumble along at a very slow pace. > > Cheers > joe baptista > > Milton Mueller wrote: > > >>This whole debate about government is getting silly. >> >>IGP publications have proposed that ICANN be formally accountable to >>the rule of law (law being governmental, last time I looked); and that >>the world's governments negotiate a framework convention to codify in a >>binding fashion certain principles regarding the Internet (principles >>which, we hope, will preserve and protect its freedoms rather than >>undermine them). >> >>So rather than getting caught in an Orwellian chant that governments >>are two-legged and therefore intrinsically bad, to be answered by >>equally uninteresting bleating that they are four-legged and therefore >>intrinsically good, it might be better to talk about what you want the >>governments to do, what you don't want them to do, what institutional >>mechanisms might be deployed, and what checks and balances might exist >>to counter the obvious tendency of states to wield power in ways that >>benefit themselves or certain clients at the expense of the public >>(especially in international arenas where there is no electorate, no >>real rule of law, very little enforcability and very weak >>accountability) >> >> >> >> >>>>>db at dannybutt.net 12/7/2006 1:36:29 AM >>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >>Hi Jeanette/all >> >>I find it interesting that internet culture is so hostile to the idea >> >>of government that even mild recognition quickly becomes >>"glorification" :7. I have no great love for intergovernmental >>systems, but they do some things relatively well, or at least better >>than existing alternatives. Geographical diversity and due process >>would be high on my list. >> >>While I think that "transparency" in the development sector is highly >> >>overrated (and often a tool to enable ICT-rich organisations to get >>contracts where "publishing on the internet" is equated with >>transparency), I agree it is an important component of >>accountability. However, it's far from the only component, or even >>the most important. >> >>My point is that what constitutes "performance" will be assessed >>differently by different people, and there is a rather large >>geopolitical/socio-cultural imbalance in positive evaluations of >>existing Internet Governance entities. Civil Society's stand on that >>imbalance will, in my opinion, be critical to its long-term voice in >>IG arrangements. >> >>Or to put it more simply, if CS buys the line that everything is fine >> >>as long as it gets seats at the table, then it may soon find itself >>in an expensive, empty restaurant with bad food and worse company, >>while the masses eat elsewhere. >> >>Regards, >> >>Danny >> >> >>On 07/12/2006, at 7:53 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>On further reflection, we should not glorify intergovernmental >>>processes and institutions. Even if the ITU is more inclusive as >>>far as participation of governments is concerned, we don't know >>>much about balances of powers between governments. And even if >>>there are formal mechanisms of accountability, we don't know >>>whether they are effective. >>> >>>ICANN is much more transparent than any intergovernmental >>>organization. This is why we can observe its shortcomings on a >>>regular basis. I wouldn't be able to say if closed >>>intergovernmental organizations such as the ITU violate or stretch >>>their own rules more or less than ICANN. What seems safe to say is >>>trust in an organization requires better performance. >>> >>> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>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 > -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher-Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +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/ http://www.cesidianroot.com/ ____________________________________________________________ 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 veni at veni.com Sat Dec 9 07:54:02 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 07:54:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] Four legs good, two legs bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2aa69fe40612090454k3f84f3eet63357b7b960eaba0@mail.gmail.com> Milton, the fact that the IGP publications have proposed something, doesn't make it a rule. You say something important, although in brackets. The keywords here are "we hope". There is untranslatable word game in Bulgarian for that matter "we hope", but I will try to make it politically correct: Yes, we all hope on different issues, and hopefully the civil society hopes for the same important items. However, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, too, as we all know. I understand that for you, as a University professor, this is a highly philosophical question. You believe in your cause, which makes you a believer. Your belief has nothing to do with the actual cause, that may be good or not so good. You talk about George Orwell, but again that's a philosophical, theoretical question. Let me ask you: since you talk about models, and governments being good, why not give us an example of governments that have solved the problems with the IG? But solved with full participation of all multi stakeholders, through bottom-up processes, in the interest of all society, and with keeping privacy protected. thanks in advance for your concrete contribution. On 12/8/06, Milton Mueller wrote: > > This whole debate about government is getting silly. > > IGP publications have proposed that ICANN be formally accountable to > the rule of law (law being governmental, last time I looked); and that > the world's governments negotiate a framework convention to codify in a > binding fashion certain principles regarding the Internet (principles > which, we hope, will preserve and protect its freedoms rather than > undermine them). > > So rather than getting caught in an Orwellian chant that governments > are two-legged and therefore intrinsically bad, to be answered by > equally uninteresting bleating that they are four-legged and therefore > intrinsically good, it might be better to talk about what you want the > governments to do, what you don't want them to do, what institutional > mechanisms might be deployed, and what checks and balances might exist > to counter the obvious tendency of states to wield power in ways that > benefit themselves or certain clients at the expense of the public > (especially in international arenas where there is no electorate, no > real rule of law, very little enforcability and very weak > accountability) > ____________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Dec 9 09:04:06 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 15:04:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Rhonda: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Lee, On 12/9/06 5:33 AM, "Lee McKnight" wrote: > Hi Ronda, Milton, everyone, > > I'll agree and disagree with both of you to help clear things up : ) Sounds like fun, can I play too? I agree with you and Milton that there was an integral link between the treatment of leased circuits and VANs on the one hand and the commercial blossoming of the net on the other. Where these were tightly regulated and highly priced in line with the ITU telecom regime, early net development was comparatively stifled. With the spread of liberalization in the 90s the asymmetry was progressively reduced. Where I'd disagree with Professor Mueller's history is the assertion that leased circuits and VANs were liberalized because governments thought they were insignificant and ergo the Trojan Horse just walked in unnoticed. In fact corporate networking was not at all insignificant, and there was an ongoing struggle over this in the ITU from 1927 to 1991 and in US bilateral and plurilateral negotiations from the early 1980s. Governments and PTOs recognized the threat to the old order that was posed by corporate nets and later by the public Internet, and liberalization was the hard fought result of specific power games. This historical arcana aside, Milton's broader point about mythologies is indisputable. Government and corporate decisions in the international telecom policy space directly impacted the net's development pro and con, and emerging developments therein probably will as well. Cheers, Bill > Yes the ITU (and the EU, and the japanese govt to name a few names) > were not friendly to the early net. The EC only in '95 and Japan in '96 > ended policies that were actively hostile to the Internet - and I > suppose actively seeking to stifle it couild be seen as 'regulating' the > net from the start. > > But the other elephant in the room is of course the US dept of defense > and the various contracts passed on to NSF before the Dept of Commerce > and ICANN came into the picture. In other words the glorious early > Internet days were brought to you by the same folks who brought us...but > I digress. And the guy I mean institution who ran the name system out > of his back pocket back then was not 'regulated' by the government. > Rather he was paid (his university) by the USG, which is a type of > involvement ; ). And everyone loves him RIP, etc, and of course I am > certainly not implying there was anything wrong, just noting the > historical facts. > > Final correction is the question of how conscious or unconscious was > the USG and other governments signing on to trade in services and > specifically telecom services liberalization, as to what that might > mean for the Internet. That did indeed open the door to the Internet > around the world going from a resource only accessible by a few > academics and other net tech players, versus the general service it has > become. In my opinion and recollection the Clinton/Gore admin knew > exactly what it was doing by promoting a 'global information > infrastructure' starting in 94. Other governments saw what was going on > and wanted to get in the action too. After all they were all using the > net to communicate about all of this - and maybe kinda figured others > would want to be able to do the same as them. > > So give governements credit and blame them as you wish, point is life > in the virtual fishbowl was made possible by the folks who created the > tank. > > Which gets back to Milton's point in his other note re the framework > convention, and what specifically should be the Internet governance > regime of the future. Maybe we can refocus on that rather than the > past? What kind of fishbowl do we want to co--create multistakeholder > style, next? > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>>> mueller at syr.edu 12/8/2006 9:32 PM >>> > Rhonda: > I could explain at greater length: > > If we had convened the ITU in 1991 and tried to pass a resolution > authorizing any operator in the world to offer a global information > service that competed with domestic newspapers, broadcasters and > telephone companies and contained politically challenging, > pornographic > or otehrwise unrestricted information content the answer would have > been > a resounding NO. > > Internet globally was built around the liberalization of "value-added > services". Governments liberalized that market because it was > considered > (and at the time, was) small and insiginifcant in terms of revenue and > effect on vested interests. Less than 1% of the telecom market at the > time. Through that "stealth" mechanism, and through the liberalization > of leased circuits, budding ISPs were able to form and interconnect. > The > unanticipated and (at the time) completely unregulated addition of WWW > and html and browsers to the system around 1993. > > Govts had no official control of domain name or address allocation; > they did not even succeed in asserting power over ccTLD assignments > until after 2000. > > You could say that the US government policy of promoting free trade in > interntional telecom services contributed to the development of the > internet. But the US govt had no idea that it was preparing the way > for > the internet when it did that, it was more interested in managed > informatikon services of the sort offered by AT&T, and in traditional > voice telecom. > > Governments as a collectivity had no specific regulatory powers over > the international aspects of the Internet, and they still don't except > for ICANN. The US govt promoted and subsidized the internet as a tiny > closed network for academics and researchers. The agency that made the > decision to open it to the public was not an official policy making > organ of the US government but a research foundation and an informal > committee of network users within the Federal government. It's > mutation > into a public mass medium was largely "accidental" and serendipitous. > >>>> ronda at panix.com 12/7/2006 6:56:56 AM >>> > > On 12/4/06, Milton Mueller wrote: > >> We need a new global governance regime and in entering into it we > must >> as a principle be deeply aware of the fact that the Internet's growth >> and much of its value came from the fact that govts had no regulation > or >> control over how it initially evolved. > > The myth that government had no regulation or control over how the > Internet initially evolved is important to put to rest. > > The Internet was built under a good form of government leadership. > > The problem of the myth is that instead of building on the actual > model > > that made it possible to create the Internet, the actual practice is > thrown out the window and models are created that have no basis for > being > with regard to the Internet. > > Instead of paying serious attention to the history and practice of how > the > Internet was built, there is the fallacious effort to invent something > > that has no connection to the Internet and its origin. > > This is what ICANN has done and unfortunately the efforts to challenge > > ICANN fall into this same mode. It would be more helpful for those > offering such a challenge to be studying the history fo how the > Internet > was developed and considering the implications of this development > toward > its future. Following was a talk I gave toward beginning this process: > > > The International Origins of the Internet > and the Impact of this Framework on its Future > > http://ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/nov4talk2.doc > > best wishes > > Ronda > > > Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet > > http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 ******************************************************* William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland http://www.cpsr.org/Members/wdrake ******************************************************* ____________________________________________________________ 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 aizu at anr.org Sat Dec 9 10:07:43 2006 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 00:07:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] NomCom Process Call/Proposal $B!](B1 week to go Message-ID: Dear List, December has come (at least in Tokyo now). We have two more weeks and at least 6 more names to go for volunteering for the NomCom that selects the Appeal Team. 19 generous people volunteered for the pool is listed here : http://www.igcaucus.org/2006-AT-volunteers.html If for some reason your name is not listed here, please indicate so so that we could add you. As announced before, and adviced so, I will stay with the original deadline of Dec 14. But please join as soon as possible so that we have no worry for the last minute. Thanks again, izumi > > > -----Original Message----- > From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi > AIZU > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 4:50 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] NomCom Process Call/Proposal > > Dear Caucus members, > > I will try to steer the Appeal Team NomCom selection process, but we > need your active participation. Given the Christmas/New Year season, > we need your early enrolment. > > Here's a proposed draft call for volunteers. Please share your > comments/questions if any. I basically like to proceed as follows, > but welcome your comments/questions. > > 1) We need at least 25 volunteers for NomCom member candidates for > running the random drawing as described below: > http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html > > 2) Please indicate that you like to volunteer on this list. Once you > are selected as NomCom, you are not eligible to become an Appeal Team > Member. (If not selected, then you can become Appeal Team member) > > 3) The volunteers will be posted here: > http://www.igcaucus.org/2006-AT-volunteers.html > (Thanks to Avri who made this). > > 4) The call for volunteers will be closed by 14 Dec. > > 5) The final list of volunteers will be confirmed on 15 Dec. > > 6) The random seeds will be announced on 16 Dec. > > 7) The drawing will be done on 17 Dec. > > 8) We will allow 3 days for challenges then the nomcom starts on Dec 20. > > Then NomCom have to figure out the dates for nominations, and go into > selection process, each will take around 2 weeks (or shorter) I assume. > > As you have seen, we have already got two volunteers, Karen and > Jeremy. SO, 23 more to go. > > Thanks, > > izumi > ____________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Dec 9 12:25:48 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 12:25:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Rhonda: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 3:04 PM +0100 12/9/06, William Drake wrote: >This historical arcana aside, Milton's broader point about mythologies is >indisputable. Government and corporate decisions in the international >telecom policy space directly impacted the net's development pro and con, >and emerging developments therein probably will as well. Mythology to specific reality: We can see how this particular piece of history lays out at least one template to consider, when hatching future schemes. The birth of this big tool, the 'Net, was fused out of both the opposites we tend to posit - the individual inventor versus the big institution. In the 'Net case, these two were US government support, via an internal funder of research, and the intrepid group of individual innovators who made it happen. Neither big institution, nor individual actor, separately - but rather the two together in a sort of symbiosis. Interestingly, Bell Labs - source of the main innovations we still suckle going on a century later - may offer a similar template. Though the Labs seemed to be (only) a large institution, reports from those who flourished in its golden age tell of a freedom for individual inventors, inside. Both cases give hints of stable order and creative chaos together, in a tension. History does have its uses (as George Santayana reminded). 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Dec 9 12:19:38 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 02:19:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] NomCom Process Call/Proposal $B!](B1 week to go In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Appeals team nomcom? I'll volunteer. Adam At 12:07 AM +0900 12/10/06, Izumi AIZU wrote: >Dear List, > >December has come (at least in Tokyo now). > >We have two more weeks and at least 6 more names to go for >volunteering for the NomCom that selects the Appeal Team. > >19 generous people volunteered for the pool is listed here : > >http://www.igcaucus.org/2006-AT-volunteers.html > >If for some reason your name is not listed here, please indicate so so >that we could add you. > >As announced before, and adviced so, I will stay with the original >deadline of Dec 14. But please join as soon as possible so that we >have no worry for the last minute. > >Thanks again, > >izumi > >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi >>AIZU >>Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 4:50 PM >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>Subject: [governance] NomCom Process Call/Proposal >> >>Dear Caucus members, >> >>I will try to steer the Appeal Team NomCom selection process, but we >>need your active participation. Given the Christmas/New Year season, >>we need your early enrolment. >> >>Here's a proposed draft call for volunteers. Please share your >>comments/questions if any. I basically like to proceed as follows, >>but welcome your comments/questions. >> >>1) We need at least 25 volunteers for NomCom member candidates for >>running the random drawing as described below: >>http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html >> >>2) Please indicate that you like to volunteer on this list. Once you >>are selected as NomCom, you are not eligible to become an Appeal Team >>Member. (If not selected, then you can become Appeal Team member) >> >>3) The volunteers will be posted here: >>http://www.igcaucus.org/2006-AT-volunteers.html >>(Thanks to Avri who made this). >> >>4) The call for volunteers will be closed by 14 Dec. >> >>5) The final list of volunteers will be confirmed on 15 Dec. >> >>6) The random seeds will be announced on 16 Dec. >> >>7) The drawing will be done on 17 Dec. >> >>8) We will allow 3 days for challenges then the nomcom starts on Dec 20. >> >>Then NomCom have to figure out the dates for nominations, and go into >>selection process, each will take around 2 weeks (or shorter) I assume. >> >>As you have seen, we have already got two volunteers, Karen and >>Jeremy. SO, 23 more to go. >> >>Thanks, >> >>izumi >> >____________________________________________________________ >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 sylvia.caras at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 14:29:53 2006 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 11:29:53 -0800 Subject: [governance] Four legs good, two legs bad In-Reply-To: <8cbfe7410612081858r45d9920av33c7ed5f266c7b96@mail.gmail.com> References: <8cbfe7410612081858r45d9920av33c7ed5f266c7b96@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12/8/06, l. d. misek-falkoff wrote: > > I've been at some U.N. / ICT related events lately, and I really think and > feel that to a large extent the burden is ours to explain ICT, computing, > information systems. Is the UN culture different in Geneva than New York? I've worked with Linda on one UN project (she is in New York and involved in several). Drafting the UN Convention on Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD), to be adopted December 13, we all found that there was a huge amount of educating that needed to be done, of delegates, of UN staff, and of each other. Over the five years of meetings, the International Disability Caucus (IDC) changed the way the UN did business, for this Convention, and perhaps for future work. The IDC insisted that people with disabilities were the stakeholders and had to be central. I would think the same holds for internet governance, that civil society, and end-users, people at the keyboards, need to be centrally included. Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ 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 aizu at anr.org Sat Dec 9 17:49:11 2006 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 07:49:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] NomCom Process Call/Proposal $B!](B1 week to go In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Adam, thanks a lot! izumi 2006/12/10, Adam Peake : > Appeals team nomcom? I'll volunteer. > > Adam > > > > > At 12:07 AM +0900 12/10/06, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >Dear List, > > > >December has come (at least in Tokyo now). > > > >We have two more weeks and at least 6 more names to go for > >volunteering for the NomCom that selects the Appeal Team. > > > >19 generous people volunteered for the pool is listed here : > > > >http://www.igcaucus.org/2006-AT-volunteers.html > > > >If for some reason your name is not listed here, please indicate so so > >that we could add you. > > > >As announced before, and adviced so, I will stay with the original > >deadline of Dec 14. But please join as soon as possible so that we > >have no worry for the last minute. > > > >Thanks again, > > > >izumi > > > >> > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi > >>AIZU > >>Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 4:50 PM > >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>Subject: [governance] NomCom Process Call/Proposal > >> > >>Dear Caucus members, > >> > >>I will try to steer the Appeal Team NomCom selection process, but we > >>need your active participation. Given the Christmas/New Year season, > >>we need your early enrolment. > >> > >>Here's a proposed draft call for volunteers. Please share your > >>comments/questions if any. I basically like to proceed as follows, > >>but welcome your comments/questions. > >> > >>1) We need at least 25 volunteers for NomCom member candidates for > >>running the random drawing as described below: > >>http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html > >> > >>2) Please indicate that you like to volunteer on this list. Once you > >>are selected as NomCom, you are not eligible to become an Appeal Team > >>Member. (If not selected, then you can become Appeal Team member) > >> > >>3) The volunteers will be posted here: > >>http://www.igcaucus.org/2006-AT-volunteers.html > >>(Thanks to Avri who made this). > >> > >>4) The call for volunteers will be closed by 14 Dec. > >> > >>5) The final list of volunteers will be confirmed on 15 Dec. > >> > >>6) The random seeds will be announced on 16 Dec. > >> > >>7) The drawing will be done on 17 Dec. > >> > >>8) We will allow 3 days for challenges then the nomcom starts on Dec 20. > >> > >>Then NomCom have to figure out the dates for nominations, and go into > >>selection process, each will take around 2 weeks (or shorter) I assume. > >> > >>As you have seen, we have already got two volunteers, Karen and > >>Jeremy. SO, 23 more to go. > >> > >>Thanks, > >> > >>izumi > >> > >____________________________________________________________ > >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 > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.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 mashi3981 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 10:39:39 2006 From: mashi3981 at yahoo.com (mashi3981 at yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 07:39:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] BBC links:Privacy Concerns over States/Corporations'Use of Personal Info Message-ID: Just thought the following links might be useful to you. The BBC news articles below address privacy concerns over states' and corporations' use of personal data. The basic summary is the following: 1. States collect personal info by various methods (eg:CCTV/closed-circuit TV in roadways). Corporations collect personal info by various means (eg:credit card transactions). 2. The info collected by a single entity (state/corporation) is considered SEPERATELY BY ITSELF. The combination of data collected by different entities is NOT considered by many people. 3. Corporations are now building their businesses by DATA MINING on previous customer interactions with them. This is common practice. 4. If there are no safeguards to prevent corporations from **SHARING** personal info with other corporations/state, then IN THE FUTURE, an ECONOMY based on personal info will come up (eg: a business targets only rich customers based on info obtained from their bank records, insurance companies may turn down requests based on info obtained from health services etc). 5. If there are no safeguards to prevent state agencies from **SHARING** personal info with other state agencies/corporations, it could lead to SOCIAL DISCRIMINATION. (eg: Traffic police may stop cars to do checks based on info obtained from other state agencies regarding race of the driver of car. ie. linking number plate to name, name to race, and race to probability of person committing a crime). 6. Different ways outlined are CCTV(closed-circuit TV), number plate recognition, shop RFID, mobile phone triangulation, store loyalty cards, credit card transactions, electoral rolls, health service records, TV preferences recording, worker monitoring etc Although some of them apply to only DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (like CCTV), many could also apply to DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (like credit card transactions, mobile phones). 7. Concerns outlined are a. loss of privacy b. loss of choice/consent by consumers c. discrimination 8. IN THE FUTURE, when RFID (radio-frequence ID) tags become cheap, they could create 'AN INTERNET OF THINGS'. 9. There are great risks if the info contained in the databases are wrong/inaccurate or if it falls into wrong hands. *How we are being watched - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6110866.stm *Britain is 'surveillance society' - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6108496.stm *Q&A: Radio-frequency ID tags - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6055296.stm *Trust warning over personal data - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5172890.stm *Is business the real Big Brother? - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5015826.stm Thanks, Mashi ____________________________________________________________ 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 Mon Dec 11 05:41:35 2006 From: patrick at vande-walle.eu (Patrick Vande Walle) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:41:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Four legs good, two legs bad In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40612090454k3f84f3eet63357b7b960eaba0@mail.gmail.com> References: <2aa69fe40612090454k3f84f3eet63357b7b960eaba0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <457D35DF.3030405@vande-walle.eu> Veni Markovski wrote, On 09/12/2006 13:54: > since you talk about models, and governments being > good, why not give us an example of governments that have solved the > problems with the IG? But solved with full participation of all multi > stakeholders, through bottom-up processes, in the interest of all > society, and with keeping privacy protected. Veni, I will take a different view here. The best bottom-up process I know is called elections. In democracies, this is how you agree or disagree with your government's policies. Democratic governments have processes in place to consult with their stakeholders. This is at the national level. Once you go to the international level, it has been widely accepted for several centuries that the interests of the citizens are represented by their government (even the non-democratic ones). This is called diplomacy. International trade agreements and international laws are negotiated between governments. I still fail to understand the rationale on why the Internet should be treated any different way than, say, bananas, meat or steel exports. AFAIK, the steel industry does not set the its own international rules. The Internet industry does. Let's take the WTO as an example of international negotiations. There are industry or civil society lobbyists informing the governments' representatives. This is fair and can actually contribute to take into account the side effects of envisioned agreements. At the end of the day, though, it will be the governments that will decide, not the industry or civil society. IG does not get a lot of attention from governments because it is a detail in the world economy. How many heads of states or ministers were at the IGF ? Just compare this with the number of heads of state attending WTO negotiation rounds. IG being a detail for govs, they may indeed wish to delegate the management of the Internet to private sector led organizations, because they have no time to delve into the details themselves. However, they need to trust these orgs. This includes mechanisms for fair and equal representation of all stakeholders, regardless of their business interest in the process. We are not there yet. Patrick ____________________________________________________________ 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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Mon Dec 11 06:46:30 2006 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 06:46:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Four legs good, two legs bad In-Reply-To: <457D35DF.3030405@vande-walle.eu> References: <2aa69fe40612090454k3f84f3eet63357b7b960eaba0@mail.gmail.com> <457D35DF.3030405@vande-walle.eu> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410612110346p8fe3cf3y89805e0db2df2a1f@mail.gmail.com> Greetings, and A note responding to rich posts full of key considerations on Internet governance. The description of just how things work in the real world (paraphrase) is very helpful. It also springs the thought that maybe there is something different here. As far as persons in communication regarding government decisions and other activities by governments in their various branches that affect individuals, in *CyberPrehistoric* times those in on the 'conversation' comprised in network terms not so many connected nodes, and in matrix terms, a pretty sparse one. Whereas, by contrast, is it not the case that the network of all those interconnecting now including with governments by computer today (* 'internetworking*)' is immense and one wonders if it thereby represents a real enduring (we may hope) 'change in kind'. So that those involved in real-terms and real-time really (a, b, c ...n) do need to, and have a right to, and are prepared and able to, have more "say." In human rights terms exemplified by the Disability Rights Convention* now going to the U.N. General Assembly for adoption (and also after great labor of heart and mind intensely especially as regards Access) "Nothing About Us Without Us" is not just a rallying cry of consumers but a mindful multi-stakeholder tenet based on investment and insight. Thoughts on the posts. And sending very best wishes, LDMF. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff. * International Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities *. On 12/11/06, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: > > Veni Markovski wrote, On 09/12/2006 13:54: > > > since you talk about models, and governments being > > good, why not give us an example of governments that have solved the > > problems with the IG? But solved with full participation of all multi > > stakeholders, through bottom-up processes, in the interest of all > > society, and with keeping privacy protected. > > Veni, I will take a different view here. The best bottom-up process I > know is called elections. In democracies, this is how you agree or > disagree with your government's policies. Democratic governments have > processes in place to consult with their stakeholders. This is at the > national level. > > Once you go to the international level, it has been widely accepted for > several centuries that the interests of the citizens are represented by > their government (even the non-democratic ones). This is called > diplomacy. International trade agreements and international laws are > negotiated between governments. I still fail to understand the rationale > on why the Internet should be treated any different way than, say, > bananas, meat or steel exports. AFAIK, the steel industry does not set > the its own international rules. The Internet industry does. > > Let's take the WTO as an example of international negotiations. There > are industry or civil society lobbyists informing the governments' > representatives. This is fair and can actually contribute to take into > account the side effects of envisioned agreements. At the end of the > day, though, it will be the governments that will decide, not the > industry or civil society. > > IG does not get a lot of attention from governments because it is a > detail in the world economy. How many heads of states or ministers were > at the IGF ? Just compare this with the number of heads of state > attending WTO negotiation rounds. > > IG being a detail for govs, they may indeed wish to delegate the > management of the Internet to private sector led organizations, because > they have no time to delve into the details themselves. However, they > need to trust these orgs. This includes mechanisms for fair and equal > representation of all stakeholders, regardless of their business > interest in the process. We are not there yet. > > Patrick > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff (Ph.D., J.D.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From aizu at anr.org Mon Dec 11 07:32:22 2006 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:32:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] The more, the merrier In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Now, we have reached 25! http://www.igcaucus.org/2006-AT-volunteers.html It's great to reach the target a few days before the deadline date. Thank you so much for all those volunteered. I think for the sheer volunteer organization such as ours, it is this number of volunteers that tell us how well we are. Now when we draw, the ratio is 1:5 to select 5 Nomcom members. It will be good to have greater ratio and I like to encourage that people who have not taken proactive role on this list yet to submit their participation to this Nomcom. So, the more, the merrier as it says, we like to still wait for at lleast a few more people to come on board till the original deadline of Dec 14. Once again, thank yhou for your support and participation. izumi -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.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 ki_chango at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 07:40:02 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 04:40:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: Rhonda: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061211124003.82359.qmail@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> David, I'm pleased to agree with you here -- "une fois n'est pas coutume" ;-) Provided that CS does not eventually crystallize into just another power player (pointing to a concern already expressed by someone here - maybe Danny Butt?) This may be way harder than many of us think, in a sense that every institution or grouping virtually has some power and a possible target/field for the possible "negative" exertion of such power. There is always something in the atmosphere where innovations occur (whether it's in the arts, in technology or in philosophy) which is definitely gone when comes the time for "secularization." Maintaining a creative balance between "order and chaos" has always been, I think, the worthy challenge for, and the sign of, the smartest powers (governmental, industrial, social, intellectual, etc.) On the other hand, temptation for exerting power (material or symbolic,) whenever possible, is such a natural thing. Will the Internet still be the exception that it once was? Best, Mawaki --- David Allen wrote: > At 3:04 PM +0100 12/9/06, William Drake wrote: > >This historical arcana aside, Milton's broader point about > mythologies is > >indisputable. Government and corporate decisions in the > international > >telecom policy space directly impacted the net's development pro > and con, > >and emerging developments therein probably will as well. > > Mythology to specific reality: We can see how this particular > piece of history lays out at least one template to consider, when > hatching future schemes. > > The birth of this big tool, the 'Net, was fused out of both the > opposites we tend to posit - the individual inventor versus the big > institution. In the 'Net case, these two were US government > support, via an internal funder of research, and the intrepid group > of individual innovators who made it happen. Neither big > institution, nor individual actor, separately - but rather the two > together in a sort of symbiosis. > > Interestingly, Bell Labs - source of the main innovations we still > suckle going on a century later - may offer a similar template. > Though the Labs seemed to be (only) a large institution, reports > from those who flourished in its golden age tell of a freedom for > individual inventors, inside. > > Both cases give hints of stable order and creative chaos together, > in a tension. > > History does have its uses (as George Santayana reminded). > > 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 > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited ____________________________________________________________ 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 at Malcolm.id.au Mon Dec 11 07:44:27 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:44:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Four legs good, two legs bad In-Reply-To: <457D35DF.3030405@vande-walle.eu> References: <2aa69fe40612090454k3f84f3eet63357b7b960eaba0@mail.gmail.com> <457D35DF.3030405@vande-walle.eu> Message-ID: <457D52AB.3040807@Malcolm.id.au> Patrick Vande Walle wrote: > I still fail to understand the rationale > on why the Internet should be treated any different way than, say, > bananas, meat or steel exports. AFAIK, the steel industry does not set > the its own international rules. The Internet industry does. Decisions made in Internet governance are more likely to have cross-border spillover effects which renders them naturally better suited to resolution at an international level... or more precisely a transnational level, where this indicates that non-state stakeholders are directly engaged by these issues in capacities that cut across their affiliations to any one or more states. > Let's take the WTO as an example of international negotiations. There > are industry or civil society lobbyists informing the governments' > representatives. This is fair and can actually contribute to take into > account the side effects of envisioned agreements. At the end of the > day, though, it will be the governments that will decide, not the > industry or civil society. That is however a descriptive statement and not a normative one. It could be said (and many, including I, do say) that non-state actors should be afforded the status of full co-decision makers in Internet governance, rather than merely participants in a government-led consultation process. States are but one institution of international governance, and in Internet governance not even, historically, the most important. I agree that we are not yet where we need to be. But it is critical that we do not lose the roadmap along the way. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ 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 Mon Dec 11 09:31:22 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:31:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Four legs good, two legs bad Message-ID: >>> patrick at vande-walle.eu 12/11/2006 5:41 AM >>> >Once you go to the international level, it has been widely >accepted for several centuries that the interests of the citizens >are represented by their government (even the non- >democratic ones). This is called diplomacy. Patrick, for the past two decades a deluge of literature in political science, international relations and international political economy has been documenting changes in, and the inadequacies of, what you consider to be "widely accepted for several centuries." Suggest doing some homework. >I still fail to understand the rationale on why the Internet >should be treated any different way than, say, bananas, >meat or steel exports. This is obvious. Three things. First, it's a service, not a physical commodity; second, and much more importantly, its architecture, resource assignment and administration are (by default) transnational. Changing this would require a huge shift in political, economic and technical arrangements and it is not clear that this would make things any better and a number of reasons to think it would make things worse. Third, there is no single existing intergovernmental organization where these things can be handled. Or should I interpret your position that you think this could all be put into the ITU? If not there, where? If you think a new IGO should be created to handle this, well, you're back at square one, circa 1997, aren't you? If you think responsibility should be fragmented across multiple IGOs, then you confront the problem that led to the creation of IGF. ____________________________________________________________ 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 ronda at panix.com Mon Dec 11 10:18:20 2006 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:18:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Re: Rhonda Message-ID: Hi Milton, Bill, Laina, Lee, David, Chango and others It is important that the Internet was *not* something 'accidental and serendipitous' as Milton wrote: Milton Mueller wrote: >The US govt promoted and subsidized the internet as a tiny >closed network for academics and researchers. The agency that made the >decision to open it to the public was not an official policy making >organ of the US government but a research foundation and an informal >committee of network users within the Federal government. It's mutation >into a public mass medium was largely "accidental" and serendipitous. There was a vision that inspired the researchers to do the work on building an international communications network. This vision was articulated long before the creation of the Internet. It isn't that deregulation or any such activity created the Internet. It wasn't that a 'tiny closed network for academics and researchers' created the Internet. That's why I gave the url for the article I sent to this list before the Tunis WSIS meeting in November 2005. There was a vision that provided inspiration, there was a large group of researchers from various countries around the world, which were provided leadership by the U.S. researchers in the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) at ARPA, who did the research and development to create the Internet in the 1970s and 1980s. By the 1990s there was an international communications network for researchers in other countries to connect to and they did. I continue to suggest that those interested in nourishing the future of the Internet will benefit from knowing something of its past development, especially of the development that built the international ties and made such ties possible. For a start there is: The International Origins of the Internet and the Impact of this Framework on its Future http://ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/nov4talk2.doc Also we had a session at the PPF conference that went on in Tunis during WSIS on the "Origin and Early Development of the Internet and of the Netizen: their Impact on Science and Society" Session Chair: Ronda Hauben, Columbia University This session will focus on the history of the development of computer networks, the linking of these networks via the creation of the Internet, and the emergence of the active participants in these networks, the netizens (i.e.,net.citizens). Ronda Hauben (Columbia University) - The International and Scientific Origins of the Internet and the Emergence of the Netizen Jay Hauben (Columbia University Libraries, Columbia University) - The Vision of JCR Licklider and the Libraries of the Future Werner Zorn (Hasso-Plattner- Institute at the University of Potsdam, Germany) - German-Chinese Collaboration in the First Stage of Open networking in China Kilnam Chon (Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department (EECS) Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Korea) - The Development of Networking and the Internet in Korea and Asia: A History Anders Ekeland (Economist, NIFU STEP - Centre for innovation research/Senter for innovasjonsforskning, Norway) - Netizens and Protecting the Public Interest in the Development and Management of the Internet: An Economist's Perspective The overheads are online and the papers we presented are also available (we are considering a book publication of the papers we presented at the PPF session) http://www.worldsci.net/tunis/program.htm#Hauben - I suggest that there be serious attention to an understanding of this early development and to the implications for the future of the Internet. with best wishes Ronda P.S. My name is without the "h" in Ronda Netizen: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ ____________________________________________________________ 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 Mon Dec 11 11:02:50 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:02:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Ronda: In-Reply-To: <20061211124003.82359.qmail@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <20061211124003.82359.qmail@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The first step, it seems, is to recognize that the 'creative [tension] between "order and chaos" ' is where to start the thinking. As I believe you suggest. Then we can get to: how to deal with the power that, inevitably, accrues in the process? Again, as you say. Well, the short answer must of course be: 'responsibly.' But that is a [much] longer subject; there are papers. Will that 'atmosphere where innovations occur' inexorably fade from the 'Internet [and] the exception that it once was'? Or, can there be a recurrent cycle, periodically returning to that 'atmosphere'? The history suggests, I believe (there is history again, as Ronda says), that indeed the 'Net has been built with such a cycle. Your linguistic confrere, Voltaire, had something to say if I remember about 'habit' versus a frequency of 'once.' I am pleased to learn (from that)! David At 4:40 AM -0800 12/11/06, Mawaki Chango wrote: >David, > >I'm pleased to agree with you here -- "une fois n'est pas coutume" >;-) > >Provided that CS does not eventually crystallize into just another power player (pointing to a concern already expressed by someone here - maybe Danny Butt?) This may be way harder than many of us think, in a sense that every institution or grouping virtually has some power and a possible target/field for the possible "negative" exertion of such power. > >There is always something in the atmosphere where innovations occur (whether it's in the arts, in technology or in philosophy) which is definitely gone when comes the time for "secularization." Maintaining a creative balance between "order and chaos" has always been, I think, the worthy challenge for, and the sign of, the smartest powers (governmental, industrial, social, intellectual, etc.) On the other hand, temptation for exerting power (material or symbolic,) whenever possible, is such a natural thing. > >Will the Internet still be the exception that it once was? >Best, > >Mawaki > > >--- David Allen wrote: > > > At 3:04 PM +0100 12/9/06, William Drake wrote: >>>This historical arcana aside, Milton's broader point about mythologies is indisputable. Government and corporate decisions in the international telecom policy space directly impacted the net's development pro and con, and emerging developments therein probably will as well. >> >>Mythology to specific reality: We can see how this particular piece of history lays out at least one template to consider, when hatching future schemes. >> >>The birth of this big tool, the 'Net, was fused out of both the opposites we tend to posit - the individual inventor versus the big institution. In the 'Net case, these two were US government support, via an internal funder of research, and the intrepid group of individual innovators who made it happen. Neither big institution, nor individual actor, separately - but rather the two together in a sort of symbiosis. >> >>Interestingly, Bell Labs - source of the main innovations we still suckle going on a century later - may offer a similar template. Though the Labs seemed to be (only) a large institution, reports from those who flourished in its golden age tell of a freedom for individual inventors, inside. >> >>Both cases give hints of stable order and creative chaos together, in a tension. >> >>History does have its uses (as George Santayana reminded). >> >>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 sylvia.caras at gmail.com Mon Dec 11 19:41:36 2006 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:41:36 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Rhonda In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/11/06, Ronda Hauben wrote: > > Also we had a session at the PPF conference that went on in Tunis during > WSIS on the > > "Origin and Early Development of the Internet and of the > Netizen: their Impact on Science and Society" I was at that session; it was fascinating, and a privilege to meet Ronda there. Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ 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 Tue Dec 12 10:52:19 2006 From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:52:19 -0800 Subject: [governance] internet as a tool Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061212074630.042cd278@gmail.com> The US, both through electronic health records and a database of air travelers is using tools that ride on the internet to accomplish government goals. I'm posting these two instances not so much for the specifics of the national activities as for the global implications. I'm wondering how much of internet governance has to do with applications, and whether those should or even could be managed or monitored in any way. 1. Electronic health records: "Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology CCHIT is the recognized certification authority for electronic health records and their networks, and an independent, voluntary, private-sector initiative. Our mission is to accelerate the adoption of health information technology by creating an efficient, credible and sustainable product certification program." http://www.cchit.org/ 2. Though this is also a US issue, it seems to me to have global implications, and perhaps some subscribers here would like to comment formally using the link below. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72250-0.html?tw=rss.index The comment period on the proposal, which ended last Monday, was re-opened on Friday for additional feedback. Comments can be submitted online using docket number DHS-2006-0060 Sylvia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Tue Dec 12 12:05:40 2006 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:05:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] internet as a tool In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061212074630.042cd278@gmail.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061212074630.042cd278@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410612120905w2566e63fw9af8b202bcad0f12@mail.gmail.com> These are such important topics and the observations and links much appreciated. As to whether applications are in scope, responsive thought is that * Automation* itself brings with it an aura of credibility (often). But when we look at the actual "knowledge" bases, the robustness also very often becomes questioned. Yet, overarchingly, computing has a mystique, and globally. So generally when the computer is used as a tool the data is believed and records errors can multiply beyond recapture - and now world-wide. One supposes that the gains outweigh the flaws, as there are so many advantages of prompt information, and certainly electronic "health" and "medical" and "pseudo-medical" transmission are an actuality, so these pointers are very important. Perhaps content governance is outside present interests. It would be interest-ing to know if this is the case. All this also outside of e-privacy discussions. Very best wishes, LDMF. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff On 12/12/06, Sylvia Caras wrote: > > The US, both through electronic health records and a database of air > travelers is using tools that ride on the internet to accomplish government > goals. I'm posting these two instances not so much for the specifics of the > national activities as for the global implications. I'm wondering how much > of internet governance has to do with applications, and whether those should > or even could be managed or monitored in any way. > > 1. Electronic health records: > > *"Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology*CCHIT is > the recognized certification authority for electronic health records and > their networks, and an independent, voluntary, private-sector initiative. > > Our mission is to accelerate the adoption of health information technology > by creating an efficient, credible and sustainable product certification > program." > > http://www.cchit.org/ > > 2. Though this is also a US issue, it seems to me to have global > implications, and perhaps some subscribers here would like to comment > formally using the link below. > > http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72250-0.html?tw=rss.index > > The comment period on the proposal, which ended last Monday, was re-opened > on Friday for additional feedback. Comments can be submitted onlineusing docket number DHS-2006-0060 > > Sylvia > > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From pouzin at well.com Wed Dec 13 11:34:42 2006 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:34:42 +0100 (MET) Subject: [governance] Four legs good, two legs bad Message-ID: <200612131634.kBDGYfva002976@merlin.enst.fr> Hi all, Some of what Milton says applies as well to the phone system: basically "it's a service, not a physical commodity". However, unlike the internet, "its architecture, resource assignment and administration are" .. not unilateral. "Changing this would require a huge shift in political, economic and technical arrangements". Ahem, wasn't this the P&T song in the 70's ? "and it is not clear that this would make things any better and a number of reasons to think it would make things worse". For some, perhaps ? Established power structures always say that. As long as the US gov will try to maintain its exclusive grip on the internet, there will be endless discussions and guerrillas on IG. Changes will occur anyhow, because digital communications systems (internet and phone) are highly flexible structures that may be redesigned without disrupting end user services. A most ironic thing today is that the internet establishment is playing the former P&T game of walling up its turf. Vested interests ?? "there is no single existing intergovernmental organization where these things can be handled". Maybe. Is there one for pollution ? Best - - On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:31:22 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: >This is obvious. Three things. First, it's a service, not a physical commodity; second, and much more importantly, its architecture, resource assignment and administration are (by default) transnational. Changing this would require a huge shift in political, economic and technical arrangements and it is not clear that this would make things any better and a number of reasons to think it would make things worse. Third, there is no single existing intergovernmental organization where these things can be handled. ____________________________________________________________ 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 Dec 13 13:40:04 2006 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:40:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] Four legs good, two legs bad In-Reply-To: <200612131634.kBDGYfva002976@merlin.enst.fr> References: <200612131634.kBDGYfva002976@merlin.enst.fr> Message-ID: <45804904.2030308@cynikal.net> Louis Pouzin wrote: >As long as the US gov will try to maintain its exclusive grip on the internet, there will be endless discussions and guerrillas on IG. > Actually - there are less guerrillas and endless discussion then there were back in the days when ICANN started up. The reasons are simple, the WSIS process has failed. When it started it was doomed to fail and now all we have is the coffee talk crowd. Most of whom have no idea what a root server is or what it does. >Changes will occur anyhow, because digital communications systems (internet and phone) are highly flexible structures that may be redesigned without disrupting end user services. A most ironic thing today is that the internet establishment is playing the former P&T game of walling up its turf. Vested interests ?? > > Thats right - changes have in fact occurred, and those changes will continue to occur until such time as the solution is discovered. Not found. The solution was found some time ago. The question is - when will it be discovered. http://www.publicroot.org/news-2005-09-30-resignations.html or revamped http://www.unifiedroot.com/ and finally discovered again. http://www.publicroot.org/ You yourself have discovered a solution with your radice libre. The concepts you discussed with Peter Dambier. I think it's time you got a move on that and made it a reality. regards joe ____________________________________________________________ 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 edward at hasbrouck.org Wed Dec 13 13:10:28 2006 From: edward at hasbrouck.org (Edward Hasbrouck) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:10:28 -0800 Subject: [governance] exhausting ICANN administrative remedies Message-ID: <457FD194.27148.A055CF7@edward.hasbrouck.org> Now that ICANN has finally made public -- a year and a half after the fact -- the basis for its inaction on my request for reconsideration, I've posted an analysis of how it violates ICANN's Bylaws, and what it reveals about ICANN's (lack of) openness, transparency, and accountability: http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001196.html Readers of this list may find it useful as evidence of the need for accountability through mechanisms outside of ICANN. Peace, Edward Hasbrouck ---------------- Edward Hasbrouck +1-415-824-0214 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Wed Dec 13 14:59:27 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:59:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] Four legs good, two legs bad Message-ID: Hi, Louis! >>> pouzin at well.com 12/13/2006 11:34 AM >>> >Some of what Milton says applies as well to the phone system: > basically "it's a service, not a physical commodity". However, >unlike the internet, "its architecture, resource assignment and >administration are" .. not unilateral. Right, telecoms is a service. Indeed, as we all know internet relies on telecom facilities. Unlike the Internet, numbering and signaling resources were developed and controlled nationally. So global governance is multi-lateral, although most of the industry is now transnational due to the WTO BTA. I don't think anyone here thinks that I or IGP are defenders of unilateral control. Certainly no one in the USG does! Multilateral means state-to-state, exclusively. I favor a greater level of devolution, to the transnational level under a global governance regime that has some autonomy from nation-states. Public accountability should not be confused with subordination to nation-states. >"Changing this would require a huge shift in political, economic and >technical arrangements". Ahem, wasn't this the P&T song in the 70's ? It was, and it did, and it was made better. Bear in mind that ITU initially was a huge barrier to liberalization, and only got religion after it was bypassed by the WTO. >"and it is not clear that this would make things any better >and a number of reasons to think it would make things worse". >For some, perhaps ? Established power structures always say that. Tell me how throwing the internet into a traditional multi-lateral power structure controlled by nation-states would make things better. Feel free to make your case. I'm all ears. ____________________________________________________________ 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 ca at rits.org.br Wed Dec 13 16:29:34 2006 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:29:34 -0200 Subject: [governance] Four legs good, two legs bad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <458070BE.6020101@rits.org.br> What is this, a discussion among enthomologists? ;) --c.a. Milton Mueller wrote: > Hi, Louis! > >>>> pouzin at well.com 12/13/2006 11:34 AM >>> >> Some of what Milton says applies as well to the phone system: >> basically "it's a service, not a physical commodity". However, >> unlike the internet, "its architecture, resource assignment and >> administration are" .. not unilateral. [...] ____________________________________________________________ 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 Dec 13 17:07:53 2006 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:07:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Four legs good, two legs bad In-Reply-To: <458070BE.6020101@rits.org.br> References: <458070BE.6020101@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <458079B9.3050508@cynikal.net> Carlos Afonso wrote: > What is this, a discussion among enthomologists? ;) Heavens no. Not enthomologists, just hopeful soals lost in the coffee crowd. cheers joe baptista > > --c.a. > > Milton Mueller wrote: > >> Hi, Louis! >> >>>>> pouzin at well.com 12/13/2006 11:34 AM >>> >>>> >>> Some of what Milton says applies as well to the phone system: >>> basically "it's a service, not a physical commodity". However, >>> unlike the internet, "its architecture, resource assignment and >>> administration are" .. not unilateral. >> > [...] > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Dec 13 18:14:58 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:14:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] Four legs good, two legs bad In-Reply-To: <200612131634.kBDGYfva002976@merlin.enst.fr> References: <200612131634.kBDGYfva002976@merlin.enst.fr> Message-ID: <45808972.5090803@Malcolm.id.au> Louis Pouzin wrote: > As long as the US gov will try to maintain its exclusive grip on the > internet, there will be endless discussions and guerrillas on IG. The DNS is not the Internet, and .com is the Internet even less. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Dec 14 19:56:58 2006 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:56:58 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Four legs good, two legs bad Message-ID: <200612150056.kBF0uwQt019504@ares.enst.fr> Hi Milton, On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:59:27 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: >Right, telecoms is a service. Indeed, as we all know internet relies on telecom facilities. Unlike the Internet, numbering and signaling resources were developed and controlled nationally. So global governance is multi-lateral, although most of the industry is now transnational due to the WTO BTA. Telecom industry now carries much more transnational weight than in the past. In practice it only takes a few nays from major industry actors to block a proposal. There is some power balance between states and lobbies. >I don't think anyone here thinks that I or IGP are defenders of unilateral control. You and IGP certainly deserve much credit for your explicit and solid positions. >Tell me how throwing the internet into a traditional multi-lateral power structure controlled by nation-states would make things better. Feel free to make your case. I'm all ears. Should I ? No kidding. I would expect limited and deceptive progress in international IG for the next five years. Evolutions should occur de facto in the field. Mottoes are subsidiarity and localization. The slogan "internet is for everyone" is nonsense without "internet in my language". There lie the seeds of change. Try and infer the effects. Best ____________________________________________________________ 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 mashi3981 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 15 04:50:38 2006 From: mashi3981 at yahoo.com (mashi3981 at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:50:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] BBC links:Privacy Concerns over States/Corporations'Use of Personal Info Message-ID: Just thought the following links might be useful to you. The BBC news articles below address privacy concerns over states' and corporations' use of personal data. The basic summary is the following: 1. States collect personal info by various methods (eg:CCTV/closed-circuit TV in roadways). Corporations collect personal info by various means (eg:credit card transactions). 2. The info collected by a single entity (state/corporation) is considered SEPERATELY BY ITSELF. The combination of data collected by different entities is NOT considered by many people. 3. Corporations are now building their businesses by DATA MINING on previous customer interactions with them. This is common practice. 4. If there are no safeguards to prevent corporations from **SHARING** personal info with other corporations/state, then IN THE FUTURE, an ECONOMY based on personal info will come up (eg: a business targets only rich customers based on info obtained from their bank records, insurance companies may turn down requests based on info obtained from health services etc). 5. If there are no safeguards to prevent state agencies from **SHARING** personal info with other state agencies/corporations, it could lead to SOCIAL DISCRIMINATION. (eg: Traffic police may stop cars to do checks based on info obtained from other state agencies regarding race of the driver of car. ie. linking number plate to name, name to race, and race to probability of person committing a crime). 6. Different ways outlined are CCTV(closed-circuit TV), number plate recognition, shop RFID, mobile phone triangulation, store loyalty cards, credit card transactions, electoral rolls, health service records, TV preferences recording, worker monitoring etc Although some of them apply to only DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (like CCTV), many could also apply to DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (like credit card transactions, mobile phones). 7. Concerns outlined are a. loss of privacy b. loss of choice/consent by consumers c. discrimination 8. IN THE FUTURE, when RFID (radio-frequence ID) tags become cheap, they could create 'AN INTERNET OF THINGS'. 9. There are great risks if the info contained in the databases are wrong/inaccurate or if it falls into wrong hands. *How we are being watched - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6110866.stm *Britain is 'surveillance society' - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6108496.stm *Q&A: Radio-frequency ID tags - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6055296.stm *Trust warning over personal data - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5172890.stm *Is business the real Big Brother? - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5015826.stm Thanks, Mashi ____________________________________________________________ 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 Fri Dec 15 11:54:07 2006 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:54:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] Four legs good, two legs bad In-Reply-To: <200612150056.kBF0uwQt019504@ares.enst.fr> References: <200612150056.kBF0uwQt019504@ares.enst.fr> Message-ID: <4582D32F.3030301@cynikal.net> Louis Pouzin wrote: > Should I ? No kidding. I would expect limited and deceptive progress > in international IG for the next five years. Evolutions should occur > de facto in the field. Mottoes are subsidiarity and localization. The > slogan "internet is for everyone" is nonsense without "internet in my > language". There lie the seeds of change. Try and infer the effects. Yes and thats exactly what one should expect. The coffee talk crowd will talk endlessly through meetings resulting in no action of any significance. Indeed muller understands deceptive practices very well. The way to make it work is to simply do it. http://www.publicroot.org/news-2006-09-30-Racines-Libres.html So where is the Racines Libres today? regards joe baptista ____________________________________________________________ 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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 15 04:22:30 2006 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:22:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] ITU IG Resolution Message-ID: <023d01c7202a$b1537360$6700a8c0@michael78xnoln> A bit of a belated response to this... I agree overall with what Parminder says below but I would add the argument that by working towards policy frameworks and "institutional arrangements" at the global level one is in many cases also serving to support and reinforce civil society initiatives at national levels in various countries where a reference to a global standard may reinforce (or even in some cases stimulate) parallel national initiatives (In fact I assumed that was one of the basic assumptions underlying the various multilateral standard setting processes--viz. the MG -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: November 30, 2006 1:04 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; wcurrie at apc.org; 'Jeanette Hofmann' Subject: RE: [governance] ITU IG Resolution > will something happen in the first quarter of 2007? should the IGC prepare > to communicate with the incoming SG (both UN and ITU) about how this > process of enhanced cooperation may be started and how the Geneva > Principles on IG can be usefully applied? I have been raising these questions in IGC (and other forums) but they have generally received a muted response. I think the civil society engaging with IG issues need to give up its self-doubts in frontally facing the 'public policy' question in IG and the issue of institutional arrangements adequate to this purpose. These issues will not go away, everyone always knew this, and every passing day brings increasing evidence that there are important public policy issues that are best dealt at global levels - it often serves the public interest better if they are addressed at global levels, rather than at national, or bi-lateral levels (see posts on US trade deals and ccTLD dispute resolution mechanisms). Just one company, Google, it seems takes on a legal suit at the rate of at least one per day, and each of these is in its ad hoc way setting public policy precedents that have implications for all of us. And now since (1) the issue (public policy in IG and its global institutional arrangements) will not go away, and (2) it has tremendous public interest implications (which the IGC espouses), we need to explore the reason and benefits of our not engaging with them. Is it strategic to postpone this engagement as much as possible? Does postponement lessens the danger of what are our principal fears from a relatively well institutionalized IG global policy arrangement. I see two basic fears (1) governments - we know which ones - will institutionalize and legitimize policies of control, hyper-security, censorship etc through such an arrangement (2) the new arrangement will reduce the level of influence that CS or non-governmental sectors have on Internet polices (or effects of their absence). I think on both these counts situation will worsen as we delay in institutionalizing a IG policy framework. The leverage that CS has on IG policies has come largely from the fact that the Internet grew away from governmental shadows and most governments did not understand Internet, and because of it they were ready to both submit to a global framework, and allow CS and other non-governmental sectors some influence on its policies. this situation we know is changing to the detriment of the CS. Most governments today understand Internet fairly well, and further growth of Internet is mostly taking place under their covetous eyes. They may not really need the CS for long, neither will they need a global framework of cooperation. As more time lapses the global IG policies will be negotiated by individual governments form a relative position of strength, and the outcomes will be determined by complete realpolitik, rather than any globally accepted values, and wide democratic participation. I recently read this article - "Jefferson Rebuffed - The United States and the Future of Internet Governance" - which speaks of a 'constitutional moment' missed for IG when the EU's proposal in the last stages of WSIS for working toward an institutional arrangement was missed. The same effort survives as the mention of a process towards 'enhanced cooperation' in the Tunis documents. I am not sure what IGC's response to the EU proposal was, but I do not remember any enthusiasm. A similar attitude is seen among many to the 'enhanced cooperation' part. It is not surprising - since the context and the space of a public policy institutional arrangement clearly and strongly exists - that various players - presently ITU - will try to use this lever. I agree with willie that IGC should firm up a proactive position in this area. An early and pro-active engagement with the 'public policy and its institutional arrangement issues' can still serve to give a greater handle to the civil society to promote (and safeguard) public interest. It may be better served through a global policy framework that is informed by globally accepted norms and values, rather than ad hoc adjudications, or worse, executive arbitrariness. And it will be better served if the CS takes a lead and ensures (though, probably, not granted) a greater role in the whole process.. 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: wcurrie at apc.org [mailto:wcurrie at apc.org] > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:16 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > Subject: Re: [governance] ITU IG Resolution > > >so the ITU is mobilising for a process of enhanced cooperation which the > UN SG failed to initiate in the first quarter of 2006. > > how is the ITU going to get the UN SG to do this: by getting member states > into a process of discussion and agitation on the metter? > > what do we know about the incoming UN SG's views on the ITU - is he likely > to allow the ITU to take a lead here? > > will something happen in the first quarter of 2007? should the IGC prepare > to communicate with the incoming SG (both UN and ITU) about how this > process of enhanced cooperation may be started and how the Geneva > Principles on IG can be usefully applied? > > willie > > > > Milton Mueller schrieb: > >> Adam: > >> These free trade agreements that attempt to globalize US anti-privacy > >> Whois policies are truly evil things, and indicate the degree to which > >> US of A policy is driven by intellectual property interests. > >> > >> But I am not sure what they have to do with the ITU, except that the > >> USA has been promoting WTO and trade agreements as a way of bypassing > >> ITU power over the international telecom sector for a decade now. > > > > It seems, the USG also bypasses ICANN and assumes that contracting > > governments have full control over the management of their ccTLD. One > > wonders what the ccNSO is for if the US government can negotiate all > > relevant matters in bilateral contracts, no? > > jeanette > > > >> > >>>>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 11/24/2006 6:04 AM >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On 11/24/06 12:34 AM, "Bret Fausett" > >> wrote: > >>>> That's an amazing resolution. My hat is off to anyone who can write > >> six > >>>> pages on the management of Internet domain names and addresses and > >> not > >>>> mention ICANN even once! > >>> Amazing perhaps, but also entirely predictable; did anyone really > >> believe > >>> the spin that the Tunis Agenda constituted a unanimous > >> intergovernmental > >>> bear hug for ICANN? Moreover, while the TA called for enhanced > >> cooperation > >>> on public policies to be started by the UN > >> Secretary-General---involving all > >>> relevant organizations and stakeholders---by the end of the first > >> quarter of > >>> 2006, it seems that not much has happened besides some sotto vocci, > >>> selective bilateral/small-n consultations. Not surprising then that > >>> governments would want to see the agenda carried forward on a > >> multilateral > >>> basis in the ITU. Of course, the "involving all stakeholders" > >> language may > >>> be of little practical consequence in the ITU without reforms that > >> will not > >>> be forthcoming in the near term. > >>> > >>> Some other notable bits of word-craft for deconstruction: > >>> > >>> "the development of Internet Protocol (IP)-based networks and the > >> Internet, > >>> taking into account the requirements, features and interoperability > >> of > >>> next-generation networks (NGN);" > >>> > >>> " Member States represent the interests of the population of the > >> country or > >>> territory for which a ccTLD has been delegated;" > >> > >> > >> > >> This is an interesting problem. The US (USTR) is writing clauses > >> into bilateral free trade agreements requiring the ccTLDs of the > >> country signing the FTA to adopt some form of dispute resolution > >> policy. Example, words from the US/AU agreement goes on to also > >> indicate whois "each Party shall require that the management of its > >> country-code top-level domain (ccTLD) provide an appropriate > >> procedure for the settlement of disputes, based on the principles > >> established in the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy. > >> > >> 2. Each Party shall require that the management of its ccTLD provide > >> online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact > >> information for domain-name registrants." > >> > >> Search string such as "ccTLD free trade agreement" in google finds a > >> bunch. > >> > >> I would think one way to read this is that US also thinks member > >> states control ccTLDs and can enforce rules on them. Not what I > >> thought the US position was in WSIS. But I might be getting > >> hot&bothered over a non-issue... > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> " the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other > >> Internet > >>> resources within the mandate of ITU." [phrase appears five times in > >> the > >>> text] > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Bill > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 ------=_NextPart_000_0171_01C7201D.E3F89CD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
A bit=20 of a belated response to this... I agree overall with what Parminder says b= elow=20 but I would add the argument that by working towards policy frameworks and= =20 "institutional arrangements" at the global level one is in many cases also= =20 serving to support and reinforce civil society initiatives at national leve= ls in=20 various countries where a reference to a global standard may reinforce (or = even=20 in some cases stimulate) parallel national initiatives (In fact I assumed t= hat=20 was one of the basic assumptions underlying the various multilateral standa= rd=20 setting processes--viz. the
 
MG
-----Original Message-----
From: Parmind= er=20 [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: November 30, 2006 1:0= 4=20 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; wcurrie at apc.org; 'Jeanette=20 Hofmann'
Subject: RE: [governance] ITU IG=20 Resolution

 

 

> will something happen in the first quarter= of=20 2007? should the IGC prepare

> to communicate with the incoming SG (both = UN and=20 ITU) about how this

> process of enhanced cooperation may be sta= rted=20 and how the Geneva

> Principles on IG can be usefully=20 applied?

 

I have been raising these questions in IGC (and= other=20 forums) but they have generally received a muted response. I think the ci= vil=20 society engaging with IG issues need to give up its self-doubts in fronta= lly=20 facing the 'public policy' question in IG and the issue of institutional= =20 arrangements adequate to this purpose. These issues will not go away, eve= ryone=20 always knew this, and every passing day brings increasing evidence that t= here=20 are important public policy issues that are best dealt at global levels -= it=20 often serves the public interest better if they are addressed at global= =20 levels, rather than at national, or bi-lateral levels (see posts on US tr= ade=20 deals and ccTLD dispute resolution mechanisms). Just one company, Google,= it=20 seems takes on a legal suit at the rate of at least one per day, and each= of=20 these is in its ad hoc way setting public policy precedents that have=20 implications for all of us.

 

And now since (1) the issue (public policy in I= G and=20 its global institutional arrangements) will not go away, and (2) it has= =20 tremendous public interest implications (which the IGC espouses), we need= to=20 explore the reason and benefits of our not engaging with them. Is it stra= tegic=20 to postpone this engagement as much as possible? Does postponement lessen= s the=20 danger of what are our principal fears from a relatively well=20 institutionalized IG global policy arrangement. =

 

I see two basic fears (1) governments – w= e know which=20 ones – will institutionalize and legitimize policies of control,=20 hyper-security, censorship etc through such an arrangement (2) the new=20 arrangement will reduce the level of influence that CS or non-governmenta= l=20 sectors have on Internet polices (or effects of their absence)…=20

 

I think on both these counts situation will wor= sen as=20 we delay in institutionalizing a IG policy framework. The leverage that C= S has=20 on IG policies has come largely from the fact that the Internet grew away= from=20 governmental shadows and most governments did not understand Internet, an= d=20 because of it they were ready to both submit to a global framework, and a= llow=20 CS and other non-governmental sectors some influence on its policies̷= 0;=20  this situation we know is changing to the detriment of the CS. Most= =20 governments today understand Internet fairly well, and further growth of= =20 Internet is mostly taking place under their covetous eyes. They may not r= eally=20 need the CS for long, neither will they need a global framework of=20 cooperation… As more time lapses the global IG policies will be neg= otiated by=20 individual governments form a relative position of strength, and the outc= omes=20 will be determined by complete realpolitik, rather than any globally acce= pted=20 values, and wide democratic participation…=

 

I recently read this article – “Jef= ferson Rebuffed -=20 The United States and the Future of Internet Governance” – wh= ich speaks of a=20 ‘constitutional moment’ missed for IG when the EU’s pro= posal in the last=20 stages of WSIS for working toward an institutional arrangement was missed= . The=20 same effort survives as the mention of a process towards ‘enhanced= =20 cooperation’ in the Tunis documents. I am not sure what I= GC’s=20 response to the EU proposal was, but I do not remember any enthusiasm. A= =20 similar attitude is seen among many to the ‘enhanced cooperation= 217; part.=20

 

It is not surprising – since the context = and the space=20 of a public policy institutional arrangement clearly and strongly exists = –=20 that various players – presently ITU – will try to use this= =20 lever…

 

I agree with willie that IGC should firm up a= =20 proactive position in this area. An early and pro-active engagement with = the=20 ‘public policy and its institutional arrangement issues’ can = still serve to=20 give a greater handle to the civil society to promote (and safeguard) pub= lic=20 interest. It may be better served through a global policy framework that = is=20 informed by globally accepted norms and values, rather than ad hoc=20 adjudications, or worse, executive arbitrariness. And it will be better s= erved=20 if the CS takes a lead and ensures (though, probably, not granted) a grea= ter=20 role in the whole process….

 

Parminder

 

 

_______________________________________________= _

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technologica= l=20 Possibilities

Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653=20 6890

Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055

www.ITforChange.net

 

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

> From: wcurrie at apc.org=20 [mailto:wcurrie at apc.org]

> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:16=20 PM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette=20 Hofmann

> Subject: Re: [governance] ITU IG=20 Resolution

>

> >so the ITU is mobilising for a process= of=20 enhanced cooperation which the

> UN SG failed to initiate in the first quar= ter of=20 2006.

>

> how is the ITU going to get the UN SG to d= o this:=20 by getting member states

> into a process of discussion and agitation= on the=20 metter?

>

> what do we know about the incoming UN SG's= views=20 on the ITU - is he likely

> to allow the ITU to take a lead=20 here?

>

> will something happen in the first quarter= of=20 2007? should the IGC prepare

> to communicate with the incoming SG (both = UN and=20 ITU) about how this

> process of enhanced cooperation may be sta= rted=20 and how the Geneva

> Principles on IG can be usefully=20 applied?

>

> willie

> >

> > Milton Mueller schrieb:=

> >> Adam:

> >> These free trade agreements that = attempt=20 to globalize US anti-privacy

> >> Whois policies are truly evil thi= ngs,=20 and indicate the degree to which

> >> US of A policy is driven by intel= lectual=20 property interests.

> >>

> >> But I am not sure what they have = to do=20 with the ITU, except that the

> >> <= st1:place=20 w:st=3D"on">USA has been promoting WTO a= nd=20 trade agreements as a way of bypassing

> >> ITU power over the international = telecom=20 sector for a decade now.

> >

> > It seems, the USG also bypasses ICANN= and=20 assumes that contracting

> > governments have full control over th= e=20 management of their ccTLD. One

> > wonders what the ccNSO is for if the= =20 US government can negotiate= =20 all

> > relevant matters in bilateral contrac= ts,=20 no?

> > jeanette

> >

> >>

> >>>>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 11/2= 4/2006=20 6:04 AM >>>

> >>> Hi,

> >>>

> >>> On 11/24/06 12:34 AM, "Bret F= ausett"=20 <bfausett at internet.law.pro>

> >> wrote:

> >>>>  That's an amazing= =20 resolution. My hat is off to anyone who can write

> >> six

> >>>>  pages on the manage= ment of=20 Internet domain names and addresses and

> >> not

> >>>>  mention ICANN even= =20 once!

> >>> Amazing perhaps, but also ent= irely=20 predictable; did anyone really

> >> believe

> >>> the spin that the Tunis Agend= a=20 constituted a unanimous

> >> intergovernmental

> >>> bear hug for ICANN?  Mor= eover,=20 while the TA called for enhanced

> >> cooperation

> >>> on public policies to be star= ted by=20 the UN

> >> Secretary-General---involving=20 all

> >>> relevant organizations and=20 stakeholders---by the end of the first

> >> quarter of

> >>> 2006, it seems that not much = has=20 happened besides some sotto vocci,

> >>> selective bilateral/small-n= =20 consultations.  Not surprising then that

> >>> governments would want to see= the=20 agenda carried forward on a

> >> multilateral

> >>> basis in the ITU.  Of co= urse,=20 the "involving all stakeholders"

> >> language may

> >>> be of little practical conseq= uence=20 in the ITU without reforms that

> >> will not

> >>> be forthcoming in the near=20 term.

> >>>

> >>> Some other notable bits of=20 word-craft for deconstruction:

> >>>

> >>> "the development of Internet= =20 Protocol (IP)-based networks and the

> >> Internet,

> >>> taking into account the=20 requirements, features and interoperability

> >> of

> >>> next-generation networks=20 (NGN);"

> >>>

> >>> " Member States represent the= =20 interests of the population of the

> >> country or

> >>> territory for which a ccTLD h= as been=20 delegated;"

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> This is an interesting problem.&n= bsp;=20 The US (USTR) is writing clauses

> >> into bilateral free trade agreeme= nts=20 requiring the ccTLDs of the

> >> country signing the FTA to adopt = some=20 form of dispute resolution

> >> policy. Example, words from the U= S/AU=20 agreement goes on to also

> >> indicate whois "each Party shall = require=20 that the management of its

> >> country-code top-level domain (cc= TLD)=20 provide an appropriate

> >> procedure for the settlement of= =20 disputes, based on the principles

> >> established in the Uniform Domain= -Name=20 Dispute-Resolution Policy.

> >>

> >> 2. Each Party shall require that = the=20 management of its ccTLD provide

> >> online public access to a reliabl= e and=20 accurate database of contact

> >> information for domain-name=20 registrants."

> >>

> >> Search string such as "ccTLD free= trade=20 agreement" in google finds a

> >> bunch.

> >>

> >> I would think one way to read thi= s is=20 that US also thinks member

> >> states control ccTLDs and can enf= orce=20 rules  on them.  Not what I

> >> thought the US po= sition=20 was in WSIS.  But I might be getting

> >> hot&bothered over a=20 non-issue...

> >>

> >> Adam

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>> " the management of Internet = domain=20 names and addresses and other

> >> Internet

> >>> resources within the mandate = of=20 ITU."  [phrase appears five times in

> >> the

> >>> text]

> >>>

> >>> Cheers,

> >>>

> >>> Bill

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>=20 ____________________________________________________________

> >>> You received this message as = a=20 subscriber on the list:

> >>>     = =20 governance at lists.cpsr.org

> >>> To be removed from the list, = send=20 any message to:

> >>>     = =20 governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> >>>

> >>> For all list information and= =20 functions, see:

> >>>     = =20 http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

> >>

> >>=20 ____________________________________________________________

> >> You received this message as a=20 subscriber on the list:

> >>     =20 governance at lists.cpsr.org

> >> To be removed from the list, send= any=20 message to:

> >>     =20 governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> >>

> >> For all list information and func= tions,=20 see:

> >>     =20 http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

> >>=20 ____________________________________________________________

> >> You received this message as a=20 subscriber on the list:

> >>     =20 governance at lists.cpsr.org

> >> To be removed from the list, send= any=20 message to:

> >>     =20 governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> >>

> >> For all list information and func= tions,=20 see:

> >>     =20 http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

> >

> >=20 ____________________________________________________________

> > You received this message as a subscr= iber on=20 the list:

> >     =20 governance at lists.cpsr.org

> > To be removed from the list, send any= =20 message to:

> >     =20 governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> >

> > For all list information and function= s,=20 see:

> >     =20 http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

> >

>

>

>=20 ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber = on the=20 list:

>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> To be removed from the list, send any mess= age=20 to:

>=20      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

>

> For all list information and functions,=20 see:

>=20      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governanc e=

------=_NextPart_000_0171_01C7201D.E3F89CD0-- ____________________________________________________________ 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 mr.marouen at gmail.com Fri Dec 15 16:04:40 2006 From: mr.marouen at gmail.com (Marouen MRAIHI) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:04:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: Announcement: VoIP for development. A free multilingual guide to VoIP Message-ID: <9ea79150612151304n6f318ea9y481230ad3269482e@mail.gmail.com> Français à la fin _________________ VoIP or the Voice Infrastructure Freedom - Building communication alternatives in Developing Regions http://voip4d.it46.se voip4d at it46.se 4 December, 2006: Stockholm, Sweden "The idea of using the Internet as an alternative to the telephone network is not new, but the software that makes it possible certainly is revolutionary." Today IT +46 announces the release of a new guide to support the spread of low-cost communications in the poorest parts of the world. This free guide to Voice over IP, available in four major languages, is an effort to disseminate the use of telephony over the Internet in developing regions. The 40-page guide targets both technical and non-technical readers. The first part presents the essentials of telephony over the Internet. For those interested in the more technical details, hands-on guidelines and configuration files are included in the second part. The examples provide essential background to build your own low-cost telephony system. The last part demonstrates three realistic scenarios of how Voice over IP can be deployed in rural communities in developing regions. The scenarios cover how to build a local telephony system and how to connect it to other voice networks. Through these scenarios, you will learn how your own local VoIP network, built with inexpensive equipment, can link to the traditional telephony network and other voice networks anywhere on the Internet. The booklet "VoIP-4D Primer, Building Voice Infrastructure in developing regions" is written by IT +46, a Swedish consultancy company focusing on innovative usage of IT technology in the developing world. The work has been possible thanks to support from the Acacia Initiative of the International Development Research Centre of Canada and the contribution of several translators and reviewers. The guide is licensed under the Creative Commons Non-commercial Share-Alike license. It is available in English, French, Spanish and Arabic. Free PDF downloads are available in http://voip4d.it46.se Translators and reviewers: * Adel El Zaim (Arabic and French editor) * Anas Tawileh (Arabic translator) * Iñaki Cívico (Spanish editor) * Sylvia Cadena (Spanish editor) * Johan Bilien (French translator) * Martin Benjamin (English editor) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = VoIP ou l'infrastructure de communication libre - Créer des alternatives pour la communication en région émergente. 4 décembre 2006 : Stockholm, Suède « L'idée d'utiliser Internet comme une alternative au réseau téléphonique n'est pas nouvelle, mais le logiciel qui rend cela possible est sans aucun doute révolutionnaire ». Aujourd'hui IT+46 annonce la publication d'un nouveau guide afin d'aider à l'extension des communications à bas prix aux plus pauvres régions du monde. Ce guide gratuit sur la Voix sur IP, disponible en quatre langues majeures, est un effort pour répandre l'utilisation de la téléphonie sur Internet en région émergente. Le guide de 40 pages s'adresse aussi bien au technicien qu'au néophyte. La première partie présente les concepts fondamentaux de la téléphonie sur Internet. Pour ceux que la technique intéresse, des guides pratiques et des fichiers de configuration sont inclus en seconde partie. Les exemples enseignent les bases nécessaires à la création de votre propre système de communication à coût réduit. La dernière partie contient trois exemples réalistes démontrant comment la voix sur IP peut être déployée en communauté rurale en région émergente. Les scénarios couvrent l'installation d'un système de téléphonie local et sa connexion à d'autres réseaux téléphoniques. À travers ces exemples vous apprendrez comment votre propre réseau de VoIP, construit à partir de composants peu onéreux, peut être relier au réseau téléphonique traditionnel et à d'autres réseaux téléphoniques n'importe où sur Internet. Le livret « VoIP-4D – Construire des infrastructures de communication en région émergente » a été écrit par IT-46+, une entreprise de conseil spécialisée dans l'utilisation innovatrice des technologies IT dans les régions émergentes. Cet ouvrage a été rendu possible grâce au support de l'initiative Acacia du Centre de Recherche pour le Développement International et la contribution de plusieurs traducteurs et correcteurs. Le guide est distribué sous licence Creative Commons Non-commercial Share-Alike. Il est disponible en anglais, français, espagnol et arabe. Des PDF peuvent être téléchargés gratuitement à l'adresse http://voip4d.it46.se Traducteurs et relecteurs : * Adel El Zaim (relecture arabe et français) * Anas Tawileh (traduction arabe) * Iñaki Cívico (traduction espagnol) * Sylvia Cadena (relecture espagnol) * Johan Bilien (traduction français) * Martin Benjamin (relecture anglais) ____________________________________________________________ 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 Fri Dec 15 17:36:18 2006 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:36:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] ITU IG Resolution In-Reply-To: <023d01c7202a$b1537360$6700a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <023d01c7202a$b1537360$6700a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <45832362.9030508@cynikal.net> Thats a waste of time. The WSIS et al have only managed to achives a level of complexity. Complexity fails the internet control test. http://www.nma.com/papers/InternetParadigm.pdf In light of the obvious above stated, one can easily describe the WSIS coffee talk process as an abortion in progress. regards joe baptista Michael Gurstein wrote: >A bit of a belated response to this... I agree overall with what >Parminder says below but I would add the argument that by working >towards policy frameworks and "institutional arrangements" at the global >level one is in many cases also serving to support and reinforce civil >society initiatives at national levels in various countries where a >reference to a global standard may reinforce (or even in some cases >stimulate) parallel national initiatives (In fact I assumed that was one >of the basic assumptions underlying the various multilateral standard >setting processes--viz. the > >MG > >-----Original Message----- >From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >Sent: November 30, 2006 1:04 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; wcurrie at apc.org; 'Jeanette Hofmann' >Subject: RE: [governance] ITU IG Resolution > > > > > > > > > >>will something happen in the first quarter of 2007? should the IGC >> >> >prepare > > > >>to communicate with the incoming SG (both UN and ITU) about how this >> >> > > > >>process of enhanced cooperation may be started and how the Geneva >> >> > > > >>Principles on IG can be usefully applied? >> >> > > > >I have been raising these questions in IGC (and other forums) but they >have generally received a muted response. I think the civil society >engaging with IG issues need to give up its self-doubts in frontally >facing the 'public policy' question in IG and the issue of institutional >arrangements adequate to this purpose. These issues will not go away, >everyone always knew this, and every passing day brings increasing >evidence that there are important public policy issues that are best >dealt at global levels - it often serves the public interest better if >they are addressed at global levels, rather than at national, or >bi-lateral levels (see posts on US trade deals and ccTLD dispute >resolution mechanisms). Just one company, Google, it seems takes on a >legal suit at the rate of at least one per day, and each of these is in >its ad hoc way setting public policy precedents that have implications >for all of us. > > > >And now since (1) the issue (public policy in IG and its global >institutional arrangements) will not go away, and (2) it has tremendous >public interest implications (which the IGC espouses), we need to >explore the reason and benefits of our not engaging with them. Is it >strategic to postpone this engagement as much as possible? Does >postponement lessens the danger of what are our principal fears from a >relatively well institutionalized IG global policy arrangement. > > > >I see two basic fears (1) governments - we know which ones - will >institutionalize and legitimize policies of control, hyper-security, >censorship etc through such an arrangement (2) the new arrangement will >reduce the level of influence that CS or non-governmental sectors have >on Internet polices (or effects of their absence). > > > >I think on both these counts situation will worsen as we delay in >institutionalizing a IG policy framework. The leverage that CS has on IG >policies has come largely from the fact that the Internet grew away from >governmental shadows and most governments did not understand Internet, >and because of it they were ready to both submit to a global framework, >and allow CS and other non-governmental sectors some influence on its >policies. this situation we know is changing to the detriment of the >CS. Most governments today understand Internet fairly well, and further >growth of Internet is mostly taking place under their covetous eyes. >They may not really need the CS for long, neither will they need a >global framework of cooperation. As more time lapses the global IG >policies will be negotiated by individual governments form a relative >position of strength, and the outcomes will be determined by complete >realpolitik, rather than any globally accepted values, and wide >democratic participation. > > > >I recently read this article - "Jefferson Rebuffed - The United States >and the Future of Internet Governance" - which speaks of a >'constitutional moment' missed for IG when the EU's proposal in the last >stages of WSIS for working toward an institutional arrangement was >missed. The same effort survives as the mention of a process towards >'enhanced cooperation' in the Tunis documents. I am not sure what IGC's >response to the EU proposal was, but I do not remember any enthusiasm. A >similar attitude is seen among many to the 'enhanced cooperation' part. > > > >It is not surprising - since the context and the space of a public >policy institutional arrangement clearly and strongly exists - that >various players - presently ITU - will try to use this lever. > > > >I agree with willie that IGC should firm up a proactive position in this >area. An early and pro-active engagement with the 'public policy and its >institutional arrangement issues' can still serve to give a greater >handle to the civil society to promote (and safeguard) public interest. >It may be better served through a global policy framework that is >informed by globally accepted norms and values, rather than ad hoc >adjudications, or worse, executive arbitrariness. And it will be better >served if the CS takes a lead and ensures (though, probably, not >granted) a greater role in the whole process.. > > > >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: wcurrie at apc.org [mailto:wcurrie at apc.org] >> >> > > > >>Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:16 PM >> >> > > > >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann >> >> > > > >>Subject: Re: [governance] ITU IG Resolution >> >> > > > > > > >>>so the ITU is mobilising for a process of enhanced cooperation which >>> >>> >the > > > >>UN SG failed to initiate in the first quarter of 2006. >> >> > > > > > > >>how is the ITU going to get the UN SG to do this: by getting member >> >> >states > > > >>into a process of discussion and agitation on the metter? >> >> > > > > > > >>what do we know about the incoming UN SG's views on the ITU - is he >> >> >likely > > > >>to allow the ITU to take a lead here? >> >> > > > > > > >>will something happen in the first quarter of 2007? should the IGC >> >> >prepare > > > >>to communicate with the incoming SG (both UN and ITU) about how this >> >> > > > >>process of enhanced cooperation may be started and how the Geneva >> >> > > > >>Principles on IG can be usefully applied? >> >> > > > > > > >>willie >> >> > > > > > > >>>Milton Mueller schrieb: >>> >>> > > > >>>>Adam: >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>These free trade agreements that attempt to globalize US >>>> >>>> >anti-privacy > > > >>>>Whois policies are truly evil things, and indicate the degree to >>>> >>>> >which > > > >>>>US of A policy is driven by intellectual property interests. >>>> >>>> > > > > > > >>>>But I am not sure what they have to do with the ITU, except that >>>> >>>> >the > > > >>>>USA has been promoting WTO and trade agreements as a way of >>>> >>>> >bypassing > > > >>>>ITU power over the international telecom sector for a decade now. >>>> >>>> > > > > > > >>>It seems, the USG also bypasses ICANN and assumes that contracting >>> >>> > > > >>>governments have full control over the management of their ccTLD. >>> >>> >One > > > >>>wonders what the ccNSO is for if the US government can negotiate all >>> >>> > > > >>>relevant matters in bilateral contracts, no? >>> >>> > > > >>>jeanette >>> >>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>ajp at glocom.ac.jp 11/24/2006 6:04 AM >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>Hi, >>>>> >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>On 11/24/06 12:34 AM, "Bret Fausett" >>>>> >>>>> > > > >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>> That's an amazing resolution. My hat is off to anyone who can >>>>>> >>>>>> >write > > > >>>>six >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>> pages on the management of Internet domain names and addresses >>>>>> >>>>>> >and > > > >>>>not >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>> mention ICANN even once! >>>>>> >>>>>> > > > >>>>>Amazing perhaps, but also entirely predictable; did anyone really >>>>> >>>>> > > > >>>>believe >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>the spin that the Tunis Agenda constituted a unanimous >>>>> >>>>> > > > >>>>intergovernmental >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>bear hug for ICANN? Moreover, while the TA called for enhanced >>>>> >>>>> > > > >>>>cooperation >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>on public policies to be started by the UN >>>>> >>>>> > > > >>>>Secretary-General---involving all >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>relevant organizations and stakeholders---by the end of the first >>>>> >>>>> > > > >>>>quarter of >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>2006, it seems that not much has happened besides some sotto >>>>> >>>>> >vocci, > > > >>>>>selective bilateral/small-n consultations. Not surprising then >>>>> >>>>> >that > > > >>>>>governments would want to see the agenda carried forward on a >>>>> >>>>> > > > >>>>multilateral >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>basis in the ITU. Of course, the "involving all stakeholders" >>>>> >>>>> > > > >>>>language may >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>be of little practical consequence in the ITU without reforms that >>>>> >>>>> > > > >>>>will not >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>be forthcoming in the near term. >>>>> >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>Some other notable bits of word-craft for deconstruction: >>>>> >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>"the development of Internet Protocol (IP)-based networks and the >>>>> >>>>> > > > >>>>Internet, >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>taking into account the requirements, features and >>>>> >>>>> >interoperability > > > >>>>of >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>next-generation networks (NGN);" >>>>> >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>" Member States represent the interests of the population of the >>>>> >>>>> > > > >>>>country or >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>territory for which a ccTLD has been delegated;" >>>>> >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>This is an interesting problem. The US (USTR) is writing clauses >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>into bilateral free trade agreements requiring the ccTLDs of the >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>country signing the FTA to adopt some form of dispute resolution >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>policy. Example, words from the US/AU agreement goes on to also >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>indicate whois "each Party shall require that the management of its >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>country-code top-level domain (ccTLD) provide an appropriate >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>procedure for the settlement of disputes, based on the principles >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>established in the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy. >>>> >>>> > > > > > > >>>>2. Each Party shall require that the management of its ccTLD >>>> >>>> >provide > > > >>>>online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>information for domain-name registrants." >>>> >>>> > > > > > > >>>>Search string such as "ccTLD free trade agreement" in google finds >>>> >>>> >a > > > >>>>bunch. >>>> >>>> > > > > > > >>>>I would think one way to read this is that US also thinks member >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>states control ccTLDs and can enforce rules on them. Not what I >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>thought the US position was in WSIS. But I might be getting >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>hot&bothered over a non-issue... >>>> >>>> > > > > > > >>>>Adam >>>> >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>" the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other >>>>> >>>>> > > > >>>>Internet >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>resources within the mandate of ITU." [phrase appears five times >>>>> >>>>> >in > > > >>>>the >>>> >>>> > > > >>>>>text] >>>>> >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>Bill >>>>> >>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> > > > >>>>>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 >>>> >>>> > > > > > > >>>____________________________________________________________ >>> >>> > > > >>>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 >> >> > > >------=_NextPart_000_0171_01C7201D.E3F89CD0 >Content-Type: text/html; > charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =3D=20 >"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =3D=20 >"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =3D=20 >"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x =3D=20 >"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:st1 =3D=20 >"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> >charset=3Dus-ascii"> Message > >name=3DGENERATOR>downloadurl=3D"http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" >name=3D"St= ate"=20 >namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">Typ= >e>downloadurl=3D"http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" >name=3D"Ci= ty"=20 >namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">Typ= >e>downloadurl=3D"http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/" name=3D"country-region"=20 >namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">Typ= >e>downloadurl=3D"http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/" name=3D"place"=20 >namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">Typ= >e>downloadurl=3D"http://www.microsoft.com" name=3D"PersonName"=20 >namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">Typ= >e> > > > >
si= ze=3D2>A bit=20 of a belated response to this... I agree overall >with what Parminder says b= elow=20 but I would add the argument that by >working towards policy frameworks and= =20 "institutional arrangements" >at the global level one is in many cases also= =20 serving to support >and reinforce civil society initiatives at national leve= ls in=20 >various countries where a reference to a global standard may reinforce >(or = even=20 in some cases stimulate) parallel national initiatives (In >fact I assumed t= hat=20 was one of the basic assumptions underlying the >various multilateral standa= rd=20 setting processes--viz. the >
face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2> 
>
color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2>MG
style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> >
>
align=3Dleft> face=3DTahoma size=3D2>-----Original Message-----
From: >Parmind= er=20 > [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: November 30, 2006 >1:0= 4=20 > PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; wcurrie at apc.org; >'Jeanette=20 > Hofmann'
Subject: RE: [governance] ITU IG=20 > Resolution

>
>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> will something happen in the first >quarter= of=20 > 2007? should the IGC prepare

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> to communicate with the incoming SG >(both = UN and=20 > ITU) about how this

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> process of enhanced cooperation may be >sta= rted=20 > and how the w:st=3D"on">Geneva

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Principles on IG can be usefully=20 > applied?

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I have been raising these questions in IGC >(and= other=20 > forums) but they have generally received a muted response. I think the >ci= vil=20 > society engaging with IG issues need to give up its self-doubts in >fronta= lly=20 > facing the 'public policy' question in IG and the issue of >institutional= =20 > arrangements adequate to this purpose. These issues will not go away, >eve= ryone=20 > always knew this, and every passing day brings increasing evidence >that t= here=20 > are important public policy issues that are best dealt at global >levels -= it=20 > often serves the public interest better if they are addressed at >global= =20 > levels, rather than at national, or bi-lateral levels (see posts on US >tr= ade=20 > deals and ccTLD dispute resolution mechanisms). Just one company, >Google,= it=20 > seems takes on a legal suit at the rate of at least one per day, and >each= of=20 > these is in its ad hoc way setting public policy precedents that >have=20 > implications for all of us.

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">And now since (1) the issue (public policy >in I= G and=20 > its global institutional arrangements) will not go away, and (2) it >has= =20 > tremendous public interest implications (which the IGC espouses), we >need= to=20 > explore the reason and benefits of our not engaging with them. Is it >stra= tegic=20 > to postpone this engagement as much as possible? Does postponement >lessen= s the=20 > danger of what are our principal fears from a relatively well=20 > institutionalized IG global policy arrangement. >=

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I see two basic fears (1) governments >– w= e know which=20 > ones – will institutionalize and legitimize policies of >control,=20 > hyper-security, censorship etc through such an arrangement (2) the >new=20 > arrangement will reduce the level of influence that CS or >non-governmenta= l=20 > sectors have on Internet polices (or effects of their >absence)…=20 >

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I think on both these counts situation will >wor= sen as=20 > we delay in institutionalizing a IG policy framework. The leverage >that C= S has=20 > on IG policies has come largely from the fact that the Internet grew >away= from=20 > governmental shadows and most governments did not understand Internet, >an= d=20 > because of it they were ready to both submit to a global framework, >and a= llow=20 > CS and other non-governmental sectors some influence on its >policies̷= 0;=20 >  this situation we know is changing to the detriment of the CS. >Most= =20 > governments today understand Internet fairly well, and further growth >of= =20 > Internet is mostly taking place under their covetous eyes. They may >not r= eally=20 > need the CS for long, neither will they need a global framework of=20 > cooperation… As more time lapses the global IG policies will be >neg= otiated by=20 > individual governments form a relative position of strength, and the >outc= omes=20 > will be determined by complete realpolitik, rather than any globally >acce= pted=20 > values, and wide democratic >participation…= >

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I recently read this article – >“Jef= ferson Rebuffed -=20 > The United States and the Future of Internet Governance” – >wh= ich speaks of a=20 > ‘constitutional moment’ missed for IG when the EU’s >pro= posal in the last=20 > stages of WSIS for working toward an institutional arrangement was >missed= . The=20 > same effort survives as the mention of a process towards >‘enhanced= =20 > cooperation’ in the w:st=3D"on">Tunis documents. I am not sure >what I= GC’s=20 > response to the EU proposal was, but I do not remember any enthusiasm. >A= =20 > similar attitude is seen among many to the ‘enhanced >cooperation= 217; part.=20 >

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">It is not surprising – since the >context = and the space=20 > of a public policy institutional arrangement clearly and strongly >exists = –=20 > that various players – presently ITU – will try to use >this= =20 > lever…

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I agree with willie that IGC should firm up >a= =20 > proactive position in this area. An early and pro-active engagement >with = the=20 > ‘public policy and its institutional arrangement issues’ >can = still serve to=20 > give a greater handle to the civil society to promote (and safeguard) >pub= lic=20 > interest. It may be better served through a global policy framework >that = is=20 > informed by globally accepted norms and values, rather than ad hoc=20 > adjudications, or worse, executive arbitrariness. And it will be >better s= erved=20 > if the CS takes a lead and ensures (though, probably, not granted) a >grea= ter=20 > role in the whole process….

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Parminder

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: >10pt">_______________________________________________= >_

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Parminder Jeet >SinghP> >

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">IT for Change, w:st=3D"on"> >w:st=3D"on">Bangalore

> >

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Bridging Development Realities and >Technologica= l=20 > Possibilities

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653=20 > 6890

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Fax: (+91-80) 4146 >1055 > >>

>> >> >

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">www.ITforChange.net >P> >

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> -----Original >Message-----P> >

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> From: wcurrie at apc.org=20 > [mailto:wcurrie at apc.org]

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 >8:16=20 > PM

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> To: w:st=3D"on">governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette=20 > Hofmann

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Subject: Re: [governance] ITU IG=20 > Resolution

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >so the ITU is mobilising for a >process= of=20 > enhanced cooperation which the

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> UN SG failed to initiate in the first >quar= ter of=20 > 2006.

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> how is the ITU going to get the UN SG >to d= o this:=20 > by getting member states

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> into a process of discussion and >agitation= on the=20 > metter?

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> what do we know about the incoming UN >SG's= views=20 > on the ITU - is he likely

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> to allow the ITU to take a lead=20 > here?

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> will something happen in the first >quarter= of=20 > 2007? should the IGC prepare

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> to communicate with the incoming SG >(both = UN and=20 > ITU) about how this

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> process of enhanced cooperation may be >sta= rted=20 > and how the w:st=3D"on">Geneva

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Principles on IG can be usefully=20 > applied?

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> willie

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > Milton Mueller >schrieb:=

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> Adam:

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> These free trade agreements >that = attempt=20 > to globalize US anti-privacy

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> Whois policies are truly evil >thi= ngs,=20 > and indicate the degree to which

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> US of A policy is driven by >intel= lectual=20 > property interests.

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> But I am not sure what they >have = to do=20 > with the ITU, except that the

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> w:st=3D"on"><= st1:place=20 > w:st=3D"on">USA has been promoting >WTO a= nd=20 > trade agreements as a way of bypassing

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> ITU power over the >international = telecom=20 > sector for a decade now.

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > It seems, the USG also bypasses >ICANN= and=20 > assumes that contracting

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > governments have full control over >th= e=20 > management of their ccTLD. One

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > wonders what the ccNSO is for if >the= =20 > w:st=3D"on">US government can >negotiate= =20 > all

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > relevant matters in bilateral >contrac= ts,=20 > no?

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > jeanette

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp >11/2= 4/2006=20 > 6:04 AM >>>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> Hi,

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> On 11/24/06 12:34 AM, >"Bret F= ausett"=20 > <bfausett at internet.law.pro>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> wrote:

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>>  That's an >amazing= =20 > resolution. My hat is off to anyone who can write

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> six

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>>  pages on the >manage= ment of=20 > Internet domain names and addresses and

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> not

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>>  mention ICANN >even= =20 > once!

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> Amazing perhaps, but also >ent= irely=20 > predictable; did anyone really

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> believe

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> the spin that the Tunis >Agend= a=20 > constituted a unanimous

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> >intergovernmentalP> >

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> bear hug for ICANN?  >Mor= eover,=20 > while the TA called for enhanced

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> cooperation

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> on public policies to be >star= ted by=20 > the UN

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> >Secretary-General---involving=20 > all

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> relevant organizations >and=20 > stakeholders---by the end of the first

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> quarter of

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> 2006, it seems that not >much = has=20 > happened besides some sotto vocci,

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> selective >bilateral/small-n= =20 > consultations.  Not surprising then that

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> governments would want to >see= the=20 > agenda carried forward on a

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> multilateral

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> basis in the ITU.  Of >co= urse,=20 > the "involving all stakeholders"

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> language may

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> be of little practical >conseq= uence=20 > in the ITU without reforms that

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> will not

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> be forthcoming in the >near=20 > term.

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> Some other notable bits >of=20 > word-craft for deconstruction:

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> "the development of >Internet= =20 > Protocol (IP)-based networks and the

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> Internet,

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> taking into account the=20 > requirements, features and interoperability

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> of

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> next-generation >networks=20 > (NGN);"

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> " Member States represent >the= =20 > interests of the population of the

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> country or

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> territory for which a >ccTLD h= as been=20 > delegated;"

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> This is an interesting >problem.&n= bsp;=20 > The US (USTR) is writing clauses

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> into bilateral free trade >agreeme= nts=20 > requiring the ccTLDs of the

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> country signing the FTA to >adopt = some=20 > form of dispute resolution

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> policy. Example, words from >the U= S/AU=20 > agreement goes on to also

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> indicate whois "each Party >shall = require=20 > that the management of its

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> country-code top-level domain >(cc= TLD)=20 > provide an appropriate

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> procedure for the settlement >of= =20 > disputes, based on the principles

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> established in the Uniform >Domain= -Name=20 > Dispute-Resolution Policy.

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> 2. Each Party shall require >that = the=20 > management of its ccTLD provide

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> online public access to a >reliabl= e and=20 > accurate database of contact

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> information for domain-name=20 > registrants."

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> Search string such as "ccTLD >free= trade=20 > agreement" in google finds a

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> bunch.

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> I would think one way to read >thi= s is=20 > that US also thinks member

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> states control ccTLDs and can >enf= orce=20 > rules  on them.  Not what I

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> thought the > w:st=3D"on">US >po= sition=20 > was in WSIS.  But I might be getting

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> hot&bothered over a=20 > non-issue...

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> Adam

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> " the management of >Internet = domain=20 > names and addresses and other

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> Internet

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> resources within the >mandate = of=20 > ITU."  [phrase appears five times in

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> the

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> text]

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> Cheers,

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> Bill

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>=20 > >____________________________________________________________T= > > >>

>> >> >

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> You received this message >as = a=20 > subscriber on the list:

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>>     = >=20 > >w:st=3D"on">governance at lists.cpsr.org

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> To be removed from the >list, = send=20 > any message to:

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>>     = >=20 > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> For all list information >and= =20 > functions, see:

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>>     = >=20 > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>=20 > >____________________________________________________________T= > > >>

>> >> >

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> You received this message as >a=20 > subscriber on the list:

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>     =20 > >w:st=3D"on">governance at lists.cpsr.org

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> To be removed from the list, >send= any=20 > message to:

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>     =20 > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> For all list information and >func= tions,=20 > see:

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>     =20 > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>=20 > >____________________________________________________________T= > > >>

>> >> >

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> You received this message as >a=20 > subscriber on the list:

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>     =20 > >w:st=3D"on">governance at lists.cpsr.org

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> To be removed from the list, >send= any=20 > message to:

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>     =20 > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> For all list information and >func= tions,=20 > see:

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>     =20 > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >=20 > >____________________________________________________________T= > > >>

>> >> >

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > You received this message as a >subscr= iber on=20 > the list:

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >     =20 > >w:st=3D"on">governance at lists.cpsr.org

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > To be removed from the list, send >any= =20 > message to:

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >     =20 > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > For all list information and >function= s,=20 > see:

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >     =20 > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>=20 > >____________________________________________________________T= > > >>

>> >> >

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> You received this message as a >subscriber = on the=20 > list:

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >     ame=20 > >w:st=3D"on">governance at lists.cpsr.org

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> To be removed from the list, send any >mess= age=20 > to:

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>=20 > >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.orgN= > > >>

>> >> >

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> For all list information and >functions,=20 > see:

>

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>=20 > >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governanc >e= >

> >------=_NextPart_000_0171_01C7201D.E3F89CD0-- > >____________________________________________________________ >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 Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com Fri Dec 15 16:57:35 2006 From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 13:57:35 -0800 Subject: [governance] .pdf - LSoft suggests email certification to stop spam Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061215135721.043dd568@peoplewho.org> http://www.lsoft.com/news/issue4-2006/ericthomas-en.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 aizu at anr.org Sun Dec 17 16:12:25 2006 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 06:12:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: results In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear list, Upon my request, Avri kindly implemented the drawing and reported the following. Congratulations for those selected, and I, as a non-voting chair, will work together with them to produce a working Appeal Tema for our caucus. Thank you very much for your participation and support. izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Avri Doria Date: 2006/12/17 16:54 Subject: results To: Izumi AIZU hi, I ran the program using the lotto results (only main numbers not bonus draws) from the 16 Dec drawing of: - Irish national Lottery http://www.lotto.ie/ - UK national lottery http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/ - US Powerball http://www.powerball.com Key is: 9.16.21.24.28.40./5.8.11.27.30.46./5.17.28.36.51./ index hex value of MD5 div selected 1 F72CDF3ED06678FD19C7C1CA3CE92D9A 25 -> 16 <- 2 37F9A0017D3A05281DF186AE9BB17795 24 -> 6 <- 3 3F6BE1E34B8E3AE16D82EFF7361A7C4F 23 -> 24 <- 4 222FBC884C8E0427A35FB47ADBE6BFBD 22 -> 22 <- 5 C4440D9CF89E259DBCE2CE0AD1D427ED 21 -> 3 <- This means your nomcom is: Bret Fausett Milton Mueller Maja Andjelkovic Adam Peake Ralf Bendrath a. -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.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 aizu at anr.org Sun Dec 17 18:40:02 2006 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 08:40:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] Proposed NomCom Procedure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As sent before, following is the NomCom Procedure we agreed. As written in item 8), we will wait for 3 days for any challenges to the selection, then the nomcom starts on Dec 20. Thanks, izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Izumi AIZU Date: 2006/11/20 21:43 Subject: Proposed NomCom Procedure To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Dear Caucus members, I will try to steer the Appeal Team NomCom selection process, but we need your active participation. Here's a proposed draft call for volunteers. Please share your comments/questions if any. I basically like to proceed as follows, but welcome your comment/question: 1) We need at least 25 volunteers for NomCom member candidates for running the random drawing as described below: http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html 2) Please indicate that you like to volunteer on this list. Once you are selected as NomCom, you are not eligible to become an Appeal Team Member. (If not selected, then you can become Appeal Team member) 3) The volunteers will be posted here: http://www.igcaucus.org/2006-AT-volunteers.html (Thanks to Avri who made this). 4) The call for volunteers will be closed by 14 Dec. 5) The final list of volunteers will be confirmed on 15 Dec. 6) The random seeds will be announced on 16 Dec. 7) The drawing will be done on 17 Dec. 8) We will allow 3 days for challenges then the nomcom starts on Dec 20. Then NomCom have to figure out the dates for nominations, and go into selection process, each will take around 2 weeks (or shorter) I assume. Thanks, izumi -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.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 Mon Dec 18 02:56:34 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 08:56:34 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Fwd: results References: Message-ID: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043A0F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> This means your nomcom is: Bret Fausett Milton Mueller Maja Andjelkovic Adam Peake Ralf Bendrath Congratulations. Great NomCom. The best we ever had :-)))) 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Mon Dec 18 04:13:01 2006 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 10:13:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: results In-Reply-To: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043A0F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043A0F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Congratulations to the peak persons at NomCom. All my best wishes for the advent of a more proper IG. Merry Xmas and Happy New year to all at IGC On 12/18/06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > > This means your nomcom is: > > Bret Fausett > Milton Mueller > Maja Andjelkovic > Adam Peake > Ralf Bendrath > > Congratulations. Great NomCom. The best we ever had :-)))) > > 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 > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Dec 18 06:16:24 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:46:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITU IG Resolution In-Reply-To: <45832362.9030508@cynikal.net> Message-ID: <20061218111646.B7B125C13@smtp2.electricembers.net> > Thats a waste of time. The WSIS et al have only managed to achives a > level of complexity. Complexity fails the internet control test. > > http://www.nma.com/papers/InternetParadigm.pdf > > In light of the obvious above stated, one can easily describe the WSIS > coffee talk process as an abortion in progress. > > regards > joe baptista Joe The presentation you refer to is very informative indeed, and tells one part of the story very well. (that’s the best perhaps one can aspire to do). But since you have used the presentation for a particular 'political' purpose, I must call your attention to some very flawed premises in the presentations. Like the reference to • No One Owns an Economy (anymore;-) • No one can own a Free Market (successfully) I don’t think anyone with any political understanding will even bother trying to refute the above. Incidentally, there are massive national and international (WTO) institutional arrangements dedicating to regulating what the presentor calls as an un-ownable (and therefore presumably un-distortable) economy and 'free' market. And the political orientations (or naiveté) of the presentor then easily takes him into mythical territories about the Internet itself.... Internet Business Model • Service Providers Mutually Agree to Exchange Traffic via some "Mythical Middle". • Each End Pays for all Sending & all Receiving, To and From the Mystical Middle. • No Settlement for Directional Differentials, Because there are no such differentials! • ISPs sell global access, via Mystical MIDDLE Interesting to note that the middle is not ownable! Ask the African Internet user about the above... She pays more than more than to and fro from the 'middle'.... And the middle is not ownable ???... well, many don’t believe so. But I will leave it at that.... And if > Complexity fails the internet control test. Simplicity, or rather being simplistic, fails the test of our lived social and political reality. Regards 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: Joe Baptista [mailto:baptista at cynikal.net] > Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 4:06 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] ITU IG Resolution > > Thats a waste of time. The WSIS et al have only managed to achives a > level of complexity. Complexity fails the internet control test. > > http://www.nma.com/papers/InternetParadigm.pdf > > In light of the obvious above stated, one can easily describe the WSIS > coffee talk process as an abortion in progress. > > regards > joe baptista > > Michael Gurstein wrote: > > >A bit of a belated response to this... I agree overall with what > >Parminder says below but I would add the argument that by working > >towards policy frameworks and "institutional arrangements" at the global > >level one is in many cases also serving to support and reinforce civil > >society initiatives at national levels in various countries where a > >reference to a global standard may reinforce (or even in some cases > >stimulate) parallel national initiatives (In fact I assumed that was one > >of the basic assumptions underlying the various multilateral standard > >setting processes--viz. the > > > >MG > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > >Sent: November 30, 2006 1:04 PM > >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; wcurrie at apc.org; 'Jeanette Hofmann' > >Subject: RE: [governance] ITU IG Resolution > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>will something happen in the first quarter of 2007? should the IGC > >> > >> > >prepare > > > > > > > >>to communicate with the incoming SG (both UN and ITU) about how this > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>process of enhanced cooperation may be started and how the Geneva > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>Principles on IG can be usefully applied? > >> > >> > > > > > > > >I have been raising these questions in IGC (and other forums) but they > >have generally received a muted response. I think the civil society > >engaging with IG issues need to give up its self-doubts in frontally > >facing the 'public policy' question in IG and the issue of institutional > >arrangements adequate to this purpose. These issues will not go away, > >everyone always knew this, and every passing day brings increasing > >evidence that there are important public policy issues that are best > >dealt at global levels - it often serves the public interest better if > >they are addressed at global levels, rather than at national, or > >bi-lateral levels (see posts on US trade deals and ccTLD dispute > >resolution mechanisms). Just one company, Google, it seems takes on a > >legal suit at the rate of at least one per day, and each of these is in > >its ad hoc way setting public policy precedents that have implications > >for all of us. > > > > > > > >And now since (1) the issue (public policy in IG and its global > >institutional arrangements) will not go away, and (2) it has tremendous > >public interest implications (which the IGC espouses), we need to > >explore the reason and benefits of our not engaging with them. Is it > >strategic to postpone this engagement as much as possible? Does > >postponement lessens the danger of what are our principal fears from a > >relatively well institutionalized IG global policy arrangement. > > > > > > > >I see two basic fears (1) governments - we know which ones - will > >institutionalize and legitimize policies of control, hyper-security, > >censorship etc through such an arrangement (2) the new arrangement will > >reduce the level of influence that CS or non-governmental sectors have > >on Internet polices (or effects of their absence). > > > > > > > >I think on both these counts situation will worsen as we delay in > >institutionalizing a IG policy framework. The leverage that CS has on IG > >policies has come largely from the fact that the Internet grew away from > >governmental shadows and most governments did not understand Internet, > >and because of it they were ready to both submit to a global framework, > >and allow CS and other non-governmental sectors some influence on its > >policies. this situation we know is changing to the detriment of the > >CS. Most governments today understand Internet fairly well, and further > >growth of Internet is mostly taking place under their covetous eyes. > >They may not really need the CS for long, neither will they need a > >global framework of cooperation. As more time lapses the global IG > >policies will be negotiated by individual governments form a relative > >position of strength, and the outcomes will be determined by complete > >realpolitik, rather than any globally accepted values, and wide > >democratic participation. > > > > > > > >I recently read this article - "Jefferson Rebuffed - The United States > >and the Future of Internet Governance" - which speaks of a > >'constitutional moment' missed for IG when the EU's proposal in the last > >stages of WSIS for working toward an institutional arrangement was > >missed. The same effort survives as the mention of a process towards > >'enhanced cooperation' in the Tunis documents. I am not sure what IGC's > >response to the EU proposal was, but I do not remember any enthusiasm. A > >similar attitude is seen among many to the 'enhanced cooperation' part. > > > > > > > >It is not surprising - since the context and the space of a public > >policy institutional arrangement clearly and strongly exists - that > >various players - presently ITU - will try to use this lever. > > > > > > > >I agree with willie that IGC should firm up a proactive position in this > >area. An early and pro-active engagement with the 'public policy and its > >institutional arrangement issues' can still serve to give a greater > >handle to the civil society to promote (and safeguard) public interest. > >It may be better served through a global policy framework that is > >informed by globally accepted norms and values, rather than ad hoc > >adjudications, or worse, executive arbitrariness. And it will be better > >served if the CS takes a lead and ensures (though, probably, not > >granted) a greater role in the whole process.. > > > > > > > >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: wcurrie at apc.org [mailto:wcurrie at apc.org] > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:16 PM > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>Subject: Re: [governance] ITU IG Resolution > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>so the ITU is mobilising for a process of enhanced cooperation which > >>> > >>> > >the > > > > > > > >>UN SG failed to initiate in the first quarter of 2006. > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>how is the ITU going to get the UN SG to do this: by getting member > >> > >> > >states > > > > > > > >>into a process of discussion and agitation on the metter? > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>what do we know about the incoming UN SG's views on the ITU - is he > >> > >> > >likely > > > > > > > >>to allow the ITU to take a lead here? > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>will something happen in the first quarter of 2007? should the IGC > >> > >> > >prepare > > > > > > > >>to communicate with the incoming SG (both UN and ITU) about how this > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>process of enhanced cooperation may be started and how the Geneva > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>Principles on IG can be usefully applied? > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>willie > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>Milton Mueller schrieb: > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > >>>>Adam: > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>These free trade agreements that attempt to globalize US > >>>> > >>>> > >anti-privacy > > > > > > > >>>>Whois policies are truly evil things, and indicate the degree to > >>>> > >>>> > >which > > > > > > > >>>>US of A policy is driven by intellectual property interests. > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>But I am not sure what they have to do with the ITU, except that > >>>> > >>>> > >the > > > > > > > >>>>USA has been promoting WTO and trade agreements as a way of > >>>> > >>>> > >bypassing > > > > > > > >>>>ITU power over the international telecom sector for a decade now. > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>It seems, the USG also bypasses ICANN and assumes that contracting > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > >>>governments have full control over the management of their ccTLD. > >>> > >>> > >One > > > > > > > >>>wonders what the ccNSO is for if the US government can negotiate all > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > >>>relevant matters in bilateral contracts, no? > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > >>>jeanette > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>ajp at glocom.ac.jp 11/24/2006 6:04 AM >>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>On 11/24/06 12:34 AM, "Bret Fausett" > >>>>> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>> That's an amazing resolution. My hat is off to anyone who can > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >write > > > > > > > >>>>six > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>> pages on the management of Internet domain names and addresses > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >and > > > > > > > >>>>not > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>> mention ICANN even once! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>Amazing perhaps, but also entirely predictable; did anyone really > >>>>> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>believe > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>the spin that the Tunis Agenda constituted a unanimous > >>>>> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>intergovernmental > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>bear hug for ICANN? Moreover, while the TA called for enhanced > >>>>> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>cooperation > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>on public policies to be started by the UN > >>>>> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>Secretary-General---involving all > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>relevant organizations and stakeholders---by the end of the first > >>>>> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>quarter of > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>2006, it seems that not much has happened besides some sotto > >>>>> > >>>>> > >vocci, > > > > > > > >>>>>selective bilateral/small-n consultations. Not surprising then > >>>>> > >>>>> > >that > > > > > > > >>>>>governments would want to see the agenda carried forward on a > >>>>> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>multilateral > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>basis in the ITU. Of course, the "involving all stakeholders" > >>>>> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>language may > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>be of little practical consequence in the ITU without reforms that > >>>>> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>will not > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>be forthcoming in the near term. > >>>>> > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>Some other notable bits of word-craft for deconstruction: > >>>>> > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>"the development of Internet Protocol (IP)-based networks and the > >>>>> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>Internet, > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>taking into account the requirements, features and > >>>>> > >>>>> > >interoperability > > > > > > > >>>>of > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>next-generation networks (NGN);" > >>>>> > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>" Member States represent the interests of the population of the > >>>>> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>country or > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>territory for which a ccTLD has been delegated;" > >>>>> > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>This is an interesting problem. The US (USTR) is writing clauses > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>into bilateral free trade agreements requiring the ccTLDs of the > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>country signing the FTA to adopt some form of dispute resolution > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>policy. Example, words from the US/AU agreement goes on to also > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>indicate whois "each Party shall require that the management of its > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>country-code top-level domain (ccTLD) provide an appropriate > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>procedure for the settlement of disputes, based on the principles > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>established in the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy. > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>2. Each Party shall require that the management of its ccTLD > >>>> > >>>> > >provide > > > > > > > >>>>online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>information for domain-name registrants." > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>Search string such as "ccTLD free trade agreement" in google finds > >>>> > >>>> > >a > > > > > > > >>>>bunch. > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>I would think one way to read this is that US also thinks member > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>states control ccTLDs and can enforce rules on them. Not what I > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>thought the US position was in WSIS. But I might be getting > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>hot&bothered over a non-issue... > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>Adam > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>" the management of Internet domain names and addresses and other > >>>>> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>Internet > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>resources within the mandate of ITU." [phrase appears five times > >>>>> > >>>>> > >in > > > > > > > >>>>the > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>text] > >>>>> > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>Cheers, > >>>>> > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>Bill > >>>>> > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>____________________________________________________________ > >>>>> > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>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 > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>____________________________________________________________ > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > >>>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 > >> > >> > > > > > >------=_NextPart_000_0171_01C7201D.E3F89CD0 > >Content-Type: text/html; > > charset="us-ascii" > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > > >xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =3D=20 > >"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =3D=20 > >"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =3D=20 > >"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x =3D=20 > >"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:st1 =3D=20 > >"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> > > >charset=3Dus-ascii"> Message > > > > >name=3DGENERATOR> >downloadurl=3D"http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" > >name=3D"St= ate"=20 > >namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> >Typ= > >e> >downloadurl=3D"http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" > >name=3D"Ci= ty"=20 > >namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> >Typ= > >e> >downloadurl=3D"http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/" name=3D"country-region"=20 > >namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> >Typ= > >e> >downloadurl=3D"http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/" name=3D"place"=20 > >namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> >Typ= > >e> >downloadurl=3D"http://www.microsoft.com" name=3D"PersonName"=20 > >namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> >Typ= > >e> > > > > > > > >
>si= ze=3D2>A bit=20 of a belated response to this... I agree overall > >with what Parminder says b= elow=20 but I would add the argument that by > >working towards policy frameworks and= =20 "institutional arrangements" > >at the global level one is in many cases also= =20 serving to support > >and reinforce civil society initiatives at national leve= ls in=20 > >various countries where a reference to a global standard may reinforce > >(or = even=20 in some cases stimulate) parallel national initiatives (In > >fact I assumed t= hat=20 was one of the basic assumptions underlying the > >various multilateral standa= rd=20 setting processes--viz. the > >
>face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2> 
> >
>color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2>MG
>style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> > >
> >
>align=3Dleft> > face=3DTahoma size=3D2>-----Original Message-----
From: > >Parmind= er=20 > > [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: November 30, 2006 > >1:0= 4=20 > > PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; wcurrie at apc.org; > >'Jeanette=20 > > Hofmann'
Subject: RE: [governance] ITU IG=20 > > Resolution

> >
> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> will something happen in the first > >quarter= of=20 > > 2007? should the IGC prepare

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> to communicate with the incoming SG > >(both = UN and=20 > > ITU) about how this

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> process of enhanced cooperation may be > >sta= rted=20 > > and how the > w:st=3D"on">Geneva

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Principles on IG can be usefully=20 > > applied?

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I have been raising these questions in IGC > >(and= other=20 > > forums) but they have generally received a muted response. I think the > >ci= vil=20 > > society engaging with IG issues need to give up its self-doubts in > >fronta= lly=20 > > facing the 'public policy' question in IG and the issue of > >institutional= =20 > > arrangements adequate to this purpose. These issues will not go away, > >eve= ryone=20 > > always knew this, and every passing day brings increasing evidence > >that t= here=20 > > are important public policy issues that are best dealt at global > >levels -= it=20 > > often serves the public interest better if they are addressed at > >global= =20 > > levels, rather than at national, or bi-lateral levels (see posts on US > >tr= ade=20 > > deals and ccTLD dispute resolution mechanisms). Just one company, > >Google,= it=20 > > seems takes on a legal suit at the rate of at least one per day, and > >each= of=20 > > these is in its ad hoc way setting public policy precedents that > >have=20 > > implications for all of us.

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">And now since (1) the issue (public policy > >in I= G and=20 > > its global institutional arrangements) will not go away, and (2) it > >has= =20 > > tremendous public interest implications (which the IGC espouses), we > >need= to=20 > > explore the reason and benefits of our not engaging with them. Is it > >stra= tegic=20 > > to postpone this engagement as much as possible? Does postponement > >lessen= s the=20 > > danger of what are our principal fears from a relatively well=20 > > institutionalized IG global policy arrangement. > >=

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I see two basic fears (1) governments > >– w= e know which=20 > > ones – will institutionalize and legitimize policies of > >control,=20 > > hyper-security, censorship etc through such an arrangement (2) the > >new=20 > > arrangement will reduce the level of influence that CS or > >non-governmenta= l=20 > > sectors have on Internet polices (or effects of their > >absence)…=20 > >

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I think on both these counts situation will > >wor= sen as=20 > > we delay in institutionalizing a IG policy framework. The leverage > >that C= S has=20 > > on IG policies has come largely from the fact that the Internet grew > >away= from=20 > > governmental shadows and most governments did not understand Internet, > >an= d=20 > > because of it they were ready to both submit to a global framework, > >and a= llow=20 > > CS and other non-governmental sectors some influence on its > >policies̷= 0;=20 > >  this situation we know is changing to the detriment of the CS. > >Most= =20 > > governments today understand Internet fairly well, and further growth > >of= =20 > > Internet is mostly taking place under their covetous eyes. They may > >not r= eally=20 > > need the CS for long, neither will they need a global framework of=20 > > cooperation… As more time lapses the global IG policies will be > >neg= otiated by=20 > > individual governments form a relative position of strength, and the > >outc= omes=20 > > will be determined by complete realpolitik, rather than any globally > >acce= pted=20 > > values, and wide democratic > >participation…= > >

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I recently read this article – > >“Jef= ferson Rebuffed -=20 > > The United States and the Future of Internet Governance” – > >wh= ich speaks of a=20 > > ‘constitutional moment’ missed for IG when the EU’s > >pro= posal in the last=20 > > stages of WSIS for working toward an institutional arrangement was > >missed= . The=20 > > same effort survives as the mention of a process towards > >‘enhanced= =20 > > cooperation’ in the > w:st=3D"on">Tunis documents. I am not sure > >what I= GC’s=20 > > response to the EU proposal was, but I do not remember any enthusiasm. > >A= =20 > > similar attitude is seen among many to the ‘enhanced > >cooperation= 217; part.=20 > >

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">It is not surprising – since the > >context = and the space=20 > > of a public policy institutional arrangement clearly and strongly > >exists = –=20 > > that various players – presently ITU – will try to use > >this= =20 > > lever…

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I agree with willie that IGC should firm up > >a= =20 > > proactive position in this area. An early and pro-active engagement > >with = the=20 > > ‘public policy and its institutional arrangement issues’ > >can = still serve to=20 > > give a greater handle to the civil society to promote (and safeguard) > >pub= lic=20 > > interest. It may be better served through a global policy framework > >that = is=20 > > informed by globally accepted norms and values, rather than ad hoc=20 > > adjudications, or worse, executive arbitrariness. And it will be > >better s= erved=20 > > if the CS takes a lead and ensures (though, probably, not granted) a > >grea= ter=20 > > role in the whole process….

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Parminder

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: > >10pt">_______________________________________________= > >_

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Parminder Jeet > >Singh >P> > >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">IT for Change, >w:st=3D"on"> > > >w:st=3D"on">Bangalore

> > > > >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Bridging Development Realities and > >Technologica= l=20 > > Possibilities

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653=20 > > 6890

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Fax: (+91-80) 4146 > >1055 > > > > >>

> >> > >> > >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">www.ITforChange.net > > >P> > >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> 

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> -----Original > >Message----- >P> > >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> From: wcurrie at apc.org=20 > > [mailto:wcurrie at apc.org]

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 > >8:16=20 > > PM

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> To: > w:st=3D"on">governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette=20 > > Hofmann

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Subject: Re: [governance] ITU IG=20 > > Resolution

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >so the ITU is mobilising for a > >process= of=20 > > enhanced cooperation which the

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> UN SG failed to initiate in the first > >quar= ter of=20 > > 2006.

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> how is the ITU going to get the UN SG > >to d= o this:=20 > > by getting member states

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> into a process of discussion and > >agitation= on the=20 > > metter?

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> what do we know about the incoming UN > >SG's= views=20 > > on the ITU - is he likely

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> to allow the ITU to take a lead=20 > > here?

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> will something happen in the first > >quarter= of=20 > > 2007? should the IGC prepare

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> to communicate with the incoming SG > >(both = UN and=20 > > ITU) about how this

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> process of enhanced cooperation may be > >sta= rted=20 > > and how the > w:st=3D"on">Geneva

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Principles on IG can be usefully=20 > > applied?

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> willie

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > Milton Mueller > >schrieb:=

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> Adam:

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> These free trade agreements > >that = attempt=20 > > to globalize US anti-privacy

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> Whois policies are truly evil > >thi= ngs,=20 > > and indicate the degree to which

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> US of A policy is driven by > >intel= lectual=20 > > property interests.

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> But I am not sure what they > >have = to do=20 > > with the ITU, except that the

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> >w:st=3D"on"><= st1:place=20 > > w:st=3D"on">USA has been promoting > >WTO a= nd=20 > > trade agreements as a way of bypassing

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> ITU power over the > >international = telecom=20 > > sector for a decade now.

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > It seems, the USG also bypasses > >ICANN= and=20 > > assumes that contracting

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > governments have full control over > >th= e=20 > > management of their ccTLD. One

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > wonders what the ccNSO is for if > >the= =20 > > > w:st=3D"on">US government can > >negotiate= =20 > > all

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > relevant matters in bilateral > >contrac= ts,=20 > > no?

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > jeanette

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp > >11/2= 4/2006=20 > > 6:04 AM >>>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> Hi,

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> On 11/24/06 12:34 AM, > >"Bret F= ausett"=20 > > <bfausett at internet.law.pro>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> wrote:

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>>  That's an > >amazing= =20 > > resolution. My hat is off to anyone who can write

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> six

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>>  pages on the > >manage= ment of=20 > > Internet domain names and addresses and

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> not

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>>  mention ICANN > >even= =20 > > once!

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> Amazing perhaps, but also > >ent= irely=20 > > predictable; did anyone really

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> believe

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> the spin that the Tunis > >Agend= a=20 > > constituted a unanimous

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> > >intergovernmental >P> > >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> bear hug for ICANN?  > >Mor= eover,=20 > > while the TA called for enhanced

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> cooperation

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> on public policies to be > >star= ted by=20 > > the UN

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> > >Secretary-General---involving=20 > > all

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> relevant organizations > >and=20 > > stakeholders---by the end of the first

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> quarter of

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> 2006, it seems that not > >much = has=20 > > happened besides some sotto vocci,

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> selective > >bilateral/small-n= =20 > > consultations.  Not surprising then that

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> governments would want to > >see= the=20 > > agenda carried forward on a

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> multilateral

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> basis in the ITU.  Of > >co= urse,=20 > > the "involving all stakeholders"

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> language may

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> be of little practical > >conseq= uence=20 > > in the ITU without reforms that

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> will not

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> be forthcoming in the > >near=20 > > term.

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> Some other notable bits > >of=20 > > word-craft for deconstruction:

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> "the development of > >Internet= =20 > > Protocol (IP)-based networks and the

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> Internet,

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> taking into account the=20 > > requirements, features and interoperability

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> of

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> next-generation > >networks=20 > > (NGN);"

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> " Member States represent > >the= =20 > > interests of the population of the

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> country or

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> territory for which a > >ccTLD h= as been=20 > > delegated;"

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> This is an interesting > >problem.&n= bsp;=20 > > The US (USTR) is writing clauses

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> into bilateral free trade > >agreeme= nts=20 > > requiring the ccTLDs of the

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> country signing the FTA to > >adopt = some=20 > > form of dispute resolution

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> policy. Example, words from > >the U= S/AU=20 > > agreement goes on to also

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> indicate whois "each Party > >shall = require=20 > > that the management of its

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> country-code top-level domain > >(cc= TLD)=20 > > provide an appropriate

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> procedure for the settlement > >of= =20 > > disputes, based on the principles

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> established in the Uniform > >Domain= -Name=20 > > Dispute-Resolution Policy.

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> 2. Each Party shall require > >that = the=20 > > management of its ccTLD provide

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> online public access to a > >reliabl= e and=20 > > accurate database of contact

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> information for domain-name=20 > > registrants."

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> Search string such as "ccTLD > >free= trade=20 > > agreement" in google finds a

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> bunch.

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> I would think one way to read > >thi= s is=20 > > that US also thinks member

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> states control ccTLDs and can > >enf= orce=20 > > rules  on them.  Not what I

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> thought the > > > w:st=3D"on">US > >po= sition=20 > > was in WSIS.  But I might be getting

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> hot&bothered over a=20 > > non-issue...

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> Adam

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> " the management of > >Internet = domain=20 > > names and addresses and other

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> Internet

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> resources within the > >mandate = of=20 > > ITU."  [phrase appears five times in

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> the

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> text]

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> Cheers,

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> Bill

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>=20 > > > >____________________________________________________________ >T= > > > > > >>

> >> > >> > >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> You received this message > >as = a=20 > > subscriber on the list:

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > >>>>     = > >=20 > > > > >w:st=3D"on">governance at lists.cpsr.org

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> To be removed from the > >list, = send=20 > > any message to:

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > >>>>     = > >=20 > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>> For all list information > >and= =20 > > functions, see:

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > >>>>     = > >=20 > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>=20 > > > >____________________________________________________________ >T= > > > > > >>

> >> > >> > >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> You received this message as > >a=20 > > subscriber on the list:

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > >>>     =20 > > > > >w:st=3D"on">governance at lists.cpsr.org

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> To be removed from the list, > >send= any=20 > > message to:

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > >>>     =20 > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> For all list information and > >func= tions,=20 > > see:

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > >>>     =20 > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>=20 > > > >____________________________________________________________ >T= > > > > > >>

> >> > >> > >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> You received this message as > >a=20 > > subscriber on the list:

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > >>>     =20 > > > > >w:st=3D"on">governance at lists.cpsr.org

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> To be removed from the list, > >send= any=20 > > message to:

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > >>>     =20 > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >> For all list information and > >func= tions,=20 > > see:

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > >>>     =20 > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >=20 > > > >____________________________________________________________ >T= > > > > > >>

> >> > >> > >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > You received this message as a > >subscr= iber on=20 > > the list:

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >     =20 > > > > >w:st=3D"on">governance at lists.cpsr.org

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > To be removed from the list, send > >any= =20 > > message to:

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >     =20 > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > For all list information and > >function= s,=20 > > see:

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >     =20 > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> >

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>=20 > > > >____________________________________________________________ >T= > > > > > >>

> >> > >> > >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> You received this message as a > >subscriber = on the=20 > > list:

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> > >      >ame=20 > > > >w:st=3D"on">governance at lists.cpsr.org

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> To be removed from the list, send any > >mess= age=20 > > to:

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>=20 > > > >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >N= > > > > > >>

> >> > >> > >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> For all list information and > >functions,=20 > > see:

> >

> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>=20 > > > >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governanc > >e= > >

> > > >------=_NextPart_000_0171_01C7201D.E3F89CD0-- > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >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 ca at rits.org.br Mon Dec 18 06:18:13 2006 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:18:13 -0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Fwd: results In-Reply-To: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043A0F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043A0F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <458678F5.1070100@rits.org.br> I agree -- and also worry. With such a concentration of brilliant+militant minds, I pray that no strong arguments jeopardize consensus! :) --c.a. Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > > This means your nomcom is: > > Bret Fausett > Milton Mueller > Maja Andjelkovic > Adam Peake > Ralf Bendrath > > Congratulations. Great NomCom. The best we ever had :-)))) > > 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 rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mon Dec 18 06:36:09 2006 From: rudi.vansnick at isoc.be (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:36:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: results In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001701c72298$cff74290$0301a8c0@Acer9412> Congratulations to all selected candidates. Rudi Vansnick > -----Original Message----- > From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On > Behalf Of Izumi AIZU > Sent: zondag 17 december 2006 22:12 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Fwd: results > > > Dear list, > > Upon my request, Avri kindly implemented the drawing and > reported the following. Congratulations for those selected, > and I, as a non-voting chair, will work together with them to > produce a working Appeal Tema for our caucus. > > Thank you very much for your participation and support. > > izumi > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Avri Doria > Date: 2006/12/17 16:54 > Subject: results > To: Izumi AIZU > > > hi, > > I ran the program using the lotto results (only main numbers > not bonus draws) from the 16 Dec drawing of: > > - Irish national Lottery http://www.lotto.ie/ > - UK national lottery http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/ > - US Powerball http://www.powerball.com > > > Key is: > 9.16.21.24.28.40./5.8.11.27.30.46./5.17.28.36.51./ > index hex value of MD5 div selected > 1 F72CDF3ED06678FD19C7C1CA3CE92D9A 25 -> 16 <- > 2 37F9A0017D3A05281DF186AE9BB17795 24 -> 6 <- > 3 3F6BE1E34B8E3AE16D82EFF7361A7C4F 23 -> 24 <- > 4 222FBC884C8E0427A35FB47ADBE6BFBD 22 -> 22 <- > 5 C4440D9CF89E259DBCE2CE0AD1D427ED 21 -> 3 <- > > This means your nomcom is: > > Bret Fausett > Milton Mueller > Maja Andjelkovic > Adam Peake > Ralf Bendrath > > a. > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society > Kumon Center, Tama University > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.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 > ____________________________________________________________ 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 Mon Dec 18 07:03:39 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:03:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: results In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks. yet another nomcom! Look forward to working with you. Adam >Dear list, > >Upon my request, Avri kindly implemented the drawing and >reported the following. Congratulations for those selected, >and I, as a non-voting chair, will work together with them to >produce a working Appeal Tema for our caucus. > >Thank you very much for your participation and support. > >izumi > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: Avri Doria >Date: 2006/12/17 16:54 >Subject: results >To: Izumi AIZU > > >hi, > >I ran the program using the lotto results (only main numbers not >bonus draws) from the >16 Dec drawing of: > > - Irish national Lottery http://www.lotto.ie/ > - UK national lottery http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/ > - US Powerball http://www.powerball.com > > >Key is: >9.16.21.24.28.40./5.8.11.27.30.46./5.17.28.36.51./ >index hex value of MD5 div selected >1 F72CDF3ED06678FD19C7C1CA3CE92D9A 25 -> 16 <- >2 37F9A0017D3A05281DF186AE9BB17795 24 -> 6 <- >3 3F6BE1E34B8E3AE16D82EFF7361A7C4F 23 -> 24 <- >4 222FBC884C8E0427A35FB47ADBE6BFBD 22 -> 22 <- >5 C4440D9CF89E259DBCE2CE0AD1D427ED 21 -> 3 <- > >This means your nomcom is: > >Bret Fausett >Milton Mueller >Maja Andjelkovic >Adam Peake >Ralf Bendrath > >a. > > >-- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society > Kumon Center, Tama University > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.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 ____________________________________________________________ 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 dave at isoc-mu.org Mon Dec 18 07:54:12 2006 From: dave at isoc-mu.org (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:54:12 +0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: results In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <007201c722a3$a1961650$4101a8c0@TLFMDOM.local> Congratulations to the selected candidates Great work, Avri and Izumi Best regards Dave Kissoondoyal -----Original Message----- From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 1:12 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Fwd: results Dear list, Upon my request, Avri kindly implemented the drawing and reported the following. Congratulations for those selected, and I, as a non-voting chair, will work together with them to produce a working Appeal Tema for our caucus. Thank you very much for your participation and support. izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Avri Doria Date: 2006/12/17 16:54 Subject: results To: Izumi AIZU hi, I ran the program using the lotto results (only main numbers not bonus draws) from the 16 Dec drawing of: - Irish national Lottery http://www.lotto.ie/ - UK national lottery http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/ - US Powerball http://www.powerball.com Key is: 9.16.21.24.28.40./5.8.11.27.30.46./5.17.28.36.51./ index hex value of MD5 div selected 1 F72CDF3ED06678FD19C7C1CA3CE92D9A 25 -> 16 <- 2 37F9A0017D3A05281DF186AE9BB17795 24 -> 6 <- 3 3F6BE1E34B8E3AE16D82EFF7361A7C4F 23 -> 24 <- 4 222FBC884C8E0427A35FB47ADBE6BFBD 22 -> 22 <- 5 C4440D9CF89E259DBCE2CE0AD1D427ED 21 -> 3 <- This means your nomcom is: Bret Fausett Milton Mueller Maja Andjelkovic Adam Peake Ralf Bendrath a. -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.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 ____________________________________________________________ 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 Mon Dec 18 11:26:17 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 08:26:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Fwd: results In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061218162618.39483.qmail@web58704.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Well, congratulations to the selected for having been selected, and congratulations to the non-selected for not having been selected! Thanks Izumi and Avri, Mawaki --- Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > > Upon my request, Avri kindly implemented the drawing and > reported the following. Congratulations for those selected, > and I, as a non-voting chair, will work together with them to > produce a working Appeal Tema for our caucus. > > Thank you very much for your participation and support. > > izumi > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Avri Doria > Date: 2006/12/17 16:54 > Subject: results > To: Izumi AIZU > > > hi, > > I ran the program using the lotto results (only main numbers not > bonus draws) from the > 16 Dec drawing of: > > - Irish national Lottery http://www.lotto.ie/ > - UK national lottery http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/ > - US Powerball http://www.powerball.com > > > Key is: > 9.16.21.24.28.40./5.8.11.27.30.46./5.17.28.36.51./ > index hex value of MD5 div selected > 1 F72CDF3ED06678FD19C7C1CA3CE92D9A 25 -> 16 <- > 2 37F9A0017D3A05281DF186AE9BB17795 24 -> 6 <- > 3 3F6BE1E34B8E3AE16D82EFF7361A7C4F 23 -> 24 <- > 4 222FBC884C8E0427A35FB47ADBE6BFBD 22 -> 22 <- > 5 C4440D9CF89E259DBCE2CE0AD1D427ED 21 -> 3 <- > > This means your nomcom is: > > Bret Fausett > Milton Mueller > Maja Andjelkovic > Adam Peake > Ralf Bendrath > > a. > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society > Kumon Center, Tama University > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.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 > ____________________________________________________________ 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 Mon Dec 18 12:40:33 2006 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:40:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: results In-Reply-To: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043A0F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043A0F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <954259bd0612180940nb350ae3i52de4e47923b7e8b@mail.gmail.com> Warm congrats to all nominees. Best. Bertrand On 12/18/06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > > This means your nomcom is: > > Bret Fausett > Milton Mueller > Maja Andjelkovic > Adam Peake > Ralf Bendrath > > Congratulations. Great NomCom. The best we ever had :-)))) > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From avri at psg.com Mon Dec 18 14:13:11 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:13:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: results In-Reply-To: <954259bd0612180940nb350ae3i52de4e47923b7e8b@mail.gmail.com> References: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043A0F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <954259bd0612180940nb350ae3i52de4e47923b7e8b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <27744D01-63CD-4C74-BABE-61E8160AD2CD@psg.com> On 18 dec 2006, at 12.40, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Warm congrats to all nominees. hi, just wanted to clear up something that may be a misunderstanding. although the misunderstanding may only be on my part. the names that were published were not the names of candidates for the appeals team, but rather where the names of the nomcom that will choose the appeal's team. perhaps this is obvious to everyone, but in reading the congratulations, i was not sure. knowing the challenge they face, i am not sure congratulations is the right word. :-) but thanks to them and all who took a chance on being selected definitely is. a note on my role: all i really did was post the list of volunteers and run the randomized reproducible selection program. i am not involved with the nomcom other then to have performed a few mechanical tasks. i.e. i did not even volunteer for the selection list. 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 christine at apdip.net Tue Dec 19 09:58:14 2006 From: christine at apdip.net (christine at apdip.net) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:58:14 +0700 Subject: [governance] UNDP, IBM and Oracle to Help Asia-Pacific Countries Create Strategies and Policies for Adopting Open Computing Standards Message-ID: <20061219215814.rfms1u07r4wo48gk@webmail.apdip.net> UNDP, IBM AND ORACLE TO HELP ASIA-PACIFIC COUNTRIES CREATE STRATEGIES AND POLICIES FOR ADOPTING OPEN COMPUTING STANDARDS BANGKOK, 19 DECEMBER 2006 - United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), IBM and Oracle today announced a joint research initiative to help Asia-Pacific countries share and create strategies, blueprints and policies for adopting the right blend of open standards and technology services. The goal will be for more countries to develop universally compatible applications and networks to make internal and external government services and transactions more automatic, affordable and efficient. The UNDP Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme (UNDP-APDIP) will facilitate the development of Government Interoperability Frameworks (GIFs). Many countries around the world have developed GIFs to guide the development of government-wide systems and policies that permit electronic transactions and data and information exchange to take place seamlessly across agencies and jurisdictions. Today, many e-Government initiatives show that new systems are very often developed from scratch at both central and local levels. New systems are developed with specifications and solutions that match goals and tasks relevant to a particular administration, but without adequate attention to surrounding government institutions and information and communications technology (ICT) systems. The result is a patchwork of ICT solutions that are not always compatible with each other, reduced efficiency and duplication of effort. UNDP-APDIP, IBM and Oracle, together with the International Open Source Network (IOSN), have teamed up to conduct a thorough review of how governments in the region and beyond are promoting efficient, government-wide sharing of information and data by focusing on automatic technology services provided by computing networks, rather than individual technologies. For instance, this project will examine how existing GIFs are focused on a service-oriented architecture. The objective is to identify promising practices around interoperability, then document case studies of those practices in action, and ultimately develop and recommend guidelines. Over the next year, UNDP-APDIP will hold workshops to share experiences and findings of the project with interested groups, and publicly release studies and reports at various stages of the project. "UNDP believes that interoperability based on open standards reduces vendor lock-in and consequently reduces costs, ensures data and application longevity, and most importantly, simplifies technology for citizens and governments," said Shahid Akhtar, Programme Coordinator of UNDP-APDIP. "The governments involved in this exciting project have a unique opportunity to find out how they can make a real difference for their citizens," said Bob Sutor, IBM's Vice President of Open Source and Standards. "IBM is pleased to participate in this initiative, share what we know, and share what we have learned from others that have adopted a neutral and truly open approach to their computing infrastructure." "Oracle is pleased to join with UNDP-APDIP and IBM on this important initiative that will help ensure governments obtain maximal benefit from their investments in ICT systems,? said Dr. Donald Deutsch, Oracle?s Vice President of Standards Strategy and Architecture, ?Open Standards provide the key foundation for interoperability of ICT systems and enable efficiency and innovation in enterprises of any size." Further information will be announced on http://www.apdip.net/projects/gif[1] as and when it becomes available. Links: ------ [1] http://www.apdip.net/projects/gif ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com Wed Dec 20 13:06:16 2006 From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:06:16 -0800 Subject: [governance] Copyright Tool Will Scan Web For Violations Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061220100351.00bfc7f8@peoplewho.org> Privately held Attributor Corp. of Redwood City, Calif., has begun testing a system to scan the billions of pages on the Web for clients' audio, video, images and text -- potentially making it easier for owners to request that Web sites take content down or provide payment for its use. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116640468524853020-jD46fkyB33ZgQiMfJcpSZ4LqgLA_20071218.html?mod=blogs ____________________________________________________________ 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 Dec 20 14:43:59 2006 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:43:59 -0800 Subject: [governance] call for papers: Communication Technologies of Empowerment Message-ID: Communication Technologies of Empowerment 18 May, 2007 | Leeds, UK Deadline: 31 January, 2007 This meeting seeks to bring together new scholars who are studying how the latest developments in communication are affecting our democracies by enabling new forms of political participation and citizen engagement. The recent popular upheavals in Ukraine and Lebanon were in great part conducted through mobile phone messages. In Western Europe, the riots in the Parisian suburbs and the protests in Spain against the Aznar government regarding the authorship of the Madrid terrorist attacks would have been very different if the Internet and mobile phones had not become an integral part of our everyday lives. ____________________________________________________________ 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 aizu at anr.org Wed Dec 20 19:15:53 2006 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 09:15:53 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Proposed NomCom Procedure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Since there was not challenges made (as far as I noticed), NomCom for selecting the Appeal Team will start its work now. We will first worl on the timeline, then discuss about the criteria for selection etc and publish these. It's quite a challenge to work on these during the holiday season and therefore I beg you to allow some more time than usual to process these important tasks. Thanks and happy holidays to all of you! izumi 2006/12/18, Izumi AIZU : > As sent before, following is the NomCom Procedure we agreed. > > As written in item 8), we will wait for 3 days for any challenges > to the selection, then the nomcom starts on Dec 20. > > Thanks, > > izumi > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Izumi AIZU > Date: 2006/11/20 21:43 > Subject: Proposed NomCom Procedure > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Dear Caucus members, > > I will try to steer the Appeal Team NomCom selection process, but we > need your active participation. > > Here's a proposed draft call for volunteers. Please share your > comments/questions if any. I basically like to proceed as follows, > but welcome your comment/question: > > 8) We will allow 3 days for challenges then the nomcom starts on Dec 20. > > Then NomCom have to figure out the dates for nominations, and go into > selection process, each will take around 2 weeks (or shorter) I assume. > > Thanks, > > izumi ____________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Dec 21 10:11:29 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:11:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] Confirmation of dates for IGF open consultation Message-ID: hi, Markus Kummer has just announced that the UN has confirmed the dates for the open consultation on stocktaking for 13 February 2007 at the Palais des Nations (Room XX). Online registration is scheduled to start on 8 January 2007. There will be more information in a bit on the IGF web site, but I wanted to pass this tidbit as quickly as possible. 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 avri at acm.org Thu Dec 21 10:14:23 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:14:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Confirmation of dates for IGF open consultation Message-ID: <77F1DC01-BE34-4480-9454-E346D6DE8270@acm.org> hi, Markus Kummer has just announced that the UN has confirmed the dates for the open consultation on stocktaking for 13 February 2007 at the Palais des Nations (Room XX). Online registration is scheduled to start on 8 January 2007. There will be more information in a bit on the IGF web site, but I wanted to pass this tidbit as quickly as possible. 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 aizu at anr.org Sat Dec 23 03:30:42 2006 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 17:30:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] Appeal Team Selection time line Message-ID: Dear all, Our NomCom team agreed to work with the following time line. In essence, we like to finish this process by the end of January, taking holidays into consideration, it is about one-month job. The biggest challenge for all of us is to make sure sufficient number and quality of candidates will be pooled. This needs YOUR participation. With this, Happy Holiday! izumi 1. Discuss and agree with the criteria and selection method for Appeal Team - by Jan 8 2. Send out "Call for Appeal Team" - Jan 9 3. Receive and review applications/nominations - Jan 21 4. Make final selection - Jan 29 5. Prepare report (Chair) - Jan 30 6. Announce the result - Jan 31 7. Publish the Report and dissolve - Jan 31 ____________________________________________________________ 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 wsis at ngocongo.org Sat Dec 23 05:02:05 2006 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 11:02:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] TR: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC resumed session (11-15 December 2007) Message-ID: <200612231001.kBNA1ueQ001563@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> For your information, this was sent a couple of days ago to the Plenary list, regarding the follow up to WSIS. Best regards, and regards our warmest season’s greeting! Philippe _____ De : plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] De la part de CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam Envoyé : mercredi 20 décembre 2006 19:19 À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org Cc : rbloem at ngocongo.org; 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC resumed session (11-15 December 2007) Dear all, Find below the extract of the UN Press release on the ECOSOC resumed session addressing WSIS follow up (ECOSOC/6245, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ecosoc6245.doc.htm). Questions related to the adoption of the draft decision submitted by the 9th session of the CSTD (May 2006), the election of the 10 CSTD new members and on the participation of the WSIS accredited CS entities to the next sessions of the CSTD have been deferred to the February 2007 ECOSOC organisational session « Also today, the Council approved a draft decision concerning enlargement of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, by the inclusion of 10 new members. Three of those seats would be allocated to the Group of African States, two to the Group of Asian States, one to the Group of Eastern European States, two to the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States and two to the Group of Western European and other States. By other provisions of that text, the terms of office for the new members would coincide with existing terms of membership, with dates to be determined for each region by lottery. The election of the 10 new members would be held at the organizational session in February 2007. The Council agreed, however, to defer consideration of remaining matters, contained in the report of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (document E/2006/31), until that date. » All the best, Philippe Philippe Dam CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Dec 28 04:17:38 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 18:17:38 +0900 Subject: Fwd: Re: [governance] ITU IG Resolution Message-ID: Any thoughts on writing to Nitin Desai asking for an update on enhanced cooperation? And working on statements/contributions to the February consultation? (about 6 weeks away.) Adam >Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 07:58:17 +0900 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >From: Adam Peake > >>Milton Mueller ha scritto: >>>Good statement. Some of us have never avoided these issues. I would >>>make two suggestions: >>>1. You are now one of the coordinators of IGC therefore you are in a >>>position to exert leadership and take initiative in this regard, so >>>let's see some specific proposals. Adam made a one (send a letter to >>>Desai asking what's up with Enhanced cooperation) which is fine although >>>it is a very modest initiative. >> >>I would support something like that, and, for example, I could >>forward it to the EU (the original proposer of the "enhanced >>cooperation" moniker). We could try to make as much noise as >>possible to ask what's up and request inclusion. > > >This fits with what I'm thinking: a letter asking for >progress/update, why aren't we being told, and we would like to be >involved. And cc'ing govt and others we know interested to see if >they will also then ask the same questions might be helpful. > >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 ____________________________________________________________ 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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sat Dec 30 12:59:59 2006 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 12:59:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] *LINK fyi* *Respectfuly Interfacing*, multi-lingual china.org.cn includes Esperanto.. Message-ID: <8cbfe7410612300959y1f3e69ecga575bbf2a522b97@mail.gmail.com> Link: www.china.cn.org Re: communication, accessiblility, inclusion, diversity, respect, and related themes. This is a newish or at least newly discussed website getting a fair amount of publicity. On signing in I noted with pleasure that it is not only multilingual but includes the invented cross-culture language of *Esperanto*. If like me you have meant to delve into *Esperanto* or other universalized, invented languages, this might be a great launch pad! Along with a to-be-explored doorway to China in many aspects. I am sending this note to lists rich in communications interests, and individuals who come to mind in terms of the *Respectful Interfaces* Coda: Achieving *Dialogue* While Cherishing * Diversity*. Very best wishes and happy new year, LDMF P.S. Can sign language in still photos and streaming video, and audio paralleling visual information, be far behind? . Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff (law, computing, humanities) President National Disability Party; Steering Committee Member *for Coordination of Singular Organizations on Disability) ; International Disability Caucus; Founder, Persons With Pain International, accredited to the U.N. Disabilioty Treaty Bureau. Secretary and Member of The Board, Communications Coordination Committee for the United Nations; Director, *Respectful Interfaces*. Committee(s) Member, World Demoracy Movement. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 30 23:52:42 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 10:22:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITU IG Resolution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061231045255.129145C4A@smtp2.electricembers.net> Yes, it is important we get going. Since having a draft is the best way to get going, if it is fine with all of you, I will attempt one in the next 3-4 days, and we can discuss and input into 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: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 2:48 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Fwd: Re: [governance] ITU IG Resolution > > Any thoughts on writing to Nitin Desai asking for an update on > enhanced cooperation? And working on statements/contributions to the > February consultation? (about 6 weeks away.) > > Adam > > > > >Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 07:58:17 +0900 > >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >From: Adam Peake > > > >>Milton Mueller ha scritto: > >>>Good statement. Some of us have never avoided these issues. I would > >>>make two suggestions: > >>>1. You are now one of the coordinators of IGC therefore you are in a > >>>position to exert leadership and take initiative in this regard, so > >>>let's see some specific proposals. Adam made a one (send a letter to > >>>Desai asking what's up with Enhanced cooperation) which is fine > although > >>>it is a very modest initiative. > >> > >>I would support something like that, and, for example, I could > >>forward it to the EU (the original proposer of the "enhanced > >>cooperation" moniker). We could try to make as much noise as > >>possible to ask what's up and request inclusion. > > > > > >This fits with what I'm thinking: a letter asking for > >progress/update, why aren't we being told, and we would like to be > >involved. And cc'ing govt and others we know interested to see if > >they will also then ask the same questions might be helpful. > > > >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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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