From cnd at knowprose.com Fri Mar 31 16:59:56 2006 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 17:59:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] [Wsis-pct] IP Justice Comment to IGF on Top Policy Issues for Athens In-Reply-To: References: <442C6EC6.4090802@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <442DA65C.5070704@knowprose.com> Isn't the problem then with the German Law rather than the document? I think it's dangerous to dismiss DRM the concept. The implementations are where I have problems. It's much like the patent system, which extends way beyond software... the patent system doesn't really do what the concept of patents is supposed to do in the first place, and while hacking around it in GPLv3 draft might be effective in the short term, it's only attacking the symptom. So is attacking DRM in this manner, though I am subject to change my opinion. over the next few days (and subsequently, the rest of my life). DRM could have valid implementations - for example, to assure that the rights of Free Software are maintained. Rights are rights, but licenses vary - and so do implementations of objects. Richard Stallman wrote: > I would support any of these specific recommendations in another > context. But this document takes a point of view that accepts DRM, > per se, as legitimate. It opposes the prohibition of P2P software, > but doesn't call for the legalization of P2P sharing; it says nothing > to oppose laws such as the new German law, which would imprison all > people for sharing movies. > > For that reason, I have to urge people not to endorse the document. > _______________________________________________ > WSIS-PCT mailing list > WSIS-PCT at fsfeurope.org > https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/wsis-pct > > > > -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago cnd at knowprose.com Looking for contracts/work! http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786 New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Fri Mar 31 18:16:53 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:16:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Public policy issues to be discussed at the first meeting of the IGF Message-ID: <442DB865.5070300@lists.privaterra.org> Dear colleagues: For the record, I wanted to the members of this list know that Ihave just sent a collection of documents to the IGF secretariat. Sent just before 23:55 Geneva Time, the documents are the submissions which I had some doubt weather they had been submitted directly already. I thank the authors of the texts for their effort. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 --- Dear IGF Secretariat: I have been asked by several colleagues on the CS Internet Governance caucus to compile a list of submissions and comments for consideration by the secretariat. As I am not sure if the documents have been submitted already, I am attaching them to this email. Please consider each document as a separate submission. Credit should be given to the original author - whose contact details are included in each attached file. Yours Sincerely, Robert Guerra -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Equity for critical Internet resources.doc Type: application/msword Size: 34304 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: e-voting.doc Type: application/msword Size: 61952 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: affordable Internet access.doc Type: application/msword Size: 54272 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: user centric digital identity.doc Type: application/msword Size: 53248 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: The WSIS Principles on Internet Governance.doc Type: application/msword Size: 50176 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Publicness.doc Type: application/msword Size: 29184 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Open Educational Ressources.doc Type: application/msword Size: 42496 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Promoting capacity building strategies-fr.doc Type: application/msword Size: 35328 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Mar 1 04:37:10 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 10:37:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52D4B641-8E3D-4256-BEF7-FE957E0F73C0@ras.eu.org> Le 28 févr. 06 à 17:39, David Allen a écrit : > At 5:25 PM +0100 2/28/06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: >> The remaining question is, is there a need to >> coordinate the different language based roots? > > That I think is what _we_ - WSIS, IGF et al. - are supposed to be > all about ... This is also what I've thought since this caucus has been started... not _all_ about, though, but let's say _also mainly_ about. It seems to me that the really breaking news in this announcement is that it shows the general public - and any decision maker who seems afraid of the '(Internet) world chaos' alternate roots are supposed to cause - that alternate roots do work when good coordination is in place and respected. And if this applies to multilingual roots, it also applies to any kind of alternate root and DNS system. So, the remaining question is not: "is there a need to coordinate the different language based roots?", but rather: "there is a need to coordinate the different whatever- (certainly not only language-) based roots!", i.e., since I'm pleased to go on with Wolfgang's metaphor, to do what Mr Marx has done to Mr Hegel's dialectics: putting it back on its feet:) Best, Meryem PS. Milton: no 'infocommunism' in there:)) -- Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire 294 rue de Charenton - 75012 Paris Tel/Fax. +33(0)144749239 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Wed Mar 1 07:26:22 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 07:26:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] In-Reply-To: <52D4B641-8E3D-4256-BEF7-FE957E0F73C0@ras.eu.org> References: <52D4B641-8E3D-4256-BEF7-FE957E0F73C0@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: At 10:37 AM +0100 3/1/06, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >Le 28 févr. 06 à 17:39, David Allen a écrit : > >> At 5:25 PM +0100 2/28/06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: >>> The remaining question is, is there a need to >>> coordinate the different language based roots? >> >> That I think is what _we_ - WSIS, IGF et al. - are supposed to be >> all about ... > >This is also what I've thought since this caucus has been started... >not _all_ about, though, but let's say _also mainly_ about. Yes indeed. You pull my rhetorical flourish back, to a little grounding. >It seems to me that the really breaking news in this announcement is >that it shows the general public - and any decision maker who seems >afraid of the '(Internet) world chaos' alternate roots are supposed >to cause - that alternate roots do work when good coordination is in >place and respected. That it seems is a very essence of 'governance' - a collective effort, agreed and evolving forward. What the five years of struggle at WSIS did not yet reach, what surely is our mission forward, should we be wise enough to go there - coordination and respect. >And if this applies to multilingual roots, it >also applies to any kind of alternate root and DNS system. > >So, the remaining question is not: "is there a need to coordinate the >different language based roots?", but rather: "there is a need to >coordinate the different whatever- (certainly not only language-) >based roots!", Indeed. >i.e., since I'm pleased to go on with Wolfgang's >metaphor, to do what Mr Marx has done to Mr Hegel's dialectics: >putting it back on its feet:) Nor, it appears, are dialectics ever far from the human endeavor - seems cognition uses opposed extremes to build dimensions, by which we perceive ... but that's another story. Messrs Hegel and Marx were onto something, huh. > >Best, >Meryem >PS. Milton: no 'infocommunism' in there:)) > >-- >Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org >IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire >294 rue de Charenton - 75012 Paris >Tel/Fax. +33(0)144749239 David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Wed Mar 1 08:56:52 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 08:56:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] China's New Domain Names: Lost in Translation Message-ID: <4405A824.5070906@lists.privaterra.org> >From Rebecca MacKinnon's Blog.. February 28, 2006 China's New Domain Names: Lost in Translation This morning I got a bunch of alarmist messages from friends asking about this English-language People’s Daily article titled: China adds top-level domain names. The paragraph that’s freaking people out is: Under the new system, besides "CN", three Chinese TLD names "CN", "COM" and "NET" are temporarily set. It means Internet users don't have to surf the Web via the servers under the management of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) of the United States. Not for the first time, it appears that the People’s Daily’s English translation is very misleading. Here is a Chinese language story on the subject, and here is the original announcement in Chinese on the Ministry of Information Industry website. Below are the two most important sections, which I am translating/explaining in English (please post corrections in the comments section if you read Chinese and think I got anything wrong): 二、我国互联网络域名体系在顶级域名“CN”之外暂设“中国”、“公司”和“网络” 3个中文顶级域名。 2. “In China’s internet domain name system, aside from the “CN” top-level domains, there will be three Chinese language top-level domains: 中国 (which means “China”), 公司 (which means “company”), AND 网络 (which means “net”).” In other words, China is NOT, I repeat NOT creating alternative .COM and .NET top-level domains that would be separate from those now administered by ICANN. (Though it is true that CN, 中国, 公司, AND 网络 will not be administered by ICANN, but by a Chinese entity.) 三、顶级域名CN之下，设置“类别域名”和“行政区域名”两类英文二级域名。设置“类别域名”7个，分别为：AC—适用于科研机构；COM—适用于工、商、金融等企业；EDU—适用于中国的教育机构；GOV—适用于中国的政府机构；MIL—适用于中国的国防机构；NET—适用于提供互联网络服务的机构；ORG—适用于非营利性的组织。 3. “Beneath the CN top-level domain, there will be 2 kinds of sub-domains: topical categories and administrative regions. There will be 7 “topical domains”: AC for research institutions; COM for commercial; EDU for educational institutions; and GOV for China’s government organizations, MIL for Chinese national-defense organizations; NET for organizations providing internet services; and ORG for non-commercial organizations.” Note that these are sub-domains, not top-level domains. So in other words, the websites will look like this: http://website.ac.cn, http://website.com.cn, website.edu.cn, website.gov.cn, website.mil.cn. website.net.cn and website.org.cn. 设置“行政区域名”34个，适用于我国的各省、自治区、直辖市、特别行政区的组织，分别为：BJ—北京市；SH—上海市；TJ—天津市；CQ—重庆市； HE—河北省；SX —山西省；NM—内蒙古自治区；LN—辽宁省；JL—吉林省；HL—黑龙江省；JS—江苏省； ZJ—浙江省；AH—安徽省；FJ—福建省；JX—江西省；SD—山东省；HA—河南省；HB—湖北省；HN—湖南省；GD—广东省；GX—广西壮族自治区；HI—海南省； SC—四川省；GZ —贵州省；YN—云南省；XZ—西藏自治区；SN—陕西省；GS—甘肃省；QH—青海省；NX— 宁夏回族自治区；XJ—新疆维吾尔族自治区；TW—台湾省；HK—香港特别行政区；MO— 澳门特别行政区。 This section outlines the English letters used for administrative region domains. So Beijing will be website.bj.cn, Shanghai will be website.sh.cn, Tianjin will be website.tj.cn, and so forth. A more accurate Interfax story is here. So my understanding is this: China will administer the 4 top-level domains of: CN, 中国, 公司, AND 网络 – and all their sub-domains – independently of ICANN. China has not shut out the global internet, or created parallel evil twins of our well-loved and well-used top-level domains. What China has done is create its own Chinese sub-internet adjacent to the global one run by ICANN. This is precedent-setting. Will other governments follow? An Iranian-administered set of top level domains in Farsi? A Russian-administered set of TLD’s in Russian? Why not? But to my knowledge, if you can read and write Chinese and have the ability to enter Chinese characters on your computer, you should be able to access those domains from anywhere, and the creation of this new Chinese sub-internet does not preclude Chinese internet users from typing in their usual .com and .net domains and getting at the same sites that we would from the U.S. – that is unless the Chinese government happens to be filtering those particular sites that you want to access. UPDATE: This is not entirely correct, as Steven Murdoch explains below. Will the existence of a Chinese-administered sub-internet make it easier for the Chinese government to filter the international internet more aggressively? Once the new Chinese domain system becomes well-populated and full of content, it seems likely that the answer would be “yes.” FURTHER UPDATE (11:30PM EST TUESDAY): This entry has been posted over at CircleID where James Seng from Singapore, who has been following these issues for some time, has weighed in. He writes: It is not an alternative root because there is no “root” being setup. And the ISPs continue to use the same default (IANA) root that ship with BIND. In a longer comment James elaborates, copying a comment he wrote in another thread on another site, in response to somebody named Dave: I just posted this on IPer where the news is spreading. I hope everyone calm down. --- Hi Dave, Just saw this news and find it funny because I just had dinner with Mao Wei and Prof. Qian last night (Mao is the Executive Director of CNNIC). To be exact, they have no idea of the news as they are in Perth right now. But after showing them the news and speaking to them, this is what I gathered. The focus of the news is actually the launch of .MIL.CN, a new 2LD CNNIC is launching which requires a change in their Article. As a matter of procedure, they announced the revise Article that includes the the policy for the three Chinese TLD for .NET, .COM and .CN (网络，公司，中国). The Chinese TLDs was actually added 3 years ago in 2003. It is hardly news now. It has been in operation for 3 years now as you can see from http://www.cnnic.net.cn/index/0B/index.htm In practice, they did not actually use any alternative/parellel root. Instead, when someone registered a domain name like 联想.公司, what they get is 联想.公司.cn and the append of .cn is done automatically by the client resolution. Dave, hope you can help to clarify this issue. The news is just .MIL.CN. -James Seng _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Wed Mar 1 09:31:46 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 06:31:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Approves VeriSign Settlement Agreements In-Reply-To: <4405A824.5070906@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <20060301143146.31133.qmail@web53501.mail.yahoo.com> Press Release: [excerpt] Marina del Rey, California, 28 February 2006: Today, ICANN's Board of Directors approved, by a majority vote, a set of agreements settling a long time dispute between ICANN and VeriSign, the registry operator for the .COM registry. These settlement documents include a new registry agreement relating to the operation of the .COM registry. The new .COM registry agreement will now proceed to the U.S. Department of Commerce for final approval, and the entire settlement is dependent upon this approval before it is finalized. USDOC approval is required due to the unique history of the .COM generic top-level domain and it is the only gTLD which requires such approval. If approved, this settlement will clear the way for a new and productive relationship between ICANN and VeriSign facilitating ICANN's stewardship and technical coordination of the Internet's domain name system. ICANN's Board voted 9 to 5 in favor of the settlement agreements with one director abstaining. Affirmative votes were cast by the following Board Members: Vint Cerf (Chairman), Alejandro Pisanty (Vice-Chairman), Mouhamet Diop, Demi Getschko, Hagen Hultzsch, Veni Markovski, Vanda Scartezini, Paul Twomey (President and CEO), and Hualin Qian. Directors who voted against the approval of the settlement documents were: Raimundo Beca, Susan Crawford, Joichi Ito, Njeri Rionge, and Peter Dengate Thrush. Director Michael Palage abstained. Statements by Board members on their votes will be posted on the ICANN website within the next two days. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Wed Mar 1 18:46:30 2006 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 18:46:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] In-Reply-To: <52D4B641-8E3D-4256-BEF7-FE957E0F73C0@ras.eu.org> References: <52D4B641-8E3D-4256-BEF7-FE957E0F73C0@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <44063256.3060604@cynikal.net> Meryem Marzouki wrote: >It seems to me that the really breaking news in this announcement is >that it shows the general public - and any decision maker who seems >afraid of the '(Internet) world chaos' alternate roots are supposed >to cause - that alternate roots do work when good coordination is in >place and respected. And if this applies to multilingual roots, it >also applies to any kind of alternate root and DNS system. > > Nonsense. You are mixing apples and oranges to make chocolate milk. Any root system simply shows by it's deployment that the process is not rocket science. Root which are exclusive suffer technical failure in the long term. The evidence of that problem already exists in the USG/IANA root. This is not about roots - this is about a trap due to the structure of the internets protocols. There is an underlying assumption that co-ordination will exists for basic functions like names and numbers. If you want to communicate with each other you must respect the basic boundaries of each others networks. At the root level TLDs are created - those creators are the stakeholders. Those who can win this war are the people who co-ordinate the users and existing stakeholders together to form a trully public root system. But not this group. Much of the discussions here on DNS are populated with misinformation. There is a need for many to get an education. >So, the remaining question is not: "is there a need to coordinate the >different language based roots?", but rather: "there is a need to >coordinate the different whatever- (certainly not only language-) >based roots!", i.e., since I'm pleased to go on with Wolfgang's > Having a hard time understanding what you going on about. Languages are irrelevant as are the roots. There is a need to operate root servers at the ISP level for the simple means of ensuring security to ones users. Countries may also wish to legislate security on their internets by running official national root servers. Like google the root servers collect data - unlike google you can do something about root surveilance - which see details: http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/RSPC.pdf However it is not the roots that are important. Also languages are irrelevant to roots or the internet. It is labels which must be co-ordinated (tlds). Unless all these roots - including the public root for which I am an advocate and supporter - get a clue and start co-ordinating together soon - I predict massive technical headaches for administrators and increased traffic congestion as more and more roots get deployed with conflicting data. regards joe _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Mar 2 04:12:42 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:12:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] In-Reply-To: <44063256.3060604@cynikal.net> References: <52D4B641-8E3D-4256-BEF7-FE957E0F73C0@ras.eu.org> <44063256.3060604@cynikal.net> Message-ID: Le 2 mars 06 à 00:46, Joe Baptista a écrit : > Meryem Marzouki wrote: > >> It seems to me that the really breaking news in this announcement is >> that it shows the general public - and any decision maker who seems >> afraid of the '(Internet) world chaos' alternate roots are supposed >> to cause - that alternate roots do work when good coordination is in >> place and respected. And if this applies to multilingual roots, it >> also applies to any kind of alternate root and DNS system. >> >> > Nonsense. You are mixing apples and oranges to make chocolate milk. Humm... Sounds like tasty 'nouvelle cuisine' dessert:) > Root which are exclusive suffer technical failure in > the long term. Who said here that roots should be exclusive ? If I say - like some others, including you - that this only needs good coordination (or governance), it obviously means that they shouldn't be exclusive, or isolated islands. We should better discuss what 'good coordination' means in this context, rather than loosing our time with erroneous interpretation of each other messages. Meryem _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Mar 2 05:03:33 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:03:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] VS: [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] Message-ID: Meryem: We should better discuss what 'good coordination' means in this context, rather than loosing our time with erroneous interpretation of each other messages. Wolfgang: What about "enhanced coordination"? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Mar 2 05:52:02 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 11:52:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] VS: [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <25D99149-2375-4D13-9E35-A59E848E54D0@ras.eu.org> Le 2 mars 06 à 11:03, Wolfgang Kleinwächter a écrit : > Meryem: > We should better discuss what 'good coordination' means in this > context, rather than loosing our time with erroneous interpretation > of each other messages. > > Wolfgang: > What about "enhanced coordination"? Remember, Wolfgang, "putting it back on its feet"... (be it Hegel's dialectics or Internet governance discussions). The situation is quite easy to understand: - If we want another 5 years round of (Internet governance caucus @) WSIS-like discussions, then let's talk about "enhanced coordination" - If we want to go ahead, then let's talk about "good coordination", and, once we agree on what it means and what it takes, then we'll see if it's enough or not to "enhance" an existing situation to implement it. Meryem _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Thu Mar 2 08:59:41 2006 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 08:59:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] In-Reply-To: References: <52D4B641-8E3D-4256-BEF7-FE957E0F73C0@ras.eu.org> <44063256.3060604@cynikal.net> Message-ID: <4406FA4D.5000009@cynikal.net> Meryem Marzouki wrote: >>Root which are exclusive suffer technical failure in >>the long term. >> >> > >Who said here that roots should be exclusive ? If I say - like some >others, including you - that this only needs good coordination (or >governance), it obviously means that they shouldn't be exclusive, or >isolated islands. > > The issue is not that roots should be exclusive. Exclusive roots however are a fact of life. IANA is an exclusive root - so is the china root. You are correct - roots should not be exclusive. If we are to use the internet together we must co-operate and share our network names and numbers together. >We should better discuss what 'good coordination' means in this >context, rather than loosing our time with erroneous interpretation >of each other messages. > > Thats easy. If someone creates a tld then list it in your roots. Its a technical function which requires very little co-ordination. After all, is someone co-ordinating the .com zone file - of course not - why would people then think the root requires any more special treatment then the .com zone - it does not. As an Internet Governance group you should of all realized by now that your ability to control the internet, regulate it or for that matter co-ordinate it won't work. The only moral authority you all have is as facilitators and nothing more. You should all focus on that and get off the internet governance bandwagon. Great parties - no action. regards joe _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Thu Mar 2 09:14:32 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 09:14:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] In-Reply-To: <679DC66275127C3D4BAABDB2@as-paul.conference.apricot.net> References: <679DC66275127C3D4BAABDB2@as-paul.conference.apricot.net> Message-ID: This is a complex situation. One thoughtful Western investigation begins to understand. http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2006/03/01/new-chinese-tlds Those inside China, accessing Chinese language sites, are going directly there it seems, rather than via a lookup outside. But this technical arrangement is secondary to the central news: This society has arranged for access completely in its native language - fundamental to the wo/man-in-the-street user to whom ASCII would be a bewilderment. It has been in progress for some years now, so that by this stage the user group approaches 100 million - it will grow much larger in time, since this is also the world's biggest society. The real issue, it seems to me, is architectures, going forward. As already discussed here, that means coordination, including mutual recognition (there is even an immediate question, of recognition for some new TLDs). That is alongside the flowering of capabilities to admit onto the net the 5 or so billion so far without the possibility for access in the language they understand. Along of course with all the other requirements for access. Though here, we see the dawning of language access. Native (in the West) news reports, it seems, are pivotal to raise the Western consciousness, about what has been in place for a few years. One news report, that has now made wider rounds through syndication: http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2006/03/01/china_creates_own_net_domains/ (Any problems with access for non-subscribers, text is available.) We need a forum to engage these questions - Meryem encourages us to get beyond the past stalemate. That will only succeed, I believe, if we heed the call for adequate engagement by those with technical savvy - and the rest of us will have to be on a steep learning curve. David At 9:17 PM +1000 3/2/06, Paul Wilson wrote: >FYI, the two root servers which have been deployed in Beijing (these >are anycast copies of the F and I root servers) are each showing >normal query rates of well over 1000 queries per second. > >This would certainly seem to indicate that the Internet's root >server system is not being bypassed, but is in active use by local >ISPs and Internet users. > >Paul Wilson >APNIC. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Thu Mar 2 10:13:48 2006 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:13:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] In-Reply-To: References: <679DC66275127C3D4BAABDB2@as-paul.conference.apricot.net> Message-ID: <44070BAC.8010705@cynikal.net> David Allen wrote: >The real issue, it seems to me, is architectures, going forward. As >already discussed here, that means coordination, including mutual >recognition (there is even an immediate question, of recognition for >some new TLDs). That is alongside the flowering of capabilities to > Mutual respect is what is lacking here. You people must understand that once a TLD is created - don't matter which root creates it - what does matter is that all roots carry that label (tld). Its a bit like dogs taking a piss. I've used this example for years to explain the difficulties with TLDs. When a dog takes a piss it marks out it's territory. Another dog wanting to take a piss will not do so on another dogs marked territory. When those people who are self appointed TLD authorities act more like dogs then we'll actually be getting somewhere. cheers joe baptista _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Mar 2 11:21:00 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:21:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] VS: [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] Message-ID: >>> Meryem Marzouki 3/2/2006 5:52 AM >>> [Hegel axed....thesis, antithesis, DELETE] >- If we want another 5 years round of (Internet governance >caucus @) WSIS-like discussions, then let's talk about >"enhanced coordination" >- If we want to go ahead, then let's talk about "good coordination" Amen! What is it about the EU, to consistently come up with such murky and essentially useless policy constructs? Do they expect to change the world with such fluff? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Mar 2 11:47:52 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:47:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] VS: VS: [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country CodeDomains] Message-ID: Milton: What is it about the EU, to consistently come up with such murky and essentially useless policy constructs? Do they expect to change the world with such fluff? Wolfgang: BTW, the EU proposed as subjects for the first IGF two issues, which are in the eyes of the EU "non-controversial" and have nothing to do with internet core ressources, oversight and "enhanced cooperation". The two proposed subjects are "spam" and "multiligualism". Very nice proposal. We should support "multiligualism" as a first priority. Then we have the whole stuff of root service, oversight, authorization of zone files, unilateral actions and - isn´t it paradox? - "enhanced cooperation" on the table. This is the irony of (EU-) Life :-))). _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Thu Mar 2 11:54:29 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 11:54:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] In-Reply-To: <44070BAC.8010705@cynikal.net> References: <679DC66275127C3D4BAABDB2@as-paul.conference.apricot.net> <44070BAC.8010705@cynikal.net> Message-ID: At 10:13 AM -0500 3/2/06, Joe Baptista wrote: >David Allen wrote: > >>The real issue, it seems to me, is architectures, going forward. >>As already discussed here, that means coordination, including >>mutual recognition (there is even an immediate question, of >>recognition for some new TLDs). That is alongside the flowering of >>capabilities to >> > >Mutual respect is what is lacking here. You people must understand >that once a TLD is created - don't matter which root creates it - >what does matter is that all roots carry that label (tld). Its a >bit like dogs taking a piss. I've used this example for years to >explain the difficulties with TLDs. When a dog takes a piss it >marks out it's territory. Another dog wanting to take a piss will >not do so on another dogs marked territory. When those people who >are self appointed TLD authorities act more like dogs then we'll >actually be getting somewhere. > >cheers >joe baptista So we need some dog days in our heaven. A real definition of coordination. Onward and upward, David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Thu Mar 2 12:03:09 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:03:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country CodeDomains] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 5:47 PM +0100 3/2/06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: >[... subjects which are] "non-controversial" and >have nothing to do with internet core >ressources, oversight and ... [Such as >multilingualism, so w]e should support >"multiligualism" as a first priority. Then we >have the whole stuff of root service, oversight, >authorization of zone files, unilateral actions >and - isn´t it paradox? Indeed a 'paradox' most particularly emphasized in several prior posts and filings! So, are we on to something here? David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Mar 2 12:17:41 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 18:17:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] VS: [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Le 2 mars 06 à 17:21, Milton Mueller a écrit : > What is it about the EU, to consistently come up with such murky > and essentially useless policy constructs? Atavism ? > Do they expect to change the world with such fluff? Or to understand it ? The world may be too large an issue. Let's start with this caucus: what does it want to do ? Or, should I rather ask, does it want to move on and do anything ? Meryem _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Mar 2 12:51:58 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:51:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] In-Reply-To: <52D4B641-8E3D-4256-BEF7-FE957E0F73C0@ras.eu.org> References: <52D4B641-8E3D-4256-BEF7-FE957E0F73C0@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <1141321919.7300.144.camel@localhost.localdomain> Il giorno mer, 01/03/2006 alle 10.37 +0100, Meryem Marzouki ha scritto: > It seems to me that the really breaking news in this announcement is > that it shows the general public - and any decision maker who seems > afraid of the '(Internet) world chaos' alternate roots are supposed > to cause - that alternate roots do work when good coordination is in > place and respected. And if this applies to multilingual roots, it > also applies to any kind of alternate root and DNS system. Sorry to join late, but in any case I think this is the real question, and it really depends on which kind of coordination you create among different roots. I even chose this as the subject for my chapter of the WGIG book ( http://www.wgig.org/docs/book/Vittorio_Bertola%20.pdf ) and I think that it could be an interesting topic for IGF discussion (if we have to get it on the table by way of addressing multilingualism, well, that's life). -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Thu Mar 2 13:22:19 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 13:22:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] VS: [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] Message-ID: >>> Meryem Marzouki 3/2/2006 12:17 PM >>> >The world may be too large an issue. Let's >start with this caucus: what does it want to do ? Or, should I rather >ask, does it want to move on and do anything ? Good question. I see two roles for the Caucus going forward: 1. To serve as an "official" nominator of CS representatives to IGF structures 2. To serve as a space for discussion of how CS would intervene in IGF processes. To fulfill the first purpose, it needs to formalize its processes somewhat more - e.g., to at least have a process to replace its retired coordinators and to give its coordinators some authority to act on its behalf. To fulfill the second purpose, it can keep doing what it is doing now without much change. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Mar 2 13:54:29 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 19:54:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] VS: [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2 mar 2006, at 19.22, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>>> Meryem Marzouki 3/2/2006 12:17 PM >>> >> The world may be too large an issue. Let's >> start with this caucus: what does it want to do ? Or, should I rather >> ask, does it want to move on and do anything ? > > Good question. I see two roles for the Caucus going forward: > > 1. To serve as an "official" nominator of CS representatives to IGF > structures > 2. To serve as a space for discussion of how CS would intervene in > IGF processes. does this mean you do not see it a space that could develop positions that are put forward as caucus opinions? this would arguably take some process formalization as well, but I am curious whether you think this is a worthwhile goal. > > > To fulfill the first purpose, it needs to formalize its processes > somewhat more - e.g., to at least have a process to replace its > retired coordinators and to give its coordinators some authority to > act on its behalf. > > To fulfill the second purpose, it can keep doing what it is doing > now without much change. personally i would like to see the IGC capable of your 2 goals plus the 3rd i added, but i am not sure i see a way forward and think that perhaps, the discussion space is all that can be counted on in a group this wide and diverse. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Thu Mar 2 14:01:28 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 20:01:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <763EEFAF-DC16-45EE-B8FF-B0AC1FE0DC4E@ras.eu.org> [Thought it's time to change the subject of this - promising... - thread] Le 2 mars 06 à 19:22, Milton Mueller a écrit : > I see two roles for the Caucus going forward: > > 1. To serve as an "official" nominator of CS representatives to IGF > structures > 2. To serve as a space for discussion of how CS would intervene in > IGF processes. This doesn't take into account a major change in post-wsis situation: governance was one among the many WSIS identified issues before Tunis, and CS was dealing with this issue almost only in the framework of this caucus, which was fine. Now IGF is all about internet governance and almost the only body where 'things can be done' for CS, starting with framing a - more or less agreed - understanding of 'internet governance'. This means that we'll face the following alternative: either this caucus/mailing list becomes the plenary or plenary-like space, or the whole CS @ WSIS should reconsider its structuring, starting from caucuses. I would favor the latter solution and, although this has not started yet, as the human rights caucus co-chairs, I think Rikke and I should propose to the HR caucus to discuss this issue: whether we should stay as a caucus and try to have a say in the IGF process, what should be our understanding of internet governance and the role of IGF, etc. In other words, should the HR caucus develop more detailed inputs on internet governance that what it did till now, i.e. stating in a very general way that Internet governance should respect HR standards. May I remind here that HR also include economic, social and cultural rights, and the right to development, not only civil and political rights..., and this has a lot to do with governance, in this context with internet governance. Obviously, this process could be undertaken by all caucuses. However, the governance caucus is naturally facing a particular situation: should it stay more or less as it is and play the two roles that you see and describe here (while there is no reason that it serves as an "official" nominator for the whole CS: I do understand what you mean, but this would certainly be opposed by many CS people outside of this caucus, I'm afraid), or should it consider that it has attracted a huge number of people on this mailing list, from different backgrounds, with different understandings of 'internet governance', pushing various agendas, etc., and that it may be time to try restructuring in coalitions (or caucuses if we want to keep this terminology), either following different understandings of 'internet governance', or by specific issues, or whatever criteria people and organizations usually follow to coalesce. This, I think, should be the most important discussion within CS, in this caucus and elsewhere, and unfortunately I don't see it happening. What do you people think ? Meryem _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Mar 2 14:22:44 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 20:22:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN GNSO Comment opportunites Message-ID: <935570AF-37FE-4C43-8A1D-B73B02BC87EB@psg.com> Hi, The people doing the ICANN GSNO Review (Generic Names Supporting Organisation) have put up a questionnaire at: http://www.icann-gnsoreview.org/ The review is being done by the London School of Economics Public Policy Group. It invites comments by Individuals as well as non member organizations in addition to all the constituency groups (though they do require you to request a password). They also invite email comments. I hope people take advantage of this opportunity to comment. According to those doing the review - they would like to speak to anyone who would like to speak to them. a. (and apologies to those who want to see ICANN cruft minimized on this list) _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Mar 2 14:25:59 2006 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 14:25:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] VS: [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060302142552.05983a40@veni.com> Milton and all, what happened with the idea to have it structured as a non-profit? veni At 01:22 PM 02.3.2006 '?.' -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>> Meryem Marzouki 3/2/2006 12:17 PM >>> > >The world may be too large an issue. Let's > >start with this caucus: what does it want to do ? Or, should I rather > >ask, does it want to move on and do anything ? > >Good question. I see two roles for the Caucus going forward: > >1. To serve as an "official" nominator of CS representatives to IGF structures >2. To serve as a space for discussion of how CS would intervene in >IGF processes. > >To fulfill the first purpose, it needs to formalize its processes >somewhat more - e.g., to at least have a process to replace its >retired coordinators and to give its coordinators some authority to >act on its behalf. > >To fulfill the second purpose, it can keep doing what it is doing >now without much change. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Mar 2 14:35:24 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 20:35:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caucus Message-ID: 2. To serve as a space for discussion of how CS would intervene in IGF processes. in principle yes, but we have to avoid overlapping with the MMWG. Probably it will not be easy in practice to explain the differences between the old caucus and the MMWG. When I explained it to Markus, he was a little bit confused, and so will others :-(((. Best wolfgang _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Mar 2 14:46:06 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 20:46:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caucus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44074B7E.9090707@wz-berlin.de> Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > 2. To serve as a space for discussion of how CS would intervene in > IGF processes. > > in principle yes, but we have to avoid overlapping with the MMWG. > Probably it will not be easy in practice to explain the differences > between the old caucus and the MMWG. When I explained it to Markus, > he was a little bit confused, and so will others :-(((. What you mean, "old" caucus? It is merely 3 years old... I think it would be a severe mistake to abandon the caucus since so many people know about its existence and its people by now. I agree with Milton that the caucus needs a new structure to survive. I have been planning to write up some of my thoughts but havn't got around doing this yet. jeanette > > Best > > wolfgang > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing > list governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Thu Mar 2 15:03:47 2006 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:03:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] In-Reply-To: References: <679DC66275127C3D4BAABDB2@as-paul.conference.apricot.net> <44070BAC.8010705@cynikal.net> Message-ID: <44074FA3.5010708@cynikal.net> David Allen wrote: >So we need some dog days in our heaven. A real definition of >coordination. Onward and upward, > > No - in short the world needs a place where it can register labels - quickly and efficiently with minimum bureacracy and intervention, and the means of distributing that information to root systems - any root system which wants it. Thats how doggie heaven works on the internet. regards joe _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Mar 2 15:13:38 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 21:13:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caucus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi, i thought the difference was: - MMWG - focuses on modalities, and only on modalities, in the IGF and Follow up and Implementation mechanisms. mmwg is open to all individuals and not just civil society and is meant as a multistakeholder group. - IGC - focuses on all things IG as it wishes. including modalities if it feels like it. the IGC is, to my understanding, meant to be a civil society group - even though it has an open list. the mmwg, as originally conceived, if i may be so bold, was not meant to take anything away from the caucus, just a means to have a place where people who like talking process, and more process, and possibly even more process, have a place to talk process all the time without blotting out talk on substantive topics. a. On 2 mar 2006, at 20.35, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > 2. To serve as a space for discussion of how CS would intervene in > IGF processes. > > in principle yes, but we have to avoid overlapping with the MMWG. > Probably it will not be easy in practice to explain the differences > between the old caucus and the MMWG. When I explained it to Markus, > he was a little bit confused, and so will others :-(((. > > Best > > wolfgang > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Thu Mar 2 15:35:30 2006 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:35:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] Caucus Message-ID: I agree with Jeanette, and with regard to MMWG it is more the opposite that the caucus should drive as far as it can to consensus whenever it can, when not, smaller groups are always free to fall back to one or another venue to agree on a statement. And of course there are still larger and more diffuse venues too - just wait for the IGF global circus! : ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Jeanette Hofmann 3/2/2006 2:46 PM >>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > 2. To serve as a space for discussion of how CS would intervene in > IGF processes. > > in principle yes, but we have to avoid overlapping with the MMWG. > Probably it will not be easy in practice to explain the differences > between the old caucus and the MMWG. When I explained it to Markus, > he was a little bit confused, and so will others :-(((. What you mean, "old" caucus? It is merely 3 years old... I think it would be a severe mistake to abandon the caucus since so many people know about its existence and its people by now. I agree with Milton that the caucus needs a new structure to survive. I have been planning to write up some of my thoughts but havn't got around doing this yet. jeanette > > Best > > wolfgang > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing > list governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Thu Mar 2 15:37:04 2006 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 21:37:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] In-Reply-To: <44074FA3.5010708@cynikal.net> References: <679DC66275127C3D4BAABDB2@as-paul.conference.apricot.net> <44070BAC.8010705@cynikal.net> <44074FA3.5010708@cynikal.net> Message-ID: <44075770.5060503@echnaton.serveftp.com> Joe Baptista wrote: > David Allen wrote: > > >>So we need some dog days in our heaven. A real definition of >>coordination. Onward and upward, >> >> > > > No - in short the world needs a place where it can register labels - > quickly and efficiently with minimum bureacracy and intervention, and > the means of distributing that information to root systems - any root > system which wants it. > > Thats how doggie heaven works on the internet. > > regards > joe In short, a place like http://www.afrac.org/rootrep.txt http://intlnet.org/intlroot.txt Only missing a way to maintain it decently regards Peter and Karin -- Peter and Karin Dambier The Public-Root Consortium Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Mar 2 15:51:41 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 21:51:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus In-Reply-To: <763EEFAF-DC16-45EE-B8FF-B0AC1FE0DC4E@ras.eu.org> References: <763EEFAF-DC16-45EE-B8FF-B0AC1FE0DC4E@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <44075ADD.6010006@wz-berlin.de> Hi Meryem, if I understand correctly, you see two options for the caucus to move forward: 1. the caucus can stay as it is and try to give itself a structure 2. it could differentiate itself into smaller entities The founding of the MMWG could be seen as a first step towards the second option. Other people could set up new working groups in the same manner. As far as I am concerned I would always choose a caucus or working group on Internet governance as my "home". The forum doesn't really change this preference. I guess this is true for many if not most of the active caucus members. This shouldn't be a problem for the other cs groups. After all, we are hardly able to speak on behalf of ourselves. There is certainly no danger that the caucus claims any authority beyond its members. jeanette Meryem Marzouki wrote: > [Thought it's time to change the subject of this - promising... - > thread] > > Le 2 mars 06 à 19:22, Milton Mueller a écrit : > >> I see two roles for the Caucus going forward: >> >> 1. To serve as an "official" nominator of CS representatives to IGF >> structures >> 2. To serve as a space for discussion of how CS would intervene in >> IGF processes. > > This doesn't take into account a major change in post-wsis situation: > governance was one among the many WSIS identified issues before > Tunis, and CS was dealing with this issue almost only in the > framework of this caucus, which was fine. Now IGF is all about > internet governance and almost the only body where 'things can be > done' for CS, starting with framing a - more or less agreed - > understanding of 'internet governance'. This means that we'll face > the following alternative: either this caucus/mailing list becomes > the plenary or plenary-like space, or the whole CS @ WSIS should > reconsider its structuring, starting from caucuses. > > I would favor the latter solution and, although this has not started > yet, as the human rights caucus co-chairs, I think Rikke and I should > propose to the HR caucus to discuss this issue: whether we should > stay as a caucus and try to have a say in the IGF process, what > should be our understanding of internet governance and the role of > IGF, etc. In other words, should the HR caucus develop more detailed > inputs on internet governance that what it did till now, i.e. stating > in a very general way that Internet governance should respect HR > standards. May I remind here that HR also include economic, social > and cultural rights, and the right to development, not only civil and > political rights..., and this has a lot to do with governance, in > this context with internet governance. > > Obviously, this process could be undertaken by all caucuses. However, > the governance caucus is naturally facing a particular situation: > should it stay more or less as it is and play the two roles that you > see and describe here (while there is no reason that it serves as an > "official" nominator for the whole CS: I do understand what you mean, > but this would certainly be opposed by many CS people outside of this > caucus, I'm afraid), or should it consider that it has attracted a > huge number of people on this mailing list, from different > backgrounds, with different understandings of 'internet governance', > pushing various agendas, etc., and that it may be time to try > restructuring in coalitions (or caucuses if we want to keep this > terminology), either following different understandings of 'internet > governance', or by specific issues, or whatever criteria people and > organizations usually follow to coalesce. > > This, I think, should be the most important discussion within CS, in > this caucus and elsewhere, and unfortunately I don't see it happening. > > What do you people think ? > > Meryem > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Mar 2 16:31:36 2006 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:31:36 -0600 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Some issues where IGF could make a difference Message-ID: <20060302153136.x4ijyptegrcc0wc8@webmail.ianpeter.com> Folks, the articles below give links to some real and present threats to Internet futures that haven't been given much space yet in the WSIS/IGF policy issues context. This leads me to a couple of thoughts: 1. The idea that three issues is enough for IGF is something we should oppose (Adam wrote about this elsewhere) 2. Although spam and multilingualism must be up there, these issues have technical components as well as regulatory ones. Some of those below are purely regulatory issues, and in my mind that makes them a good target where IGF might achieve something. (with thanks to Seth Johnson for spreading this excellent summary on open access issues) All the best Ian Peter Senior Partner Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel +617 3870 1181 Fax +617 3105 7404 Mob +614 1966 7772 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org (Creating Tomorrow's Internet) www.nethistory.info (Winner, PC Mag Top 100 Sites Award Spring 2005) > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/03-02-06.htm < SNIP > Three gathering storms that could cause collateral damage for open access After the 9/11 attacks, some network security experts said that skillful malefactors could bring down the internet. That was a breathtaking and unexpected threat to OA that most of us had never considered. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/10-19-01.htm#luke Insofar as digital apocalypse is really a threat, then in the years since 2001 it has become almost equally threatening to non-OA journals, which have either dropped their print editions or depend heavily on their online editions. But threats to OA from left-field have not disappeared. Here are three more, all making news in February: (1) the webcasting treaty, (2) the opposition to network neutrality, and (3) the end of free email. By saying they're from left-field, I don't mean to suggest that they're unlikely to materialize, only that the organizations pursuing them are not deliberately targeting OA and have never weighed the interests of OA in their calculations. Like retrograde copyright reforms, they are policy proposals to benefit corporate behemoths regardless of the collateral damage they wreak across the landscape. (1) The webcasting treaty A draft treaty now before WIPO would create a new level of protection, above and beyond copyright, for "webcasters" --anyone who sends images and sounds "at substantially the same time" over the internet. The proposal would let webcasters block the copying and redistribution of the webcasts even if the copyright holder had consented to OA, even if the webcast content had a valid Creative Commons license or equivalent, even if the content was in the public domain, and even if the content was legally uncopyrightable. Most digital journal articles would be spared because they're just text, or just text and images. But the treaty would apply to multimedia scholarship and could inhibit its further development, for example in conference video presentations, open courseware projects, podcasts of Stanford lectures, and LibraVox audio files of print books scanned by the Open Content Alliance. And of course once the ISPs get their foot in the door, the treaty could be amended to apply to other kinds of content down the road. Wherever the treaty applies, authors and copyright-holders could not authorize OA on their own. They would need the permission of the webcasting ISP, for which it might charge a fee. The internet would no longer be a medium in which the intent to give away content could easily and unilaterally be matched with the deed. Middlemen who want to make money could trump the decisions of authors who want to offer free access to their work. Of course these middlemen are already being paid twice over for their webcasts by uploaders and downloaders. The webcast right would last for 50 years, and the clock would start over whenever the content was re-posted online. Fair use would not apply. The treaty's main proponents are all based in the U.S.: Yahoo, Fox, the National Academy of Broadcasters, and the U.S. Government. But if WIPO adopts it, it will apply worldwide. If you're wondering why this is supposed to be a good idea, you're not alone. Text of the proposed webcasting treaty. http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/sccr12.2rev2.doc The CPTech page on the webasting treaty. http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/ The EFF page on the webcasting treaty. http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/broadcasting_treaty/ Art Brodsky, WIPO Broadcasting Treaty Debated, In The Know, Public Knowledge, February 28, 2006. http://www.publicknowledge.org/news/intheknow/itk-20060228#story2 The U.S. National Academies hosted a Public Symposium on the Proposed WIPO Webcasting Treaty, Washington D.C., February 27, 2006. http://www7.nationalacademies.org/biso/Webcasting_Treaty_Symposium.html The presentations and discussion are available in a large MP3 file. http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/nas-webcasting22feb06.mp3 James Boyle, More rights are wrong for webcasters, Financial Times, February 17, 2006. http://news.ft.com/cms/s/441306be-2eb6-11da-9aed-00000e2511c8.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2006_02_12_fosblogarchive.html#114018548953355262 James Love, A UN/WIPO Plan to Regulate Distribution of Information on the Internet, Huffington Post, November 30, 2005. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/a-unwipo-plan-to-regulat_b_11480.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_11_27_fosblogarchive.html#113355684157002030 * Here three related measures, two potential and one actual, to trump the OA decision and impose an unwanted fee. In the middle of last year, the Canadian Parliament began debating a copyright reform bill called C-60 that would force users to pay copyright royalties on OA content when used in school or for homework, but not when the same content was used from home. Worse than the webcasting treaty, it would apply to plain text files and images. http://umanitoba.ca/manitoban/2005-2006/1005/807.amendments.to.copyright.law.could.cost.universities.php http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_10_02_fosblogarchive.html#112870147446697615 Australia is now considering a similar policy that would charge a fee for browsing internet pages in school, even OA pages, and give the money to copyright-holders who don't provide OA. http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,18288580%5E15343%5E%5Enbv%5E15306-15318,00.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2006_02_26_fosblogarchive.html#114115370382657796 In the UK, a 17.5% value-added tax (VAT) applies to online journals (OA and non-OA), and not to print journals. Traditional publishers and OA proponents have both called on the government to lift this burden from ejournals, but so far without success. http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1200416,00.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_04_18_fosblogarchive.html#108263971523986402 (2) Opposition to net neutrality >From its birth, the internet embodied the principle of net neutrality: the pipes were equally open for all kinds of lawful transmission. ISPs couldn't discriminate and favor one kind over another. The internet owes its phenomenal growth to the network neutrality principle, which allowed all comers big and small (most small when they first launched) to have the same access to users as anyone else. But now cable and telecom companies want to discriminate, charge premium prices for premium service, and give second-rate service to everyone else. If we relax the principle of net neutrality, then ISPs could, if they wanted, limit the software and hardware you could connect to the net. They could charge you more if you send or receive more than a set number of emails. They could block emails containing certain keywords or emails from people or organizations they disliked, and block traffic to or from competitor web sites. They could make filtered service the default and force users to pay extra for the wide open internet. If you tried to shop at a store that hasn't paid them a kickback, they could steer you to a store that has. The telecom companies say that none of these scenarios has occurred or is likely to occur. But in a white paper for Public Knowledge, John Windhausen documents eight cases of ISPs deliberately blocking certain kinds of lawful traffic or services. The telecom companies complain that usage giants like Google and eBay are getting a "free ride" on the telecom infrastructure. But Google and eBay pay well for network access and so do all of their users. U.S. law requires "communication services" like telephone companies to operate on the principle of net neutrality but does not require "information services" to do so. Currently, broadband internet services fall into the second category, and now they want to exercise their right to discriminate. Because re-classifying the companies, or imposing the principle of net neutrality, would "regulate the internet", the broadband companies use the rhetoric of internet freedom fighters. But this is dishonest. Network neutrality is the result of regulation; the absence of regulation lets ISP's play favorites. If they win, it will be a victory for the freedom to block traffic and undercut the freedom to send and receive any lawful content. If companies like AT&T and Verizon have their way, there will be two tiers of internet service: fast and expensive and slow and cheap (or cheaper). We unwealthy users --students, scholars, universities, and small publishers-- wouldn't be forced offline, just forced into the slow lane. Because the fast lane would reserve a chunk of bandwidth for the wealthy, the peons would crowd together in what remained, reducing service below current levels. New services starting in the slow lane wouldn't have a fighting chance against entrenched players in the fast lane. Think about eBay in 1995, Google in 1999, or Skype in 2002 without the level playing field provided by network neutrality. Or think about any OA journal or repository today. If Congress changes the rules for U.S. broadband providers, users outside the U.S. will not be affected --unless they want to use content or services from U.S. providers or unless their governments decide, with or without arm-twisting, to "harmonize" with U.S. law. Ken Belson, Senate Bill to Address Fears of Blocked Access to Net, New York Times, March 2, 2006. On Senator Ron Wyden's bill to codify the principle of network neutrality. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/technology/02online.html Art Brodsky, Net Neutrality Enters Murky Legislative State, In The Know, Public Knowledge, February 28, 2006. http://www.publicknowledge.org/news/intheknow/itk-20060228#story1 Steven Levy, When the Net Goes From Free to Fee, Newsweek, February 27, 2006. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11433420/site/newsweek Peter Svensson., Future of the Internet Highway Debated, Associated Press, February 26, 2006. http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060226/D8G0F178A.html Mark Lloyd, Net Neutrality (or Back to the Future), Center for American Progress, February 21. 2006. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1432287 Tollbooths on the Internet Highway, an unsigned editorial in the New York Times, February 20, 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/20/opinion/20mon1.html Michael Arnone, Experts: Don't shoot messenger to protect Internet, Federal Computer Week, February 17, 2006. Quoting Paul Twomey, President and CEO of ICANN. http://www.fcw.com/article92363-02-17-06-Web&RSS=yes David Bollier, Save the Internet! February 13, 2006. http://onthecommons.org/node/826?PHPSESSID=ecc2670e1b9431e46f1f2107fbbf31d0 Bill Thompson, Why the net should stay neutral, BBC News, February 12, 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4700430.stm John Oates, Vint Cerf condemns two-tier internet, The Register, February 8, 2006. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/08/cerf_calls_for_neutral_net/ Lawrence Lessig's Senate testimony on net neutrality, February 7, 2006. http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/Lessig_Testimony_2.pdf Daniel Berninger, Net Neutrality Not An Optional Feature of Internet, a guest column in Om Malik's blog, February 6, 2006. http://gigaom.com/2006/02/06/net-neutrality-not-an-optional-feature-of-internet Gigi Sohn, Don't blow it, Congress, C|Net, February 6, 2006. http://news.com.com/Dont+blow+it,+Congress/2010-1023_3-6035094.html?tag=fd_carsl John Windhausen, Good Fences Make Bad Broadband, a white paper from Public Knowledge, February 6, 2006. http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/papers/pk-net-neutrality-whitep-20060206 There's been a Slashdot thread on the two-tier internet since January 19, 2006. http://slashdot.org/articles/06/01/19/1816210.shtml Michael Geist, Towards a two-tier internet, BBC News, December 22, 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4552138.stm Common Cause position (undated) http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1234951 Common Cause action alert (US citizens only) http://www.commoncause.org/siteapps/advocacy/index.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1408869&action=5458&template=x.ascx (3) The end of free email Yahoo and AOL have announced plans to charge extra for guaranteed delivery of email. If you think that delivery is good enough now, then Yahoo and AOL ominously explain that those who don't pay extra may find that their messages end up in spam filters. The new surcharge on mail wouldn't buy a glitch-free network; Yahoo and AOL can't provide that. The surcharge would pay for an escort past filters with varying and unknown criteria. If you don't pay, will you at least have the same service you have today --unimproved but also undiminished? The answer is no. AOL has already said that customers who don't pay will receive email without images or active links. If AOL users couldn't leave, this would be extortion. But they can leave and should start thinking about doing it. Yahoo and AOL are not saying that the purpose is to gouge users. They're saying that the purpose is to defeat spammers, who would presumably not want to pay the surcharge on each of their millions of messages. But of course if you trust email that your ISP has carefully escorted past the spam filters, then some spammers will find that higher costs on a smaller mailing list will pay for themselves in gullible user strikes. Nor will it stop spam sent to the people who don't pay the new fee. Moreover, most filters are not under the control of Yahoo and AOL and will continue to block whatever they block now. And you'll be gouged too. The program is insidious and would lead almost everyone to pay the fees if they could --account holders at Yahoo and AOL and the bulk mailers who send to Yahoo and AOL addresses. It would also lead other email providers to adopt similar policies or fear that they were leaving money on the table. This would harm everyone who sends or receives non-spam mass mailings. This newsletter is an example but only one of many. The program would harm every form of OA content delivered by email, from emailed eprints and listserv postings to journal current-awareness messages like tables of contents and the results of stored searches. It would hurt non-profit groups and informal communities that network by email, including academic and political groups. Cash-strapped operations relying on email for distribution would either be forced to shut down or face higher costs that threaten their stability. In 2003 I wrote about some other crude measures to stop spam that would cause similar collateral damage for OA. The new Yahoo/AOL plan is just another example in a long history of overreaching spam remedies. This one has the distinction of increasing corporate revenue and using spam reduction as the pretext. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/07-04-03.htm#prodigality Associated Press, AOL vows to institute fee-based service despite protests, SiliconValley.com, February 28, 2006. http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/editorial/13977134.htm Saul Hansell, Plan for Fees on Some E-Mail Spurs Protest, New York Times, February 28, 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/technology/28mail.html Michael Geist, The Slippery Slope of Two Tier Email, Toronto Star, February 13, 2006. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1103 Russell, Monetizing the Mailbox, ContentBlogger, February 10, 2006. http://shore.com/commentary/weblogs/2006_02_01_m_archive.html#113958236324150806 Suzanne Goldenberg, Internet giants announce plans to charge for speedier emails, The Guardian, February 6, 2006. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1703192,00.html MoveOn.org's position statement (undated) http://civic.moveon.org/mediaaction/alerts/Stop_AOL_email_scheme.html MoveOn.org's action alert http://civic.moveon.org/emailtax/ Strange Bedfellows Unite to Fight AOL's "Email Tax" (press release from EFF), February 24, 2006. (The strange bedfellows are the EFF, the Free Press, Craig Newmark of Craiglist, representatives from the Gun Owners of America, MoveOn.org, the Association of Cancer Online Resources, and dozens of other non-profits.) http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_02.php#004440 * Postscript. If you're worried about terrorists taking down the internet, here's *some* reassurance. John C. Doyle and seven co-authors, The "robust yet fragile" nature of the Internet, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, October 11, 2005. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/41/14497 Excerpt: "Here, we have shown that there exist technological, economic, and graph theoretic reasons why the most important SF [Scale-Free] claim (i.e., that the Internet has 'hubs' that form an Achilles' heel through which most traffic flows and the loss of which would fragment the Internet and constitute its attack vulnerability) cannot be (and is not) true for the current router-level Internet." < SNIP > ========== This is the SPARC Open Access Newsletter (ISSN 1546-7821), written by Peter Suber and published by SPARC. The views I express in this newsletter are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of SPARC. To unsubscribe, send any message to . Please feel free to forward any issue of the newsletter to interested colleagues. If you are reading a forwarded copy of this issue, see the instructions for subscribing at either of the first two sites below. SPARC home page for the Open Access Newsletter and Open Access Forum http://www.arl.org/sparc/soa/index.html Peter Suber's page of related information, including the newsletter editorial position http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/index.htm Newsletter, archived back issues http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm Forum, archived postings https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SOA-Forum/List.html Conferences Related to the Open Access Movement http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm Timeline of the Open Access Movement http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm Open Access Overview http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm Open Access News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html Peter Suber http://www.earlham.edu/~peters peter.suber at earlham.edu SOAN is an open-access publication under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. Users may freely copy, distribute, and display its contents, but must give credit to the author. To read the full license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ ----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Thu Mar 2 17:14:55 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:14:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] VS: [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] Message-ID: >>> Avri Doria 3/2/2006 1:54 PM >>> >does this mean you do not see it a space that could develop positions >that are put forward as caucus opinions? Right, I deliberately left that out. Development of collective opinion is perhaps a worthwhile goal, but is honored more in the breach than in realization. There are probably a few cases in which it would be successful, but in most cases it is too difficult to develop a single, consensually agreed position, the boundaries of participation in the caucus list are too loose, and it's probably absurd for us to pretend to speak for CS anyway. Orgs like Internet Gov. Project, APC, CPSR can develop positions and statements. Ad hoc coalitions can grow out of the caucus and develop joint statements. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Thu Mar 2 17:33:26 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 17:33:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] Caucus In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: At 9:13 PM +0100 3/2/06, Avri Doria wrote: >hi, > >i thought the difference was: > >- MMWG - focuses on modalities, and only on modalities, in the IGF >and Follow up and Implementation mechanisms. mmwg is open to all >individuals and not just civil society and is meant as a >multistakeholder group. > >- IGC - focuses on all things IG as it wishes. including modalities >if it feels like it. the IGC is, to my understanding, meant to be a >civil society group - even though it has an open list. > > >the mmwg, as originally conceived, if i may be so bold, was not meant >to take anything away from the caucus, just a means to have a place >where people who like talking process, and more process, and possibly >even more process, have a place to talk process all the time without >blotting out talk on substantive topics. > >a. This seems to me just about exactly right. David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Thu Mar 2 17:36:48 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:36:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus Message-ID: Good post, MyMz. Comments: >>> Meryem Marzouki 3/2/2006 2:01 PM >>> >we'll face >the following alternative: either this caucus/mailing list >becomes the plenary or plenary-like space, or the whole >CS @ WSIS should reconsider its structuring, starting from >caucuses. I think both are already happening. IGC list should continue to evolve into the CS plenary and new sub-groupings should form around it. >May I remind here that HR also include economic, social >and cultural rights, and the right to development, not only >civil and political rights I don't understand the relevance of this. You don't need to introduce ideological debates about what "rights" are in order to justify a role for HR - or any other caucus - in IGC. (I myself have no idea what a "right to development" is. I picture a group of people sitting on the ground and refusing to work, waiting for their economy to develop because they have a "right" to it.) Of course HR is a significant factor in global governance, and specifically Internet governance. >should [IGC] stay more or less as it is and play the two roles that you >see If it plays the first role it cannot stay as it is. It will have to formalize some procedures and leadership. This will provide opportunities for new people to get involved, and should not lock out anyone. >"official" nominator for the whole CS: I do understand what you mean, >but this would certainly be opposed by many CS people outside of this >caucus, I'm afraid) Not for the whole of CS, but for the whole of CS in internet governance. (cute distinction, eh?) >it may be time to try restructuring in coalitions (or caucuses if >we want to keep this terminology), either following different >understandings of 'internet governance', or by specific issues, >or whatever criteria people and organizations usually follow to >coalesce. > >This, I think, should be the most important discussion within CS, >in this caucus and elsewhere, and unfortunately I don't see it >happening. It is now! _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Mar 2 17:52:41 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 23:52:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0EE15BF0-7A9A-4159-B845-FCE82ECF0009@psg.com> On 2 mar 2006, at 23.36, Milton Mueller wrote: >>>> Meryem Marzouki 3/2/2006 2:01 PM >>> >> we'll face >> the following alternative: either this caucus/mailing list >> becomes the plenary or plenary-like space, or the whole >> CS @ WSIS should reconsider its structuring, starting from >> caucuses. > > I think both are already happening. IGC list should continue to > evolve into the CS plenary and new sub-groupings should form around > it. but aren't there all the follow up and Implementation efforts that need special places to work out whatever they want to work out. and doesn't the CS plenary remain the place where all the different interest can still coordinate. while i may steeped in IG, i see a lot of other stuff that i hope there are enough people putting effort into. i see IG as very important, but somehow don't see all relevant ICT civil society efforts as boiling down to just IG. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Thu Mar 2 09:35:39 2006 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 22:35:39 +0800 Subject: [governance] Coordination considered harmful (Was: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] In-Reply-To: <25D99149-2375-4D13-9E35-A59E848E54D0@ras.eu.org> References: <25D99149-2375-4D13-9E35-A59E848E54D0@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20060302143539.GA1670@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 11:52:02AM +0100, Meryem Marzouki wrote a message of 27 lines which said: > The situation is quite easy to understand: Yes it is. The "coordination" is either: 1) Mandatory, which means it has the authority to force decisions, such as who manages ".com" or ".fr". If so, this is just a new root, may be better than ICANN (this is not difficult) but hardly different in its principle. 2) Non-binding and in that case, it is simply multiple roots, and you lose the current property of the DNS that one name -> one resource, wherever you are. I let you decide if this loss is a big problem or not but let's not play with words. If we want multiple roots, let us be aware of what we will lose, not just of what we will gain. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Thu Mar 2 20:26:09 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 20:26:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus In-Reply-To: <0EE15BF0-7A9A-4159-B845-FCE82ECF0009@psg.com> References: <0EE15BF0-7A9A-4159-B845-FCE82ECF0009@psg.com> Message-ID: At 11:52 PM +0100 3/2/06, Avri Doria wrote: >On 2 mar 2006, at 23.36, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>>>> Meryem Marzouki 3/2/2006 2:01 PM >>> >>> we'll face >>> the following alternative: either this caucus/mailing list >>> becomes the plenary or plenary-like space, or the whole >>> CS @ WSIS should reconsider its structuring, starting from >>> caucuses. >> >> I think both are already happening. IGC list should continue to >> evolve into the CS plenary and new sub-groupings should form around >> it. > >but aren't there all the follow up and Implementation efforts that >need special places to work out whatever they want to work out. > >and doesn't the CS plenary remain the place where all the different >interest can still coordinate. > >while i may steeped in IG, i see a lot of other stuff that i hope >there are enough people putting effort into. i see IG as very >important, but somehow don't see all relevant ICT civil society >efforts as boiling down to just IG. > >a. Again, this seems right to me. David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Thu Mar 2 20:39:13 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 20:39:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum on internet governance Message-ID: <44079E41.2030602@lists.privaterra.org> The News Alert I have setup to track "WSIS", just sent me the following.... http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=17681&Cr=internet&Cr1= Annan to establish international forum on internet governance 2 March 2006 – Following up on an agreement reached on the contentious topic of internet governance at the November World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunis, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has decided to start creating a forum for a more inclusive dialogue on internet policy. According to his spokesman, Mr. Annan will establish a small Secretariat in Geneva to assist in the convening of an Internet Governance Forum, following consultations held in February by Nitin Desai, the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser for the WSIS that produced a consensus on the need for a strong development orientation. “It was also felt that the Forum should be open and inclusive, and allow for the participation of all interested stakeholders with proven expertise and experience in Internet-related matters,” said spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters in New York. The Secretariat will be headed by Markus Kummer, who has been the Executive Coordinator of the Secretariat of the Working Group on Internet Governance, which was established by the Secretary-General at the request of the first phase of the Summit, held in Geneva in 2003. In November, amid false rumours that the UN was trying to take over the Internet, WSIS decided that a non-profit United States-based body, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), will remain in charge of technical management of the Internet, though individual countries will manage their own country-code domains. In addition, it asked Mr. Annan to convene the governance forum, which would have no oversight function and would not replace existing arrangements, but would allow for dialogue among stakeholders. The purpose of this exchange, according to the WSIS outcome document, would include making the Internet more multilingual, supporting local content development and addressing "many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms.” The first meeting of the Forum is expected to take place later this year in Athens. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10366.doc.htm 02/03/2006 Secretary-General SG/SM/10366 PI/1702 Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York PREPARATIONs BEGIN FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM The Secretary-General has decided to establish a small Secretariat in Geneva to assist in the convening of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The Secretary-General was asked by the World Summit on the Information Society, held in Tunis in November, to convene such a Forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue. Nitin Desai, the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser for the Summit, held open consultations on 16 and 17 February in Geneva aimed at reaching a common understanding on how the Forum should function. Those discussions produced a consensus that the IGF should have a strong development orientation. It was also felt that the Forum should be open and inclusive, and allow for the participation of all interested stakeholders with proven expertise and experience in Internet-related matters. The Secretariat will be headed by Markus Kummer, who has been the Executive Coordinator of the Secretariat of the Working Group on Internet Governance, which was established by the Secretary-General at the request of the first phase of the Summit, in Geneva in 2003. The first meeting of the Forum is expected to take place later this year in Athens. On a separate issue, the Secretary-General has also decided to ask Mr. Desai to consult informally on how to start a process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues related to the Internet. The Summit had requested the Secretary-General to start such a process. * *** * For information media • not an official record _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rishi at gipi.org.in Fri Mar 3 02:03:17 2006 From: rishi at gipi.org.in (Rishi Chawla) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 12:33:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum on internetgovernance In-Reply-To: <44079E41.2030602@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: Thanks Robert for the update >“It was also felt that the Forum should be open and inclusive, and allow >for the participation of all interested stakeholders with proven >expertise and experience in Internet-related matters,” said spokesman >Stephane Dujarric told reporters in New York. And what will the qualifier "with proven expertise and experience in Internet Related matters mean" ??? Any guessses ??? Thanks and regards Rishi Chawla Center for Communications & Policy Research, India -----Original Message----- From: Robert Guerra [mailto:rguerra at lists.privaterra.org] Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 7:09 AM To: Governance Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum on internetgovernance The News Alert I have setup to track "WSIS", just sent me the following.... http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=17681&Cr=internet&Cr1= Annan to establish international forum on internet governance 2 March 2006 – Following up on an agreement reached on the contentious topic of internet governance at the November World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunis, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has decided to start creating a forum for a more inclusive dialogue on internet policy. According to his spokesman, Mr. Annan will establish a small Secretariat in Geneva to assist in the convening of an Internet Governance Forum, following consultations held in February by Nitin Desai, the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser for the WSIS that produced a consensus on the need for a strong development orientation. “It was also felt that the Forum should be open and inclusive, and allow for the participation of all interested stakeholders with proven expertise and experience in Internet-related matters,” said spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters in New York. The Secretariat will be headed by Markus Kummer, who has been the Executive Coordinator of the Secretariat of the Working Group on Internet Governance, which was established by the Secretary-General at the request of the first phase of the Summit, held in Geneva in 2003. In November, amid false rumours that the UN was trying to take over the Internet, WSIS decided that a non-profit United States-based body, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), will remain in charge of technical management of the Internet, though individual countries will manage their own country-code domains. In addition, it asked Mr. Annan to convene the governance forum, which would have no oversight function and would not replace existing arrangements, but would allow for dialogue among stakeholders. The purpose of this exchange, according to the WSIS outcome document, would include making the Internet more multilingual, supporting local content development and addressing "many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms.” The first meeting of the Forum is expected to take place later this year in Athens. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10366.doc.htm 02/03/2006 Secretary-General SG/SM/10366 PI/1702 Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York PREPARATIONs BEGIN FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM The Secretary-General has decided to establish a small Secretariat in Geneva to assist in the convening of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The Secretary-General was asked by the World Summit on the Information Society, held in Tunis in November, to convene such a Forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue. Nitin Desai, the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser for the Summit, held open consultations on 16 and 17 February in Geneva aimed at reaching a common understanding on how the Forum should function. Those discussions produced a consensus that the IGF should have a strong development orientation. It was also felt that the Forum should be open and inclusive, and allow for the participation of all interested stakeholders with proven expertise and experience in Internet-related matters. The Secretariat will be headed by Markus Kummer, who has been the Executive Coordinator of the Secretariat of the Working Group on Internet Governance, which was established by the Secretary-General at the request of the first phase of the Summit, in Geneva in 2003. The first meeting of the Forum is expected to take place later this year in Athens. On a separate issue, the Secretary-General has also decided to ask Mr. Desai to consult informally on how to start a process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues related to the Internet. The Summit had requested the Secretary-General to start such a process. * *** * For information media • not an official record _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Fri Mar 3 02:54:15 2006 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 15:54:15 +0800 Subject: [governance] Mandatory and non-mandatory governance (Was: China To Launch Alternate Country CodeDomains] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060303075415.GA1388@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 05:47:52PM +0100, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote a message of 18 lines which said: > "non-controversial" and have nothing to do with internet core > ressources, oversight and "enhanced cooperation". The two proposed > subjects are "spam" and "multiligualism". Very nice proposal. We > should support "multiligualism" as a first priority. I will certainly be classified as the bad guy but I do not agree that multilingualism should be regarded as a priority IN A GOVERNANCE discussion. To explain why I think so, I have to go back on what governance is. There are two different sorts of political problems on the Internet. Those where a central governance is *mandatory* or things simply stop to work. DNS root management and IP address allocation are two typical examples (setting up technical standards, at least part of them such as the layer 3 protocol, is probably another). Two resources cannot have the same name or the same address, so you ultimately need a central authority, the root. The management of this root is a political problem, so you *need* some form of governance (wether it is ICANN, ITU, a new body, etc). Then you have problems where a central, international action could be *nice* and *useful* but is not mandatory for things to work. Spam is a typical example. Search engines could be another so that people are not too dependent on a private US corporation (many people who despise ICANN for this reason blindly use Google). At last you have some issues where it is not even clear if a central action is a good idea. Multilingualism is a typical example. What could an international organization do in that field? There are a lot of things to do in the Internet to make it more accessible for the non-English speaker: translating software, creating content, etc. But is there one thing which *requires* or even would benefit from a central action? I doubt it. So, for the third category (problems where a central action is not a good idea), the IGF, or any other international structure, is not needed. For the second category, it could be said that an international, open, efficient, democratic, structure would be at least "nice to have". But, since there is currently no such structure (I regard as self-evident that ICANN and ITU are extremely far from it), and since we do not see a new one coming soon, I doubt that it would be a good thing to include these things in the agenda. So, I believe that the IGF or similar efforts should stick with "mandatory governance", the things that *must* be decided centrally. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Mar 3 04:50:13 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:50:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum on internet governance In-Reply-To: <44079E41.2030602@lists.privaterra.org> References: <44079E41.2030602@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <1141379414.7302.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> Il giorno gio, 02/03/2006 alle 20.39 -0500, Robert Guerra ha scritto: (quoting UN's press release) > On a separate issue, the Secretary-General has also decided to ask > Mr. Desai to consult informally on how to start a process aimed at > enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues related to > the Internet. The Summit had requested the Secretary-General to start > such a process. I think that this is the troublesome part. It is now quite clear that a second process is starting behind closed doors, with the sole participation of governments, and who knows who else, to discuss about ICANN reforms, GAC+ etc. This is totally contrary to what was agreed in Tunis, and I think we should speak loudly and clearly against this. Unless, of course, someone has already been asked to participate in these "informal consultations" on behalf of civil society, and we just don't know. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Mar 2 13:26:56 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 13:26:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] VS: [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060302132635.053f17e0@veni.com> Milton and all, what happened with the idea to have it structured as a non-profit? veni At 01:22 PM 02.3.2006 '?.' -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>> Meryem Marzouki 3/2/2006 12:17 PM >>> > >The world may be too large an issue. Let's > >start with this caucus: what does it want to do ? Or, should I rather > >ask, does it want to move on and do anything ? > >Good question. I see two roles for the Caucus going forward: > >1. To serve as an "official" nominator of CS representatives to IGF structures >2. To serve as a space for discussion of how CS would intervene in >IGF processes. > >To fulfill the first purpose, it needs to formalize its processes >somewhat more - e.g., to at least have a process to replace its >retired coordinators and to give its coordinators some authority to >act on its behalf. > >To fulfill the second purpose, it can keep doing what it is doing >now without much change. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Mar 3 06:35:01 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 06:35:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum on internet governance In-Reply-To: <1141379414.7302.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <44079E41.2030602@lists.privaterra.org> <1141379414.7302.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060303063119.04466040@veni.com> Dear Vittorio and friends, I think you are forgetting what paragraph 71 (or 72) says about enhanced cooperation - with "participation of relevant organizations". The CS and the IG caucus are NOT such organizations. Now, perhaps, you will understand that when I was pushing you to form such a non-profit, I must have been right. It's still not late, if we decide to form it today, and we can make it sooner, rather than later. That will give us the right to participate as IG caucus in this process. I haven't actually heard any opposition to the idea, just lack of initiative from the group to start the creation of the non-profit. veni p.s. there was a delay of one day of my mail postings yesterday - for some reasons lists.cpsr.org were unaccessible from my servers, so if you don't see it in the forum, perhaps you can post it with your answer? v. At 10:50 AM 03.3.2006 '?.' +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Il giorno gio, 02/03/2006 alle 20.39 -0500, Robert Guerra ha scritto: >(quoting UN's press release) > > On a separate issue, the Secretary-General has also decided to ask > > Mr. Desai to consult informally on how to start a process aimed at > > enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues related to > > the Internet. The Summit had requested the Secretary-General to start > > such a process. > >I think that this is the troublesome part. It is now quite clear that a >second process is starting behind closed doors, with the sole >participation of governments, and who knows who else, to discuss about >ICANN reforms, GAC+ etc. This is totally contrary to what was agreed in >Tunis, and I think we should speak loudly and clearly against this. > >Unless, of course, someone has already been asked to participate in >these "informal consultations" on behalf of civil society, and we just >don't know. >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Fri Mar 3 06:47:26 2006 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:47:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] Caucus In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060303114614.03818530@gn.apc.org> hi i understand the MMWG's objectives and difference with the caucus as avri describes.. maybe the end march call for ideas on issues, is a good chance for the governance caucus to think about how it can lead/facilitate broad CS input on this question.. personally, i think the caucus needs to go out to broader civil society, and not the other way around, in the post WSIS implementation phase.. karen At 22:33 02/03/2006, David Allen wrote: >At 9:13 PM +0100 3/2/06, Avri Doria wrote: > >hi, > > > >i thought the difference was: > > > >- MMWG - focuses on modalities, and only on modalities, in the IGF > >and Follow up and Implementation mechanisms. mmwg is open to all > >individuals and not just civil society and is meant as a > >multistakeholder group. > > > >- IGC - focuses on all things IG as it wishes. including modalities > >if it feels like it. the IGC is, to my understanding, meant to be a > >civil society group - even though it has an open list. > > > > > >the mmwg, as originally conceived, if i may be so bold, was not meant > >to take anything away from the caucus, just a means to have a place > >where people who like talking process, and more process, and possibly > >even more process, have a place to talk process all the time without > >blotting out talk on substantive topics. > > > >a. > >This seems to me just about exactly right. > >David >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Fri Mar 3 06:57:08 2006 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:57:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus In-Reply-To: References: <0EE15BF0-7A9A-4159-B845-FCE82ECF0009@psg.com> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060303114856.0382cd68@gn.apc.org> hi I think it's a very good time to address broad CS (and not just WSIS CS) in the post WSIS implementation plans. Some of you may have seen philippe's (CONGO) update on implementation ideas for the Geneva Action Plan in plenary. There seems to be some interest in clustering the 11 action lines into a smaller number of more manageable and cohesive units (i guess there will always be fuzzy lines and overlap but nonetheless) - and - that CS has taken the step of advocating for real Multi-stakeholder groupings in providing facilitation/coordination of implemenation. The current proposal from CONGO is to try to create a manageble set of events that address followup of the action plan - and the IGF related events should form a part of this overall plan. We should be right now, ensuring that we don't contribute to creating structures and calendars of events that make it impossible for meaningful participation of CS, except for those of us who have easier access and opportunity. The idea of a multiplicity of working groups which can devolve from both the governance caucus, and all other caucuses - around areas which CS self-suibscribe to, makes sense. Clearly the Governance caucus and it's members will provide some degree of leadership in followup of the IGF, but i don't think the work needs to be centralised in this space. APC has expressed interest in co-facilitating implementation of action line c2 - infrastructure - with anyone else interested - but clustered with a few other action lines that make sense. addressing the question of issue focus of the IGF is a good opportunity to create a new space to faciliate input.. it could be lead by the governance caucus, shared with the plenary, with the possibility of forming a smaller group of committed CS actors to work on gathering input from as broad a range of CS actors as possible before the end march deadline. karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Mar 3 07:01:49 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 07:01:49 -0500 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.0.20060303114856.0382cd68@gn.apc.org> References: <0EE15BF0-7A9A-4159-B845-FCE82ECF0009@psg.com> <7.0.0.16.0.20060303114856.0382cd68@gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060303065933.06088978@veni.com> At 11:57 AM 03.3.2006 '?.' +0000, karen banks wrote: >APC has expressed interest in co-facilitating implementation of >action line c2 - infrastructure - with anyone else interested - but >clustered with a few other action lines that make sense. ISOC-Bulgaria (and I guess BlueLink - one of the APC affiliates in Bulgaria - CC here, and I will forward it to Milena as a separate mail) is interested also in helping. As you know, we have a project on IG - www.isoc.bg/ig and we can alocate some resources for different activities. We are planning on having a workshop on IG in October, just before the IGF in Athens, for Southeast Europe in Sofia, Bulgaria. best, veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Mar 3 07:23:16 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 21:23:16 +0900 Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum on internet governance In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060303063119.04466040@veni.com> References: <44079E41.2030602@lists.privaterra.org> <1141379414.7302.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7.0.1.0.2.20060303063119.04466040@veni.com> Message-ID: Perhaps someone could write to Markus and ask him if CS may participate, if so how. Or if Markus doesn't know, he'll know who we should ask. Adam At 6:35 AM -0500 3/3/06, Veni Markovski wrote: >Dear Vittorio and friends, > >I think you are forgetting what paragraph 71 (or 72) says about >enhanced cooperation - with "participation of relevant >organizations". The CS and the IG caucus are NOT such organizations. >Now, perhaps, you will understand that when I was pushing you to form >such a non-profit, I must have been right. It's still not late, if we >decide to form it today, and we can make it sooner, rather than >later. That will give us the right to participate as IG caucus in >this process. > >I haven't actually heard any opposition to the idea, just lack of >initiative from the group to start the creation of the non-profit. > >veni > >p.s. there was a delay of one day of my mail postings yesterday - for >some reasons lists.cpsr.org were unaccessible from my servers, so if >you don't see it in the forum, perhaps you can post it with your answer? >v. > >At 10:50 AM 03.3.2006 '?.' +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >>Il giorno gio, 02/03/2006 alle 20.39 -0500, Robert Guerra ha scritto: >>(quoting UN's press release) >> > On a separate issue, the Secretary-General has also decided to ask >> > Mr. Desai to consult informally on how to start a process aimed at >> > enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues related to >> > the Internet. The Summit had requested the Secretary-General to start >> > such a process. >> >>I think that this is the troublesome part. It is now quite clear that a >>second process is starting behind closed doors, with the sole >>participation of governments, and who knows who else, to discuss about >>ICANN reforms, GAC+ etc. This is totally contrary to what was agreed in >>Tunis, and I think we should speak loudly and clearly against this. >> >>Unless, of course, someone has already been asked to participate in >>these "informal consultations" on behalf of civil society, and we just >>don't know. >>-- >>vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >>http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... >> >>_______________________________________________ >>governance mailing list >>governance at lists.cpsr.org >>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Fri Mar 3 07:30:15 2006 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 13:30:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Mandatory and non-mandatory governance (Was: China To Launch Alternate Country CodeDomains] In-Reply-To: <20060303075415.GA1388@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> References: <20060303075415.GA1388@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> Message-ID: <440836D7.4080708@echnaton.serveftp.com> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > I will certainly be classified as the bad guy but I do not agree that > multilingualism should be regarded as a priority IN A GOVERNANCE > discussion. To explain why I think so, I have to go back on what > governance is. > > There are two different sorts of political problems on the > Internet. Those where a central governance is *mandatory* or things > simply stop to work. DNS root management and IP address allocation are > two typical examples (setting up technical standards, at least part of > them such as the layer 3 protocol, is probably another). Two resources > cannot have the same name or the same address, so you ultimately need > a central authority, the root. The management of this root is a > political problem, so you *need* some form of governance (wether it is > ICANN, ITU, a new body, etc). > There was a time without DNS. Even then some "bad guys" started writing their own /etc/hosts files. Some people said it would never work. There MUST be a zentalised host file and it must be kept by the u.s. army because only they can mange it. Today billions of different /etc/hosts do exist. You can use them. You can live without them. Without the invention of RFC1918 we would long have run out of ip address space. Today Bill Gates manages some 90% of all ip addresses probably even at your home. Hackers have shown that they dont need a zentralised body to hijack ip addresses and to convince routers to use them. Jim Fleming has shown how everybody can manage his own {ip addresses, routers and even network achitecture} In Africa you dont have big network infrastructure to deal with. In Africa only Jim Flemings network is working. As we are running out of ip address space I have seen more and more ISPs giving out ip addresses from RFC1918 address space. Customers using these addresses cannot communicate with each other. China with about one quarter of the total internet population is facing a similar problem. There is a big NAT-Router called the Chinese Wall. The world cannot look behind that wall but people living behind that wall can very well look outside and communicate outside (as long as they are not zensored) English is the language of a minority. There are more spanish speakers and a lot more chinese speakers than there are english speakers. How about latin? I s no longer mandatory at school. I think it is a good idea China has built their own internet and their own root even if only to show us, it is possible and it is natural to do so. The u.s. did invent a local telefone system. The rest of the world followed building local domestic telefone systems. Nobody was silly enough to connect their telefone system into enemy countries. Even today you may find places that are not connected. The connections are done by the intermediare of ITU. Here we have the gouvernance that is needed. The "internet" is a local domestic data network in the u.s. managed by the u.s. You cannot take the internet away from the u.s. nor could you take away their telefone system. There used to be a data network. In germany it was called datex-p. you could use it to "dial" everywhere as long as you did know the other partys datax number. Datex worked like telefone and telex. Datex was meant to replace tcp/ip some day. Until a very short time ago every unix and linux system was shipped with ISODE a translation something that could turn tcp/ip into iso and the other way round. The world was negligent. It was so much easier to buy an extension into the american internet. Today even the americans start to recognice that their internet is running out of address space. At first they have to look after their own people. As I said - the internet as we know it belongs to the u.s. . We cannot take it away. It is domestic. We have to build our own. Then we can think of connecting to each other. China had no choice but to build their own internet together with their own root. China together with the u.s. need 200% of the total ip address space. Where is the rest of the world? You cannot put China together with the u.s. into one and the same internet. Where is iso? When is it ready? Dont count on IPv6. It simply does not work. It does not scale. You can control a home network that originally run Netbios. You can control your toaster and the fridge but you cannot connect to the internet. Bloody truth: IPv6 is point to point only. You need an existing IPv4 infrastructure to connect. As soon as everybody wants to use IPv6 the routers break. They have not enough memory for their routing table. The reason is not technically but missing gouvernance: host1 2002:-bla-:3 is in Ulanbator host2 2002:-bla-:4 is in Kiev host3 2002:-bla-:5 is in Stokholm host4 2002:-bla-:6 is in Sidney host5 2002:-bla-:7 is in Washington You are welcome to design the routing. Ok, it is a little bit more complicated as I have shown. But the result is the same. IPv6 was developped by point to point connected islands. Nobody has a clue about routing. Not even today. Gouvernance is needed. But first we need something to gouvern. Every country needs to build their own internet and their own root. Then we can think of interconnecting and governing. I think we are as bad as Stephane cheers Peter and Karin -- Peter and Karin Dambier The Public-Root Consortium Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Mar 3 07:32:30 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 07:32:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum on internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <44079E41.2030602@lists.privaterra.org> <1141379414.7302.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7.0.1.0.2.20060303063119.04466040@veni.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060303073116.02b952c8@veni.com> At 09:23 PM 03.3.2006 '?.' +0900, Adam Peake wrote: >Perhaps someone could write to Markus and ask him if CS may >participate, if so how. Or if Markus doesn't know, he'll know who >we should ask. I am CC Desiree - she's in London now, where Markus is, too (but I don't know if he's reading his e-mail) However, read carefully: 71. 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 will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same relevant organizations shall be requested to provide annual performance reports. I read it as "organizations" will involve stakeholders... best, veni >Adam > > > >At 6:35 AM -0500 3/3/06, Veni Markovski wrote: >>Dear Vittorio and friends, >> >>I think you are forgetting what paragraph 71 (or 72) says about >>enhanced cooperation - with "participation of relevant >>organizations". The CS and the IG caucus are NOT such organizations. >>Now, perhaps, you will understand that when I was pushing you to form >>such a non-profit, I must have been right. It's still not late, if we >>decide to form it today, and we can make it sooner, rather than >>later. That will give us the right to participate as IG caucus in >>this process. >> >>I haven't actually heard any opposition to the idea, just lack of >>initiative from the group to start the creation of the non-profit. >> >>veni >> >>p.s. there was a delay of one day of my mail postings yesterday - for >>some reasons lists.cpsr.org were unaccessible from my servers, so if >>you don't see it in the forum, perhaps you can post it with your answer? >>v. >> >>At 10:50 AM 03.3.2006 '?.' +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >>>Il giorno gio, 02/03/2006 alle 20.39 -0500, Robert Guerra ha scritto: >>>(quoting UN's press release) >>> > On a separate issue, the Secretary-General has also decided to ask >>> > Mr. Desai to consult informally on how to start a process aimed at >>> > enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues related to >>> > the Internet. The Summit had requested the Secretary-General to start >>> > such a process. >>> >>>I think that this is the troublesome part. It is now quite clear that a >>>second process is starting behind closed doors, with the sole >>>participation of governments, and who knows who else, to discuss about >>>ICANN reforms, GAC+ etc. This is totally contrary to what was agreed in >>>Tunis, and I think we should speak loudly and clearly against this. >>> >>>Unless, of course, someone has already been asked to participate in >>>these "informal consultations" on behalf of civil society, and we just >>>don't know. >>>-- >>>vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >>>http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>governance mailing list >>>governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> >>_______________________________________________ >>governance mailing list >>governance at lists.cpsr.org >>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Mar 3 07:50:25 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 13:50:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum on internet governance In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060303073116.02b952c8@veni.com> References: <44079E41.2030602@lists.privaterra.org> <1141379414.7302.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7.0.1.0.2.20060303063119.04466040@veni.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060303073116.02b952c8@veni.com> Message-ID: <1141390226.7302.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> Il giorno ven, 03/03/2006 alle 07.32 -0500, Veni Markovski ha scritto: > I read it as "organizations" will involve stakeholders... As if "it is ICANN's duty to involve civil society and other stakeholders in discussions about its own reform" - which is something I've now been saying countless times, including three different times in front of the ICANN Board at the Public Forum during the last ICANN meeting in Vancouver... unfortunately, I never had the pleasure of hearing the Board's opinion on how it plans to address this duty or to manage ICANN's new reform process. This makes me fear that the plan is to agree the reforms between Twomey/Cerf and the GAC members, and only tell everyone else when the deal is done. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Mar 3 08:00:29 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 14:00:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Coordination considered harmful (Was: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] In-Reply-To: <20060302143539.GA1670@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> References: <25D99149-2375-4D13-9E35-A59E848E54D0@ras.eu.org> <20060302143539.GA1670@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> Message-ID: <6B55B53B-8B57-4176-AE15-CCE1A3A19554@ras.eu.org> Le 2 mars 06 à 15:35, Stephane Bortzmeyer a écrit : > On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 11:52:02AM +0100, > Meryem Marzouki wrote > a message of 27 lines which said: > >> The situation is quite easy to understand: > > Yes it is. The "coordination" is either: > > 1) Mandatory, which means it has the authority to force decisions, > such as who manages ".com" or ".fr". If so, this is just a new root, > may be better than ICANN (this is not difficult) but hardly different > in its principle. > > 2) Non-binding and in that case, it is simply multiple roots, and you > lose the current property of the DNS that one name -> one resource, > wherever you are. I let you decide if this loss is a big problem or > not but let's not play with words. If we want multiple roots, let us > be aware of what we will lose, not just of what we will gain. My point is that "coordination" needs to be "mandatory" (not acceptable to loose the one name<->one resource principle) and "good" (allowing multiple roots, provided that strong and enforceable rules to guarantee the one name<->one resource need, and other major needs like respect for HR standards, and others). It's certainly a long way to reach (if we ever do) acceptance for this "good coordination" between, e.g., many "recognized root managing organizations" (be they ICANNs, ITUs, non-governmental/non- profit orgs, whatever). By "recognized" I mean showing full respect for the strong and enforceable rules to be defined, which should be the condition to take part in the coordination. The idea is not new, and has been suggested by many, at different times, including in this caucus. What has not been done in a comprehensive way, at least to my knowledge, is the definition and analysis of what these rules can be, and how they can be made enforceable, disregarding - at least during this first step - the type of organizations that could be "recognized root managing organizations". "Recognized" root would mean, in the end, which TLDs are technically carried by all others roots. But all the other, preceeding steps are policy issues. Alternate, non "recognized" in this sense, roots, will obviously still exist on more or less isolated islands, breaching or not the one name<->one resource principle. But this first already exists and second doesn't really matter. I don't think it's the right time and the right place to go ahead with this discussion: CS (re)organization and the role of this caucus and other CS organizations and coalitions should be, in my opinion, the first priority here and now. I simply wanted with this quick answer to avoid misunderstandings. Meryem _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Mar 3 08:11:38 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 14:11:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <65A4531E-437E-4C30-B4EB-65E1CA29041D@ras.eu.org> Le 2 mars 06 à 23:36, Milton Mueller a écrit : > (I myself have no idea what a "right to development" is. I picture > a group of people sitting on the ground and refusing to work, > waiting for their economy to develop because they have a "right" to > it.) A good idea may be to stop picturing and start reading. An entry point may be found there: http://www.unhchr.ch/development/right.html _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Mar 3 08:29:22 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 14:29:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum on internet governance In-Reply-To: <1141390226.7302.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <44079E41.2030602@lists.privaterra.org> <1141379414.7302.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7.0.1.0.2.20060303063119.04466040@veni.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060303073116.02b952c8@veni.com> <1141390226.7302.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <7B0A1B56-87ED-4B47-A96C-59804BCDB604@psg.com> hi, From my, albeit sometimes limited understanding, the IGF is not bared from considering the the issues that fall under the rubric of 'enhanced cooperation". And although there are countries and blocks of countries that would prefer this not be included in the IGF, I believe as one wise man has said, the proverbial "barn door is open." but it is still an open question as to what subjects the IGF will cover, both in the near term and in the longer view. And as far as I can tell, at every step, Civil society will be included. As I understand things at the moment, the UNSG was requested to do something, and do something he did: He appointed Nitin Desai to do something. Personally I think we can trust Nitin when it comes to multistakeholder participation. As far as I know, there are no open consultation meetings planned at this point. I do expect that in time there will be many consultations with all the stakeholders. I think it is important at this point for us, as civil society, to get our act together so that as things develop we are ready. And I think we have a ways to go yet before we have our act together. Though some of the suggestions being floated today sound interesting. I think we must keep on monitoring the situation as it unfolds, but I really don't think there is any reason to worry yet. In terms of full disclosure: I am doing a little bit, a very little bit, of consulting for the IGF secretariat, and will certainly raise the flag and will inform this group, as I have done with IGF and ICANN stuff before, if I see anything for us to get involved in or to worry about. I do _not_ speak for the IGF Secretariat in any way and am not a member of the Secretariat, but i do speak to them a bunch. thanks a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Mar 3 08:52:07 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 14:52:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus In-Reply-To: <44075ADD.6010006@wz-berlin.de> References: <763EEFAF-DC16-45EE-B8FF-B0AC1FE0DC4E@ras.eu.org> <44075ADD.6010006@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <551E4B46-85E2-4028-B5DE-420706BD3CB8@ras.eu.org> Hi Jeanette, Le 2 mars 06 à 21:51, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > Hi Meryem, if I understand correctly, > > you see two options for the caucus to move forward: > > 1. the caucus can stay as it is and try to give itself a structure > 2. it could differentiate itself into smaller entities > > [...]There is certainly no danger that the caucus claims any > authority beyond its members. It's not about any "taking over" danger (which is unlikely). Just that it seems difficult, given the diversity of this caucus, that it comes up with any caucus substantive opinion, thus the need to form more targetted coalitions/groups, and yes, MMWG is certainly one of them. It remains then, for the caucus as such, the two roles identified by Milton: organizational and discussion space for (at large) governance issues. The second role is not problematic, not exclusive of other spaces (if any), and thus most welcome. The first one, I think, should be inclusive of all other CS groups, already or not involved in WSIS, recomposed or not. Since this caucus/mailing list is certainly still seen by many - if not the majority - as a given CS group with its own history and issues, like any other WSIS caucus, my opinion is that it would be preferable and easier that at least the organizational role be played by a (not necessarily the current one) plenary or, better, a CS coordination/liaison group for governance (IGF) issues. Something like a (CS bureau + CS 'content and themes') dedicated to deal with CS relations to IGF, and coordinating all CS caucuses/coalitions that want to have a say in this process. We can have a similar coordination/liaison group to deal with other post-wsis issues (follow-up, implementation, etc.). Alternatively, we can have just one such CS coordination/liaison group, dealing with all post-wsis issues. At this step of the discussion, frankly I have no idea of which configuration would be preferable. What I know for sure is that the current "structures", particularly the CSB, should not stay as they are. In summary, my opinion is: - This caucus could remain a discussion place for (at large) governance issues - Any (already existing or to be recomposed/newly formed) caucus/ coalition could be formed to develop substantive opinions on various governance issues (and other post-wsis issues as well) - One (or more) CS coordination/liaison group should be formed to deeal with organizational matters and, if desirable and possible, facilitate global CS at post-wsis opinions/declarations developments. Meryem _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From pwilson at apnic.net Thu Mar 2 06:17:47 2006 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 21:17:47 +1000 Subject: [governance] VS: [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <679DC66275127C3D4BAABDB2@as-paul.conference.apricot.net> FYI, the two root servers which have been deployed in Beijing (these are anycast copies of the F and I root servers) are each showing normal query rates of well over 1000 queries per second. This would certainly seem to indicate that the Internet's root server system is not being bypassed, but is in active use by local ISPs and Internet users. Paul Wilson APNIC. --On Tuesday, 28 February 2006 5:25 PM +0100 Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > With regard to the China Root: > > This is not new news. New is that it is now officially announced and out > into practical operation. But what you (or the US) can do? In its para 3 > of the DNS Statement from June 2005 it signalled that it will respect the > national sovereignty over the domain name space of a country. This is > reflected in the Internet Governance part of the Tunis Agenda. Read para > 63: "Countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another > country's country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD). Their legitimate > interests, as expressed and defined by each country, in diverse ways, > regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be respected, upheld > and addressed via a flexible and improved framework and mechanisms". For > China, to have its own root with chinese TLDs is the execution of the > sovereignty over their domain name space. They certainly will not start a > root with .com zone files in ASCII code. But what now VeriSign/IANA/DOC > is doing with iDN TLD root zone files? Will they create their own version > of .com in chinese characters and than put it into the Hidden Server? > US Principle 3 was the price, the US government offered to get its > principle 1 through: Continuation of its own oversight role with regard > to ICANN and the DNS. And China accepted this in July 2006. It was not > accepted (or understood) by the EU. That is why you saw the struggle in > September and the letter from Madame Rice to Mr. Strw. Now you have two > unilateral controlled root server systems, one based on ASCII, the other > one on Chinese characters. And what will happen with Arab, Cyrillic and > Persian? > Not a big deal, if you have password to leave the Chinese Internet and to > go to the ASCII Internet. And Only a small group of people living in the > ASCII world will knock at the door of the Chinese Internet. Big news, but > no revolution. We are moving, as Mr. Hegel has said, confirmed later by > Mr. Marx, nearly 200 years ago, from simple to complex structures. The > remaining question is, is there a need to coordinate the different > language based roots? ITU is waiting for new business ...((((. > Best > > wolfgang > > > > ________________________________ > > Lähettäjä: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org puolesta: David Allen > Lähetetty: ti 28.2.2006 16:59 > Vastaanottaja: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Aihe: Re: [governance] [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code > Domains] > > > > So the facts are clear: China (and not just China ...) has had > so-called alternate multilingual roots for some time - to the point > where _currently_ there are 70 million native Chinese character > users, and growing. This is not something that is just happening. > It has been underway for quite awhile. The Western press > environment, likely influenced by ICANN and US Gov positions, has > failed to bring it to light (for us) - that does not change the > reality. > > David > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Mar 3 09:44:17 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 09:44:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum on internet governance In-Reply-To: <1141390226.7302.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <44079E41.2030602@lists.privaterra.org> <1141379414.7302.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7.0.1.0.2.20060303063119.04466040@veni.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060303073116.02b952c8@veni.com> <1141390226.7302.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060303080347.039ddb38@veni.com> You mean ICANN should involve the IG caucus? I don't quite understan you. veni At 01:50 PM 03.3.2006 '?.' +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Il giorno ven, 03/03/2006 alle 07.32 -0500, Veni Markovski ha scritto: > > I read it as "organizations" will involve stakeholders... > >As if "it is ICANN's duty to involve civil society and other >stakeholders in discussions about its own reform" - which is something >I've now been saying countless times, including three different times in >front of the ICANN Board at the Public Forum during the last ICANN >meeting in Vancouver... unfortunately, I never had the pleasure of >hearing the Board's opinion on how it plans to address this duty or to >manage ICANN's new reform process. > >This makes me fear that the plan is to agree the reforms between >Twomey/Cerf and the GAC members, and only tell everyone else when the >deal is done. >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Mar 3 09:54:16 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 15:54:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum on internet governance In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060303080347.039ddb38@veni.com> References: <44079E41.2030602@lists.privaterra.org> <1141379414.7302.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7.0.1.0.2.20060303063119.04466040@veni.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060303073116.02b952c8@veni.com> <1141390226.7302.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7.0.1.0.2.20060303080347.039ddb38@veni.com> Message-ID: <1141397656.7302.97.camel@localhost.localdomain> Il giorno ven, 03/03/2006 alle 09.44 -0500, Veni Markovski ha scritto: > You mean ICANN should involve the IG caucus? I don't quite understan you. I mean that if ICANN is to reform itself, it should establish a clear process and find a way to involve all ICANN constituencies (= stakeholder groups). Perhaps not the IG caucus, but certainly its equivalents in the ICANN map, the ALAC and the NCUC. BTW - as far as you know, does ICANN have a plan to implement the Tunis Agenda and reform itself? does the ICANN Board have an opinion on how to do it? or could you explain your opinion on this, if there is not a common one among the Board? Thanks, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Fri Mar 3 10:23:41 2006 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:23:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum on internet governance In-Reply-To: <1141397656.7302.97.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <44079E41.2030602@lists.privaterra.org> <1141379414.7302.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7.0.1.0.2.20060303063119.04466040@veni.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060303073116.02b952c8@veni.com> <1141390226.7302.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7.0.1.0.2.20060303080347.039ddb38@veni.com> <1141397656.7302.97.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <44085F7D.9000403@cynikal.net> Vittorio Bertola wrote: >I mean that if ICANN is to reform itself, it should establish a clear >process and find a way to involve all ICANN constituencies (= >stakeholder groups). Perhaps not the IG caucus, but certainly its >equivalents in the ICANN map, the ALAC and the NCUC. > > Give it a rest Vittorio. ICANN has had some six to seven years (or more) in which to reform itself and be representative of its stakeholders. It has failed. It is also highly unlikely it will ever succeed. cheers joe baptista _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Fri Mar 3 10:46:26 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 07:46:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum on internet governance In-Reply-To: <1141397656.7302.97.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20060303154626.27224.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> Vittorio, Re: a clear process for ICANN reform ICANN's At-Large Study is a good example of how ICANN has dealt with reform initiatives. It doesn't matter that the Study Group found a community consensus to establish a Supporting Organization for the At-Large -- the ICANN Board rejected that consensus. Similarly, it didn't matter that there existed a community consensus in opposition to the VeriSign settlement -- the ICANN Board rejected that consensus as well. At the ICANN Board level consensus no longer matters. This attitude renders independent evaluations (such as the GNSO Review being conducted by the London School of Economics) as irrelevant. The ICANN Board will simply do whatever it wants to do regardless of informed advice or community consensus. In this environment, "process" has no meaning. You are at the mercy of a rogue board. --- Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Il giorno ven, 03/03/2006 alle 09.44 -0500, Veni > Markovski ha scritto: > > You mean ICANN should involve the IG caucus? I > don't quite understan you. > > I mean that if ICANN is to reform itself, it should > establish a clear > process and find a way to involve all ICANN > constituencies (= > stakeholder groups). Perhaps not the IG caucus, but > certainly its > equivalents in the ICANN map, the ALAC and the NCUC. > > BTW - as far as you know, does ICANN have a plan to > implement the Tunis > Agenda and reform itself? does the ICANN Board have > an opinion on how to > do it? or could you explain your opinion on this, if > there is not a > common one among the Board? > > Thanks, > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] > bertola.eu.org]<----- > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Fri Mar 3 10:50:04 2006 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:50:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] Mandatory and non-mandatory governance (Was: China To Launch Alternate Country CodeDomains] In-Reply-To: <440836D7.4080708@echnaton.serveftp.com> References: <20060303075415.GA1388@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <440836D7.4080708@echnaton.serveftp.com> Message-ID: <440865AC.5010803@cynikal.net> Peter Dambier wrote: >Gouvernance is needed. But first we need something to gouvern. >Every country needs to build their own internet and their own >root. Then we can think of interconnecting and governing. > > Very well said Peter. And clearly that has happened. First wth the china root, and last year as we both know - we helped create the Turkish root via the Public-Root. And I heard a little birdy tell me that Saudi Arabia and Quatar (?sic) are considering their own multilingual internet with the assistance of the UnifiedRoot pirates. The general problems with building a good system - like the existing Public-Root concept - is that so many people in positions of power - those in this conference included - are so misinformed, so backward in their understanding of networks and protocol, that maybe - just maybe - one has to first build the tower of Babel before the twits realize that the only way to communicate effectively is to come together and share their data. One thing I find incredible is that so many here were surprised by the china announcement, and many more were under the impression this was "NEWS". A clear indication those in the know - know not. This however does not surprise me. Many here have been briefed by misinformed people and much of that misinformation is generated by the ICANN promoters. Does any old timer here still remember how ICANN convenced the USG (and every other fool) that they held a monopoly on the root. That was the biggest crock of shit that almost everyone fell for. To think I share a gentic fingerprint with these people is an embarrassment. regards joe baptista _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Fri Mar 3 11:25:01 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 17:25:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3 options] In-Reply-To: <763EEFAF-DC16-45EE-B8FF-B0AC1FE0DC4E@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: Hi Meryem, Thanks for restarting this discussion, although I was hoping we could stick with your prior dialectical thread long enough to find out what Marx and Hegel would have to say about IG... A few responses to the options you pose. Personally, I can't see the caucus/mailing list becoming the plenary or plenary-like space for the whole CS coalition that formed around WSIS, much less for a more ambitious configuration that would draw in other CS actors that haven't been involved to date (which would be important, going forward). While we've moved toward a broad understanding of IG that touches on many issue-areas, much of the 'global information society' type agenda and the WSIS follow-up and implementation action lines are outside the realm of IG, and it would make no sense to try to cram everything from community networking to FLOSS and beyond into the IG framework. The people and organizations involved would quickly become very frustrated. So I agree, a broader restructuring and reinvigoration is in order (but probably unlikely), the IGC would remain one component of that coalition, and of course individual organizations or caucuses not involved here would not need to work through the IGC to participate in the IGF if their issues are on the agenda, or should be. As to the IGC itself, it would seem there are three options: 1. Status Quo Plus. Try to strengthen the group and position it to actually be able to agree on common positions, as we used to do, and represent them in IGF and beyond. Prior efforts to start conversations about this went nowhere. One could imagine pursuing steps like a) determining who actually considers themselves to be in the caucus---which inter alia would make it easier to tell when there's consensus on a proposal---by having people formally opt in, similar to what you did in the Human Rights Caucus www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/ ; b) having some sort of shared charter or mission statement (Adam once suggested we get this by simply extracting guiding principles from previously agreed texts); c) setting clear decision making rules; d) electing new coordinators; e) maybe seeking financial support from a foundation; etc etc. I strongly suspect that we are no longer in a place where any of this would be viable. The diversity of views on substantive issues, particularly with respect to core resources, is simply too great; as WSIS went on, only the procedural questions like demanding CS inclusion proved easy to agree on promptly and without controversy. Perhaps the only way we could reduce that diversity would be to form a fairly small group that agrees to a rather specific charter, which others would presumably find exclusionary and odious. By extension, I think Veni's suggestion that the caucus could become a legal entity is a total non-starter. An undefined range of people who don't actually agree on much and are working as volunteers is hardly the foundation for a viable formal organization. 2. Status Quo. At present, the caucus is more like a loose network of people with common interests (as opposed to positions), an umbrella label we can use for purposes of identification when interfacing with governments etc. No defined leadership, agreed procedures, membership, etc, just CS participants in a 300-person, multistakeholder e-discussion space. When individual or organizational participants want to develop and represent a common position in IGF or elsewhere, it's done on an opt-in basis, and the result is not presented as a caucus position per se. For example, that's what I did last month re: the ITU reform meeting, a text was rushed together, two dozen people signed in a day, and I submitted it to ITU under the rubric 'members of the IGC,' rather than 'the IGC' (even though there were more signatories than we typically had expressing support back when the caucus did adopt joint positions). This avoids non-signatories feeling their views have been misrepresented etc. Similarly, individual or organizational participants make interventions in IGF etc. without purporting to represent the IGC. That's what we did at the IGF consultation, except once when those attending managed to have a meeting and agree on some points, which Adam presented as representing the consensus of caucus members who happened to be in attendance. This has basically worked ok, and governments probably don't recognize the devolution from what we were doing before. However, it doesn't provide any formally principled basis to do what Milton mentioned as a key function, namely nominating people for the IGF PC or whatever. And of course, if different groupings working under the rubric promote incompatible positions in a meeting with governments, it might cause a little confusion. 3. Status Quo Minus. We could declare the caucus to have been dissolved, now that WSIS is over. Smaller groupings, presumably of the like minded on particular issues, could be formed to address particular issues or represent particular political tendencies, and the list would continue to function as it does now. Since we can form coalitions of the willing under option 2, it's not clear what the advantage of this would be, other than avoiding any confusion on the part of governments etc. as to whether what someone is saying is 'the caucus position.' Maybe I'm missing something... All things considered, the status quo has some clear deficiencies and is a bit disappointing, but it seems viable for most purposes, no? Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Meryem Marzouki > Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 8:01 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus > > > [Thought it's time to change the subject of this - promising... - > thread] > > Le 2 mars 06 à 19:22, Milton Mueller a écrit : > > > I see two roles for the Caucus going forward: > > > > 1. To serve as an "official" nominator of CS representatives to IGF > > structures > > 2. To serve as a space for discussion of how CS would intervene in > > IGF processes. > > This doesn't take into account a major change in post-wsis situation: > governance was one among the many WSIS identified issues before > Tunis, and CS was dealing with this issue almost only in the > framework of this caucus, which was fine. Now IGF is all about > internet governance and almost the only body where 'things can be > done' for CS, starting with framing a - more or less agreed - > understanding of 'internet governance'. This means that we'll face > the following alternative: either this caucus/mailing list becomes > the plenary or plenary-like space, or the whole CS @ WSIS should > reconsider its structuring, starting from caucuses. > > I would favor the latter solution and, although this has not started > yet, as the human rights caucus co-chairs, I think Rikke and I should > propose to the HR caucus to discuss this issue: whether we should > stay as a caucus and try to have a say in the IGF process, what > should be our understanding of internet governance and the role of > IGF, etc. In other words, should the HR caucus develop more detailed > inputs on internet governance that what it did till now, i.e. stating > in a very general way that Internet governance should respect HR > standards. May I remind here that HR also include economic, social > and cultural rights, and the right to development, not only civil and > political rights..., and this has a lot to do with governance, in > this context with internet governance. > > Obviously, this process could be undertaken by all caucuses. However, > the governance caucus is naturally facing a particular situation: > should it stay more or less as it is and play the two roles that you > see and describe here (while there is no reason that it serves as an > "official" nominator for the whole CS: I do understand what you mean, > but this would certainly be opposed by many CS people outside of this > caucus, I'm afraid), or should it consider that it has attracted a > huge number of people on this mailing list, from different > backgrounds, with different understandings of 'internet governance', > pushing various agendas, etc., and that it may be time to try > restructuring in coalitions (or caucuses if we want to keep this > terminology), either following different understandings of 'internet > governance', or by specific issues, or whatever criteria people and > organizations usually follow to coalesce. > > This, I think, should be the most important discussion within CS, in > this caucus and elsewhere, and unfortunately I don't see it happening. > > What do you people think ? > > Meryem > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Fri Mar 3 11:37:44 2006 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 01:37:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3 options] In-Reply-To: References: <763EEFAF-DC16-45EE-B8FF-B0AC1FE0DC4E@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: On 3/4/06, William Drake wrote: > > Hi Meryem, > > Thanks for restarting this discussion, although I was hoping we could > stick > with your prior dialectical thread long enough to find out what Marx and > Hegel would have to say about IG... Die ICANN ist das Opium des Volkes. Have a nice weekend, Adam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Mar 3 11:45:16 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:45:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3 options] In-Reply-To: References: <763EEFAF-DC16-45EE-B8FF-B0AC1FE0DC4E@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060303114313.051355b8@veni.com> At 01:37 AM 04.3.2006 '?.'ЪЪ┬Ж +0900, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: >On 3/4/06, William Drake ><drake at hei.unige.ch> wrote: >Hi Meryem, > >Thanks for restarting this discussion, although I was hoping we could stick >with your prior dialectical thread long enough to find out what Marx and >Hegel would have to say about IG... > > > >Die ICANN ist das Opium des Volkes. Stalin: Est ICANN - est problem. Net ICANN - net problem. (There's is ICANN - there's a problem; there isn't ICANN - there isn't a problem; "there isn't" was used by him as "kill") Alternatively: ICANN is the main weapon in the fight against the counter-revolution (self-management). Enjoy the weekend! veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Fri Mar 3 11:55:12 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 17:55:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3 options] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Well, some of the Volkes...;-) Others pick other addictions... -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 5:38 PM To: William Drake Cc: Meryem Marzouki; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3 options] On 3/4/06, William Drake wrote: Hi Meryem, Thanks for restarting this discussion, although I was hoping we could stick with your prior dialectical thread long enough to find out what Marx and Hegel would have to say about IG... Die ICANN ist das Opium des Volkes. Have a nice weekend, Adam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Fri Mar 3 11:59:45 2006 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:59:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] Mandatory and non-mandatory governance (Was: China To Launch Alternate Country CodeDomains] In-Reply-To: <20060303075415.GA1388@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> References: <20060303075415.GA1388@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> Message-ID: <44087601.6050205@cynikal.net> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >There are two different sorts of political problems on the >Internet. Those where a central governance is *mandatory* or things >simply stop to work. DNS root management and IP address allocation are > > Where do you come up with this trash. You either do not understand the issues or your playing games. Technical protocols are not political. Technical protocols can not be mandated or their administration made mandatory. I can see it now - protocol police everywhere. You can't mandate this - and you can't politicize it. This whole issue is about names and numbers. And how do we manage names and numbers? Answer - we use a database. The only thing you require is a few simple rules to avoid conflicts - and those rules have been written - I give you RFC 1591. All one needs to do is translate this from domains to TLDs. Enjoy the light reading. Network Working Group J. Postel Request for Comments: 1591 ISI Category: Informational March 1994 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation Status of this Memo This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. 1. Introduction This memo provides some information on the structure of the names in the Domain Name System (DNS), specifically the top-level domain names; and on the administration of domains. The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is the overall authority for the IP Addresses, the Domain Names, and many other parameters, used in the Internet. The day-to-day responsibility for the assignment of IP Addresses, Autonomous System Numbers, and most top and second level Domain Names are handled by the Internet Registry (IR) and regional registries. 2. The Top Level Structure of the Domain Names In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a hierarchy of names. The root of system is unnamed. There are a set of what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs). These are the generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two letter country codes from ISO-3166. It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs will be created. Under each TLD may be created a hierarchy of names. Generally, under the generic TLDs the structure is very flat. That is, many organizations are registered directly under the TLD, and any further structure is up to the individual organizations. In the country TLDs, there is a wide variation in the structure, in some countries the structure is very flat, in others there is substantial structural organization. In some country domains the second levels are generic categories (such as, AC, CO, GO, and RE), in others they are based on political geography, and in still others, organization names are listed directly under the country code. The organization for the US country domain is described in RFC 1480 [1]. Postel [Page 1] RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994 Each of the generic TLDs was created for a general category of organizations. The country code domains (for example, FR, NL, KR, US) are each organized by an administrator for that country. These administrators may further delegate the management of portions of the naming tree. These administrators are performing a public service on behalf of the Internet community. Descriptions of the generic domains and the US country domain follow. Of these generic domains, five are international in nature, and two are restricted to use by entities in the United States. World Wide Generic Domains: COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is companies. This domain has grown very large and there is concern about the administrative load and system performance if the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future commercial registrations in the subdomains. EDU - This domain was originally intended for all educational institutions. Many Universities, colleges, schools, educational service organizations, and educational consortia have registered here. More recently a decision has been taken to limit further registrations to 4 year colleges and universities. Schools and 2-year colleges will be registered in the country domains (see US Domain, especially K12 and CC, below). NET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network providers, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the administrative computers, and the network node computers. The customers of the network provider would have domain names of their own (not in the NET TLD). ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non- government organizations may fit here. INT - This domain is for organizations established by international treaties, or international databases. United States Only Generic Domains: GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. State and local agencies are registered in the country Postel [Page 2] RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994 domains (see US Domain, below). MIL - This domain is used by the US military. Example country code Domain: US - As an example of a country domain, the US domain provides for the registration of all kinds of entities in the United States on the basis of political geography, that is, a hierarchy of ...US. For example, "IBM.Armonk.NY.US". In addition, branches of the US domain are provided within each state for schools (K12), community colleges (CC), technical schools (TEC), state government agencies (STATE), councils of governments (COG),libraries (LIB), museums (MUS), and several other generic types of entities (see RFC 1480 for details [1]). To find a contact for a TLD use the "whois" program to access the database on the host rs.internic.net. Append "-dom" to the name of TLD you are interested in. For example: whois -h rs.internic.net us-dom or whois -h rs.internic.net edu-dom 3. The Administration of Delegated Domains The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is responsible for the overall coordination and management of the Domain Name System (DNS), and especially the delegation of portions of the name space called top-level domains. Most of these top-level domains are two-letter country codes taken from the ISO standard 3166. A central Internet Registry (IR) has been selected and designated to handled the bulk of the day-to-day administration of the Domain Name System. Applications for new top-level domains (for example, country code domains) are handled by the IR with consultation with the IANA. The central IR is INTERNIC.NET. Second level domains in COM, EDU, ORG, NET, and GOV are registered by the Internet Registry at the InterNIC. The second level domains in the MIL are registered by the DDN registry at NIC.DDN.MIL. Second level names in INT are registered by the PVM at ISI.EDU. While all requests for new top-level domains must be sent to the Internic (at hostmaster at internic.net), the regional registries are often enlisted to assist in the administration of the DNS, especially in solving problems with a country administration. Currently, the RIPE NCC is the regional registry for Europe and the APNIC is the Postel [Page 3] RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994 regional registry for the Asia-Pacific region, while the INTERNIC administers the North America region, and all the as yet undelegated regions. The contact mailboxes for these regional registries are: INTERNIC hostmaster at internic.net APNIC hostmaster at apnic.net RIPE NCC ncc at ripe.net The policy concerns involved when a new top-level domain is established are described in the following. Also mentioned are concerns raised when it is necessary to change the delegation of an established domain from one party to another. A new top-level domain is usually created and its management delegated to a "designated manager" all at once. Most of these same concerns are relevant when a sub-domain is delegated and in general the principles described here apply recursively to all delegations of the Internet DNS name space. The major concern in selecting a designated manager for a domain is that it be able to carry out the necessary responsibilities, and have the ability to do a equitable, just, honest, and competent job. 1) The key requirement is that for each domain there be a designated manager for supervising that domain's name space. In the case of top-level domains that are country codes this means that there is a manager that supervises the domain names and operates the domain name system in that country. The manager must, of course, be on the Internet. There must be Internet Protocol (IP) connectivity to the nameservers and email connectivity to the management and staff of the manager. There must be an administrative contact and a technical contact for each domain. For top-level domains that are country codes at least the administrative contact must reside in the country involved. 2) These designated authorities are trustees for the delegated domain, and have a duty to serve the community. The designated manager is the trustee of the top-level domain for both the nation, in the case of a country code, and the global Internet community. Postel [Page 4] RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994 Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities" and "service" to the community. 3) The designated manager must be equitable to all groups in the domain that request domain names. This means that the same rules are applied to all requests, all requests must be processed in a non-discriminatory fashion, and academic and commercial (and other) users are treated on an equal basis. No bias shall be shown regarding requests that may come from customers of some other business related to the manager -- e.g., no preferential service for customers of a particular data network provider. There can be no requirement that a particular mail system (or other application), protocol, or product be used. There are no requirements on subdomains of top-level domains beyond the requirements on higher-level domains themselves. That is, the requirements in this memo are applied recursively. In particular, all subdomains shall be allowed to operate their own domain name servers, providing in them whatever information the subdomain manager sees fit (as long as it is true and correct). 4) Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that the designated manager is the appropriate party. The IANA tries to have any contending parties reach agreement among themselves, and generally takes no action to change things unless all the contending parties agree; only in cases where the designated manager has substantially mis-behaved would the IANA step in. However, it is also appropriate for interested parties to have some voice in selecting the designated manager. There are two cases where the IANA and the central IR may establish a new top-level domain and delegate only a portion of it: (1) there are contending parties that cannot agree, or (2) the applying party may not be able to represent or serve the whole country. The later case sometimes arises when a party outside a country is trying to be helpful in getting networking started in a country -- this is sometimes called a "proxy" DNS service. The Internet DNS Names Review Board (IDNB), a committee established by the IANA, will act as a review panel for cases in which the parties can not reach agreement among themselves. The IDNB's decisions will be binding. Postel [Page 5] RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994 5) The designated manager must do a satisfactory job of operating the DNS service for the domain. That is, the actual management of the assigning of domain names, delegating subdomains and operating nameservers must be done with technical competence. This includes keeping the central IR (in the case of top-level domains) or other higher-level domain manager advised of the status of the domain, responding to requests in a timely manner, and operating the database with accuracy, robustness, and resilience. There must be a primary and a secondary nameserver that have IP connectivity to the Internet and can be easily checked for operational status and database accuracy by the IR and the IANA. In cases when there are persistent problems with the proper operation of a domain, the delegation may be revoked, and possibly delegated to another designated manager. 6) For any transfer of the designated manager trusteeship from one organization to another, the higher-level domain manager (the IANA in the case of top-level domains) must receive communications from both the old organization and the new organization that assure the IANA that the transfer in mutually agreed, and that the new organization understands its responsibilities. It is also very helpful for the IANA to receive communications from other parties that may be concerned or affected by the transfer. 4. Rights to Names 1) Names and Trademarks In case of a dispute between domain name registrants as to the rights to a particular name, the registration authority shall have no role or responsibility other than to provide the contact information to both parties. The registration of a domain name does not have any Trademark status. It is up to the requestor to be sure he is not violating anyone else's Trademark. 2) Country Codes The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not a country. Postel [Page 6] RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994 The selection of the ISO 3166 list as a basis for country code top-level domain names was made with the knowledge that ISO has a procedure for determining which entities should be and should not be on that list. 5. Security Considerations Security issues are not discussed in this memo. 6. Acknowledgements Many people have made comments on draft version of these descriptions and procedures. Steve Goldstein and John Klensin have been particularly helpful. 7. Author's Address Jon Postel USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Phone: 310-822-1511 Fax: 310-823-6714 EMail: Postel at ISI.EDU 7. References [1] Cooper, A., and J. Postel, "The US Domain", RFC 1480, USC/Information Sciences Institute, June 1993. [2] Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC 1340, USC/Information Sciences Institute, July 1992. [3] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, USC/Information Sciences Institute, November 1987. [4] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and Specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, USC/Information Sciences Institute, November 1987. [6] Partridge, C., "Mail Routing and the Domain System", STD 14, RFC 974, CSNET CIC BBN, January 1986. [7] Braden, R., Editor, "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, Internet Engineering Task Force, October 1989. Postel [Page 7] _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Fri Mar 3 12:08:11 2006 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 12:08:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum on internet governance In-Reply-To: <44079E41.2030602@lists.privaterra.org> References: <44079E41.2030602@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <440877FB.7000705@cynikal.net> Robert Guerra wrote: >“It was also felt that the Forum should be open and inclusive, and allow >for the participation of all interested stakeholders with proven >expertise and experience in Internet-related matters,” said spokesman >Stephane Dujarric told reporters in New York. > > This is priceless bureacratic doublespeak. In other words the group is inclusive - BUT ONLY TO THOSE the group selects who have proven expertise and experience? Sounds like a closed club. cheers joe baptista _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Fri Mar 3 13:32:27 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 13:32:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus Message-ID: >>> Avri Doria 3/2/2006 5:52 PM >>> MM: >> I think both are already happening. IGC list should continue to >> evolve into the CS plenary and new sub-groupings should form around >> it. > >but aren't there all the follow up and Implementation efforts that >need special places to work out whatever they want to work out. > >while i may steeped in IG, i see a lot of other stuff that i hope >there are enough people putting effort into. i see IG as very >important, but somehow don't see all relevant ICT civil society >efforts as boiling down to just IG. Sorry, didn't mean to imply that. I meant to say IG Plenary for CS, not CS plenary per se. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Fri Mar 3 13:38:10 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 13:38:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus Message-ID: >>> Meryem Marzouki 3/3/2006 8:11 AM >>> >A good idea may be to stop picturing and start reading. An entry >point may be found there: http://www.unhchr.ch/development/right.html I've read it. It still misses the point: development is a _product_ of successful policies, not a "right" which can be claimed or asserted against other social actors. If a society chooses the wrong policies - policies which waste economic resources, misallocate resources, thwart human capabilities, destroy potentialities, etc. - they won't develop. No assertion of a "right" will change that. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Fri Mar 3 20:14:43 2006 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 20:14:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] VS: [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains] In-Reply-To: <679DC66275127C3D4BAABDB2@as-paul.conference.apricot.net> References: <679DC66275127C3D4BAABDB2@as-paul.conference.apricot.net> Message-ID: <4408EA03.10907@cynikal.net> Paul Wilson wrote: >FYI, the two root servers which have been deployed in Beijing (these are >anycast copies of the F and I root servers) are each showing normal query >rates of well over 1000 queries per second. > > I see that Vixies vixens are busy putting out the China root fire with lots of technical mumbo jumbo. Incidentally - would be wise if you also elaborated on the fact that 98% of those quries are considered bogus by you all down there in vixie land. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/05/dud_queries_swamp_us_internet/ >This would certainly seem to indicate that the Internet's root server >system is not being bypassed, but is in active use by local ISPs and >Internet users. > > No it does not. I have attached the message I sent your collegue on the ietf mailing list. Save me having t repeat myself. You boys in the IANA root server business have to start a new chapter this year - maybe honesty with the public you serve might be a good idea. Enjoy --- Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > To best of my knowledge, that there are no new Chinese root-servers - > despite what the press says. And at least we have not seen a drop in > queries to our anycast instance in Beijing yet so there even seems to > be data to support that... There are. Check Peter Dambiers messages for details. As for you claims of data to support this - show us. First - you won't notice any drop in queries because the china roots refers all queries concerning NON-CHINESE TLDs back to IANA. Second - you will notice an increase in what you guys at the roots call I think illegal or erroneous TLDs - which see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/05/dud_queries_swamp_us_internet/ Incidentally - since my article was written I have not seen any further studies concerning root traffic from CAIDA or anyone else. In fact root operators don't really share much with the world - do they? cheers joe baptista >Paul Wilson >APNIC. > > > >--On Tuesday, 28 February 2006 5:25 PM +0100 Wolfgang Kleinwächter > wrote: > > > >>With regard to the China Root: >> >>This is not new news. New is that it is now officially announced and out >>into practical operation. But what you (or the US) can do? In its para 3 >>of the DNS Statement from June 2005 it signalled that it will respect the >>national sovereignty over the domain name space of a country. This is >>reflected in the Internet Governance part of the Tunis Agenda. Read para >>63: "Countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another >>country's country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD). Their legitimate >>interests, as expressed and defined by each country, in diverse ways, >>regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be respected, upheld >>and addressed via a flexible and improved framework and mechanisms". For >>China, to have its own root with chinese TLDs is the execution of the >>sovereignty over their domain name space. They certainly will not start a >>root with .com zone files in ASCII code. But what now VeriSign/IANA/DOC >>is doing with iDN TLD root zone files? Will they create their own version >>of .com in chinese characters and than put it into the Hidden Server? >>US Principle 3 was the price, the US government offered to get its >>principle 1 through: Continuation of its own oversight role with regard >>to ICANN and the DNS. And China accepted this in July 2006. It was not >>accepted (or understood) by the EU. That is why you saw the struggle in >>September and the letter from Madame Rice to Mr. Strw. Now you have two >>unilateral controlled root server systems, one based on ASCII, the other >>one on Chinese characters. And what will happen with Arab, Cyrillic and >>Persian? >>Not a big deal, if you have password to leave the Chinese Internet and to >>go to the ASCII Internet. And Only a small group of people living in the >>ASCII world will knock at the door of the Chinese Internet. Big news, but >>no revolution. We are moving, as Mr. Hegel has said, confirmed later by >>Mr. Marx, nearly 200 years ago, from simple to complex structures. The >>remaining question is, is there a need to coordinate the different >>language based roots? ITU is waiting for new business ...((((. >>Best >> >>wolfgang >> >> >> >>________________________________ >> >>Lähettäjä: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org puolesta: David Allen >>Lähetetty: ti 28.2.2006 16:59 >>Vastaanottaja: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>Aihe: Re: [governance] [Fwd: China To Launch Alternate Country Code >>Domains] >> >> >> >>So the facts are clear: China (and not just China ...) has had >>so-called alternate multilingual roots for some time - to the point >>where _currently_ there are 70 million native Chinese character >>users, and growing. This is not something that is just happening. >>It has been underway for quite awhile. The Western press >>environment, likely influenced by ICANN and US Gov positions, has >>failed to bring it to light (for us) - that does not change the >>reality. >> >>David >>_______________________________________________ >>governance mailing list >>governance at lists.cpsr.org >>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>governance mailing list >>governance at lists.cpsr.org >>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> >> > > > >________________________________________________________________________ >Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC >http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Mar 4 03:12:07 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 09:12:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] VS: Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3options] Message-ID: On 3/4/06, William Drake wrote: Hi Meryem, Thanks for restarting this discussion, although I was hoping we could stick with your prior dialectical thread long enough to find out what Marx and Hegel would have to say about IG... Die ICANN ist das Opium des Volkes. Have a nice weekend, Adam Thanks Adam for using German. Here is another Marx-Bonmot: "ICANN goes with its "Gegenteil schwanger"" :-))) wolfgang _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Mar 4 03:18:34 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 09:18:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] VS: Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3options] Message-ID: Thanks Bill for bringing some systematic ideas to the discussion table. I would prefere the status quo. It is leightweight, flexible and gives enoug opportunities to speak with a united voice - where needed - by keeping individual position visible. Status quo plus brings a lot of extra burocratical work and I do not see any caucus member who is willing to shoulder this. Status quo minus means to give away what we have achieved so far and this is a lot if you compare the situation 2006 with the situation we had in 2002 when the caucus was formed. The caucus voice is heard and other stakeholders have recognized that this is the platform where a bunch of peolle, who are identified as the spokespersons for positions which reflect civil society´s interests. Wolfgang ________________________________ Lähettäjä: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org puolesta: William Drake Lähetetty: pe 3.3.2006 17:25 Vastaanottaja: Meryem Marzouki; governance at lists.cpsr.org Aihe: Re: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3options] Hi Meryem, Thanks for restarting this discussion, although I was hoping we could stick with your prior dialectical thread long enough to find out what Marx and Hegel would have to say about IG... A few responses to the options you pose. Personally, I can't see the caucus/mailing list becoming the plenary or plenary-like space for the whole CS coalition that formed around WSIS, much less for a more ambitious configuration that would draw in other CS actors that haven't been involved to date (which would be important, going forward). While we've moved toward a broad understanding of IG that touches on many issue-areas, much of the 'global information society' type agenda and the WSIS follow-up and implementation action lines are outside the realm of IG, and it would make no sense to try to cram everything from community networking to FLOSS and beyond into the IG framework. The people and organizations involved would quickly become very frustrated. So I agree, a broader restructuring and reinvigoration is in order (but probably unlikely), the IGC would remain one component of that coalition, and of course individual organizations or caucuses not involved here would not need to work through the IGC to participate in the IGF if their issues are on the agenda, or should be. As to the IGC itself, it would seem there are three options: 1. Status Quo Plus. Try to strengthen the group and position it to actually be able to agree on common positions, as we used to do, and represent them in IGF and beyond. Prior efforts to start conversations about this went nowhere. One could imagine pursuing steps like a) determining who actually considers themselves to be in the caucus---which inter alia would make it easier to tell when there's consensus on a proposal---by having people formally opt in, similar to what you did in the Human Rights Caucus www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/ ; b) having some sort of shared charter or mission statement (Adam once suggested we get this by simply extracting guiding principles from previously agreed texts); c) setting clear decision making rules; d) electing new coordinators; e) maybe seeking financial support from a foundation; etc etc. I strongly suspect that we are no longer in a place where any of this would be viable. The diversity of views on substantive issues, particularly with respect to core resources, is simply too great; as WSIS went on, only the procedural questions like demanding CS inclusion proved easy to agree on promptly and without controversy. Perhaps the only way we could reduce that diversity would be to form a fairly small group that agrees to a rather specific charter, which others would presumably find exclusionary and odious. By extension, I think Veni's suggestion that the caucus could become a legal entity is a total non-starter. An undefined range of people who don't actually agree on much and are working as volunteers is hardly the foundation for a viable formal organization. 2. Status Quo. At present, the caucus is more like a loose network of people with common interests (as opposed to positions), an umbrella label we can use for purposes of identification when interfacing with governments etc. No defined leadership, agreed procedures, membership, etc, just CS participants in a 300-person, multistakeholder e-discussion space. When individual or organizational participants want to develop and represent a common position in IGF or elsewhere, it's done on an opt-in basis, and the result is not presented as a caucus position per se. For example, that's what I did last month re: the ITU reform meeting, a text was rushed together, two dozen people signed in a day, and I submitted it to ITU under the rubric 'members of the IGC,' rather than 'the IGC' (even though there were more signatories than we typically had expressing support back when the caucus did adopt joint positions). This avoids non-signatories feeling their views have been misrepresented etc. Similarly, individual or organizational participants make interventions in IGF etc. without purporting to represent the IGC. That's what we did at the IGF consultation, except once when those attending managed to have a meeting and agree on some points, which Adam presented as representing the consensus of caucus members who happened to be in attendance. This has basically worked ok, and governments probably don't recognize the devolution from what we were doing before. However, it doesn't provide any formally principled basis to do what Milton mentioned as a key function, namely nominating people for the IGF PC or whatever. And of course, if different groupings working under the rubric promote incompatible positions in a meeting with governments, it might cause a little confusion. 3. Status Quo Minus. We could declare the caucus to have been dissolved, now that WSIS is over. Smaller groupings, presumably of the like minded on particular issues, could be formed to address particular issues or represent particular political tendencies, and the list would continue to function as it does now. Since we can form coalitions of the willing under option 2, it's not clear what the advantage of this would be, other than avoiding any confusion on the part of governments etc. as to whether what someone is saying is 'the caucus position.' Maybe I'm missing something... All things considered, the status quo has some clear deficiencies and is a bit disappointing, but it seems viable for most purposes, no? Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Meryem Marzouki > Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 8:01 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus > > > [Thought it's time to change the subject of this - promising... - > thread] > > Le 2 mars 06 à 19:22, Milton Mueller a écrit : > > > I see two roles for the Caucus going forward: > > > > 1. To serve as an "official" nominator of CS representatives to IGF > > structures > > 2. To serve as a space for discussion of how CS would intervene in > > IGF processes. > > This doesn't take into account a major change in post-wsis situation: > governance was one among the many WSIS identified issues before > Tunis, and CS was dealing with this issue almost only in the > framework of this caucus, which was fine. Now IGF is all about > internet governance and almost the only body where 'things can be > done' for CS, starting with framing a - more or less agreed - > understanding of 'internet governance'. This means that we'll face > the following alternative: either this caucus/mailing list becomes > the plenary or plenary-like space, or the whole CS @ WSIS should > reconsider its structuring, starting from caucuses. > > I would favor the latter solution and, although this has not started > yet, as the human rights caucus co-chairs, I think Rikke and I should > propose to the HR caucus to discuss this issue: whether we should > stay as a caucus and try to have a say in the IGF process, what > should be our understanding of internet governance and the role of > IGF, etc. In other words, should the HR caucus develop more detailed > inputs on internet governance that what it did till now, i.e. stating > in a very general way that Internet governance should respect HR > standards. May I remind here that HR also include economic, social > and cultural rights, and the right to development, not only civil and > political rights..., and this has a lot to do with governance, in > this context with internet governance. > > Obviously, this process could be undertaken by all caucuses. However, > the governance caucus is naturally facing a particular situation: > should it stay more or less as it is and play the two roles that you > see and describe here (while there is no reason that it serves as an > "official" nominator for the whole CS: I do understand what you mean, > but this would certainly be opposed by many CS people outside of this > caucus, I'm afraid), or should it consider that it has attracted a > huge number of people on this mailing list, from different > backgrounds, with different understandings of 'internet governance', > pushing various agendas, etc., and that it may be time to try > restructuring in coalitions (or caucuses if we want to keep this > terminology), either following different understandings of 'internet > governance', or by specific issues, or whatever criteria people and > organizations usually follow to coalesce. > > This, I think, should be the most important discussion within CS, in > this caucus and elsewhere, and unfortunately I don't see it happening. > > What do you people think ? > > Meryem > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Sat Mar 4 09:18:58 2006 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 11:18:58 -0300 Subject: [governance] VS: Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3options] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4409A1D2.2090909@rits.org.br> Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > > Die ICANN ist das Opium des Volkes. > Which could be mistranslated by modern (English-speaking of course) luddists as "Die ICANN die!" ;) --c.a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sat Mar 4 10:54:24 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 10:54:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] Mandatory and non-mandatory governance (Was: China To Launch Alternate Country CodeDomains] In-Reply-To: <20060303075415.GA1388@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> References: <20060303075415.GA1388@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> Message-ID: Putting the question in terms of 'central, international action' - or coordination - is surely helpful. In that regard: At 3:54 PM +0800 3/3/06, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >At last you have some issues where it is not even clear if a central >action is a good idea. Multilingualism is a typical example. What >could an international organization do in that field? There are a >lot of things to do in the Internet to make it more accessible for >the non-English speaker: translating software, creating content, >etc. But is there one thing which *requires* or even would benefit >from a central action? I doubt it Though the current case - China's native-language TLDs - is a little complicated, several posts on this thread have tried to unveil key facts. When you get into that, it becomes clear there must indeed be some level of international coordination, for successful native-language access. Hence multilingualism (defined as here) is one of those cases - one theme - that leads directly to today's post-WSIS, core governance questions. David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat Mar 4 21:02:58 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 21:02:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum on internet governance Message-ID: Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> Veni Markovski 03/03/06 7:32 AM >>> >71. 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 > >I read it as "organizations" will involve stakeholders... Veni: I don't think that would be correct. It is the _process_ that is supposed to involve all stakeholders. Clearly, it is not - at least as far as we know. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat Mar 4 21:02:58 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 21:02:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum on internet governance Message-ID: Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> Veni Markovski 03/03/06 7:32 AM >>> >71. 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 > >I read it as "organizations" will involve stakeholders... Veni: I don't think that would be correct. It is the _process_ that is supposed to involve all stakeholders. Clearly, it is not - at least as far as we know. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat Mar 4 21:08:02 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 21:08:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum oninternet governance Message-ID: These are very good questions, Vittorio; I commend you for raising them persistently. As we both suspect, the Board, ICANN's CEO Twomay, and GAC will have a tendency to work this out on their own without specifying a formal process that could be open to CS and others. Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> Vittorio Bertola 03/03/06 9:54 AM >>> Il giorno ven, 03/03/2006 alle 09.44 -0500, Veni Markovski ha scritto: > You mean ICANN should involve the IG caucus? I don't quite understan you. I mean that if ICANN is to reform itself, it should establish a clear process and find a way to involve all ICANN constituencies (= stakeholder groups). Perhaps not the IG caucus, but certainly its equivalents in the ICANN map, the ALAC and the NCUC. BTW - as far as you know, does ICANN have a plan to implement the Tunis Agenda and reform itself? does the ICANN Board have an opinion on how to do it? or could you explain your opinion on this, if there is not a common one among the Board? Thanks, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat Mar 4 21:25:10 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 21:25:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Mandatory and non-mandatory governance (Was: China To Launch Alternate Country CodeDomains] Message-ID: I found Bortzmeyer's creation of a distinction between things that do and do not need global governance to be important and useful. As I argued at the Geneva consultation, "multilingualism" is too broad a category to be useful for the IGForum; some of the issues in multilingualism are purely matters of local or regional development (such as developing new content in underserved scripts and langauges); others (such as IDNs) do involve global compatibility and coordination issues. It was somewhat disturbing that the recent news release from the UN about the creation of the Forum by Annan not only prematurely signaled that "multilingualism" would be a theme of the first forum, but seemed to emphasize exactly the wrong aspect of that issue. If the UN decides that real global governance where it is needed is too controversial for it, and instead concentrates on attempting to be a (probably pretty lousy) internet service provider, web host and content developer this will all become a rather irreleevant exercise, rapidly. Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> David Allen 03/04/06 10:54 AM >>> Putting the question in terms of 'central, international action' - or coordination - is surely helpful. In that regard: At 3:54 PM +0800 3/3/06, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >At last you have some issues where it is not even clear if a central >action is a good idea. Multilingualism is a typical example. What >could an international organization do in that field? There are a >lot of things to do in the Internet to make it more accessible for >the non-English speaker: translating software, creating content, >etc. But is there one thing which *requires* or even would benefit >from a central action? I doubt it Though the current case - China's native-language TLDs - is a little complicated, several posts on this thread have tried to unveil key facts. When you get into that, it becomes clear there must indeed be some level of international coordination, for successful native-language access. Hence multilingualism (defined as here) is one of those cases - one theme - that leads directly to today's post-WSIS, core governance questions. David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat Mar 4 21:39:27 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 21:39:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3 options] Message-ID: Bill: A very good shaping of the options. I am surprised at how little follow up there has been to your framing of the three options so I will jump in. Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> "William Drake" 03/03/06 11:25 AM >>> >it would make no sense to try to cram everything from community >networking to FLOSS and beyond into the IG framework. The people and organizations involved would quickly become >very frustrated. I agree with this, and again wish to make it clear that by suggesting that the IGC become "the plenary" I meant the plenary for IG issues and problems in CS, not for all of WSIS. >1. Status Quo Plus. Try to strengthen the group and position it to >actually be able to agree on common positions, as we used to do, and >represent them in IGF and beyond. Prior efforts to start conversations Your description of this option made it seem as if Status quo plus is impossible, or too burdensome to be worth trying. I wonder whether a "Status Quo Plus Minus" is possible: in which we give the caucus a capacity to elect/select chairs, and delegate decision making responsibility to them, but do not develop a common set of positions on policy issues but simply attempt to be a vehicle for the representations of CS in IGF-related activities. E.g., we elect chairs who develop democratic procedures to nominate people to serve on IGF-related program committees, councils, etc. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From nhklein at gmx.net Sat Mar 4 22:53:04 2006 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 10:53:04 +0700 Subject: [governance] Mandatory and non-mandatory governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <440A60A0.6060808@gmx.net> Having been involved - well, it still continues - in the creation of the basic range of software in the Cambodian language (user interface), including the facility to also use the Khmer script which poses a number of complicated challenges for the devices, and for the rendering on screen and on print, I am happy to see this "distinction between things that do and do not need global governance to be important and useful." There are some things which are difficult to define in terms of "global governance" of the Internet, but which still have some "global implications" - and in spite of all the Geneva WSIS lip service prominently in the first paragraph about a "commitment to build a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge" - there is not much international assistance available when you try to do it in a language like Khmer which has a great cultural history of one thousand years (but is now at home in a small, economically impoverished country). It took us years to get UNICODE for Khmer established, and the opinion of Cambodian linguists were NOT the basis to decide some aspects of the final UNICODE standard. After the UNICODE standard was finalized, the localization of software could start, a very labor-intensive and expensive process which requires high level technical expertize, and a group of people translating the 50,000 or so lines before an office suite works in Khmer, and before a manual in Khmer is created and printed for it (for a small market - that is why the big commercials are not investing in it). We use Open Source applications, some time later this year also to run on a localized Khmer Linux distribution. It is extremely difficult to fund all these things - though they are a prerequisite for any "people-centered information society" in many countries which do not have the English, or Russian, or Dutch language - or any other language in a strong economy - as their environment. Leaving all these problems to be solved locally means - for many language/script communities - that they are beyond their own economic reach. All this is normally not considered part of Internet Governance - but it is one aspect of the Digital Divide where we still "fall through the net" - and therefore should also get a hearing somewhere in the context of Internet Governance assisting the creation of the Information Society WSIS claims to be committed to. Norbert Klein Open Forum of Cambodia Phnom Penh/Cambodia www.khmeros.info = Milton Mueller wrote: > I found Bortzmeyer's creation of a distinction between things that do and do not need global governance to be important and useful. > > As I argued at the Geneva consultation, "multilingualism" is too broad a category to be useful for the IGForum; some of the issues in multilingualism are purely matters of local or regional development (such as developing new content in underserved scripts and langauges); others (such as IDNs) do involve global compatibility and coordination issues. It was somewhat disturbing that the recent news release from the UN about the creation of the Forum by Annan not only prematurely signaled that "multilingualism" would be a theme of the first forum, but seemed to emphasize exactly the wrong aspect of that issue. > > If the UN decides that real global governance where it is needed is too controversial for it, and instead concentrates on attempting to be a (probably pretty lousy) internet service provider, web host and content developer this will all become a rather irreleevant exercise, rapidly. > > Dr. Milton Mueller > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://www.digital-convergence.org > http://www.internetgovernance.org > > >>>> David Allen 03/04/06 10:54 AM >>> >>>> > Putting the question in terms of 'central, international action' - or > coordination - is surely helpful. In that regard: > > At 3:54 PM +0800 3/3/06, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > >> At last you have some issues where it is not even clear if a central >> action is a good idea. Multilingualism is a typical example. What >> could an international organization do in that field? There are a >> lot of things to do in the Internet to make it more accessible for >> the non-English speaker: translating software, creating content, >> etc. But is there one thing which *requires* or even would benefit >> > >from a central action? I doubt it > > Though the current case - China's native-language TLDs - is a little > complicated, several posts on this thread have tried to unveil key > facts. When you get into that, it becomes clear there must indeed be > some level of international coordination, for successful > native-language access. > > Hence multilingualism (defined as here) is one of those cases - one > theme - that leads directly to today's post-WSIS, core governance > questions. > > David > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sun Mar 5 03:05:17 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 09:05:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum oninternet governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <440A9BBD.8070404@bertola.eu.org> Milton Mueller ha scritto: > These are very good questions, Vittorio; I commend you for raising > them persistently. As we both suspect, the Board, ICANN's CEO > Twomay, and GAC will have a tendency to work this out on their own > without specifying a formal process that could be open to CS and > others. Thank you. Of course, I would hope that the ICANN Board [members] would sooner or later be interested in replying to them... So I'll restate my questions for the record (here, I addressed them to Veni as he's the only ICANN Board member on the list, but they are of course meant for all Board members): > BTW - as far as you know, does ICANN have a plan to implement the > Tunis Agenda and reform itself? does the ICANN Board have an opinion > on how to do it? or could you explain your opinion on this, if there > is not a common one among the Board? -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Sun Mar 5 05:01:42 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 11:01:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3 options] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Milton, > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 3:39 AM > > I wonder whether a "Status Quo Plus Minus" is possible: in which we > give the caucus a capacity to elect/select chairs, and delegate decision > making responsibility to them, but do not develop a common set of > positions on > policy issues but simply attempt to be a vehicle for the > representations of CS > in IGF-related activities. E.g., we elect chairs who develop democratic > procedures to nominate people to serve on IGF-related program committees, > councils, etc. Understand your concern about the need for procedures to handle nominations for IGF etc, and noted that this is a problem with the SQ. A procedural rather than substantive focus could be viable. But for your solution to work we'd need to address a number of challenges, e.g.: 1) Nobody appears to want to want to chair; Jeanette's prior call for nominations met a stony silence. And preferably we'd have multiple candidates, and competitive choice, or else we're in politburo mode. They'd have to be dedicated procedural mavens to achieve what you ask, too (maybe they could work with the MMWG on that). 2) Even if some folks were to step forward now, it's a hard to have a really proper election without an identifiable electorate. In the absence of any affirmative opting-in, who knows how many of the 300 people on the list consider themselves to be CS and members of the caucus? I suppose we could continue with the 'whoever bothers to speak by a certain time' model, but it's a bit lame and open to controversy. 3) How would we conduct it? Use a private voting site, per MMWG, or try the list? Who'd count, decide on voter eligibility based on what criteria, etc? Suggestions? Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Sun Mar 5 05:12:27 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 11:12:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum oninternet governance In-Reply-To: <440A9BBD.8070404@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: Hi v, > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola > So I'll restate my questions for the record (here, I addressed them to > Veni as he's the only ICANN Board member on the list, but they are of > course meant for all Board members): https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/roster/governance is of course accessible to all subscribers. There are a number of ICANN people on the list. Perhaps this is not the place they'd first think of with respect to addressing the question. Nevertheless, I'd note that since the list has long since become an open multistakeholder space (CS, PS, government, IO) rather than just a caucus vehicle, and since there are no mechanisms as yet under IGF for sustained, cross-cutting (as opposed to stand alone intraorganizational) MS dialogue on IG, it does offer a nice opportunity for outreach and dialogue with a diverse range of stakeholders, including many not involved in ICANN. Cheers, Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sun Mar 5 08:54:09 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 08:54:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum oninternet governance In-Reply-To: <440A9BBD.8070404@bertola.eu.org> References: <440A9BBD.8070404@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060305084420.02c22ef8@veni.com> At 09:05 AM 05.3.2006 '?.' +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Milton Mueller ha scritto: >>These are very good questions, Vittorio; I commend you for raising >>them persistently. As we both suspect, the Board, ICANN's CEO >>Twomay, and GAC will have a tendency to work this out on their own >>without specifying a formal process that could be open to CS and >>others. > >Thank you. Of course, I would hope that the ICANN Board [members] >would sooner or later be interested in replying to them... > >So I'll restate my questions for the record (here, I addressed them >to Veni as he's the only ICANN Board member on the list, but they >are of course meant for all Board members): Actually, Vittorio, as you well know, ICANN directors can't comment "on behalf of ICANN". But I can always comment on your questions in my capacity as a citizen and part of the civil society. If you want official ICANN questions, you know Paul Twomey's and Vint's addresses, so you can address them freely, right? veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sun Mar 5 09:13:13 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 09:13:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum oninternet governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060305090649.059424e0@veni.com> Vittorio, At 09:08 PM 04.3.2006 '?.' -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: >These are very good questions, Vittorio; I commend you for raising >them persistently. As we both suspect, the Board, ICANN's CEO >Twomay, and GAC will have a tendency to work this out on their own >without specifying a formal process that could be open to CS and others. Actually ICANN has already demonstrated an ability to carry ouit reform after the long ERP process. >BTW - as far as you know, does ICANN have a plan to implement the Tunis >Agenda and reform itself? does the ICANN Board have an opinion on how to >do it? or could you explain your opinion on this, if there is not a >common one among the Board? As I already wrote you, the Board opinion can be expressed by its chair - that's not only normal, that's a must. I can respond as an individual: Which parts of the Tunis Agenda are you referring to? I can speak for the Internet Society of Bulgaria, which has a project on Internet Governance. We have proposed to interested parties, including Milton's IG project, to actively cooperate with each other. So far there has been only one response - from BlueLink, who maintain a good site about WSIS. I am still waiting to hear from others, who want to cooperate on this issue. The lack of such positive signals from other entities, involved in the IG and the IGF, is a sign that not everything goes well in the civil society. veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sun Mar 5 10:33:06 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 10:33:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum on internet governance In-Reply-To: <20060303154626.27224.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> References: <1141397656.7302.97.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060303154626.27224.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060305102818.04ef4c40@veni.com> At 07:46 AM 03.3.2006 '?.' -0800, Danny Younger wrote: >At the ICANN Board level consensus no longer matters. >This attitude renders independent evaluations (such as >the GNSO Review being conducted by the London School >of Economics) as irrelevant. The ICANN Board will >simply do whatever it wants to do regardless of >informed advice or community consensus. That's a very brave statement, but I am afraid it's not quite precise. You build asumption on your reading of facts. They can be read differently. veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From db at dannybutt.net Sun Mar 5 17:19:19 2006 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 11:19:19 +1300 Subject: [governance] VS: Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3options] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14FA75E9-49BE-4536-BD71-46145CFED722@dannybutt.net> Thanks also Bill for some useful distinctions. I agree with much of the analysis and also support the status quo at an organisational level. The range of positions under civil society makes it very difficult to support effective organisational coherence without a lot of resources put into finding common ground (meetings and the like). What was that research released the other week - 50% of all email has its tone misinterpreted? That seems to operate a lot on most lists and the diversity of inputs only exacerbates it here. I think a more formal organisation risks becoming a quasi-open resource sink in an ICANNish way - not enough resources to do a great job, enough that it needs to make decisions to maintain itself that might conflict with some of its supporters. That's not to say that we have to keep the status quo at a process level. I mentioned before some infrastructural support. I do think a wiki-like environment for drafting could be a big help (in being able to encompass a range of positions). Also, having a place where previous statements can be easily accessed and compared would be useful. My main frustration on the list is not with differences of opinion, but with the feeling that we are sometimes trying to resolve substantial differences in our whole orientation to Internet Governance under intense time pressure, and not always making the most of previous work. If we can collectively build a base of understanding or language outside of specific deadlines I think it will be easier for us to draw on that to make specific, consistent (if not representative) statements. Regards Danny -- Danny Butt db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200 On 04/03/2006, at 9:18 PM, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > Thanks Bill for bringing some systematic ideas to the discussion > table. > > I would prefere the status quo. It is leightweight, flexible and > gives enoug opportunities to speak with a united voice - where > needed - by keeping individual position visible. > > Status quo plus brings a lot of extra burocratical work and I do > not see any caucus member who is willing to shoulder this. > > Status quo minus means to give away what we have achieved so far > and this is a lot if you compare the situation 2006 with the > situation we had in 2002 when the caucus was formed. The caucus > voice is heard and other stakeholders have recognized that this is > the platform where a bunch of peolle, who are identified as the > spokespersons for positions which reflect civil society´s interests. > > Wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Lähettäjä: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org puolesta: William Drake > Lähetetty: pe 3.3.2006 17:25 > Vastaanottaja: Meryem Marzouki; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Aihe: Re: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance > caucus [3options] > > > > Hi Meryem, > > Thanks for restarting this discussion, although I was hoping we > could stick > with your prior dialectical thread long enough to find out what > Marx and > Hegel would have to say about IG... > > A few responses to the options you pose. Personally, I can't see the > caucus/mailing list becoming the plenary or plenary-like space for > the whole > CS coalition that formed around WSIS, much less for a more ambitious > configuration that would draw in other CS actors that haven't been > involved > to date (which would be important, going forward). While we've > moved toward > a broad understanding of IG that touches on many issue-areas, much > of the > 'global information society' type agenda and the WSIS follow-up and > implementation action lines are outside the realm of IG, and it > would make > no sense to try to cram everything from community networking to > FLOSS and > beyond into the IG framework. The people and organizations > involved would > quickly become very frustrated. So I agree, a broader > restructuring and > reinvigoration is in order (but probably unlikely), the IGC would > remain one > component of that coalition, and of course individual organizations or > caucuses not involved here would not need to work through the IGC to > participate in the IGF if their issues are on the agenda, or should > be. > > As to the IGC itself, it would seem there are three options: > > 1. Status Quo Plus. Try to strengthen the group and position it to > actually be able to agree on common positions, as we used to do, and > represent them in IGF and beyond. Prior efforts to start > conversations > about this went nowhere. One could imagine pursuing steps like a) > determining who actually considers themselves to be in the caucus--- > which > inter alia would make it easier to tell when there's consensus on a > proposal---by having people formally opt in, similar to what you > did in the > Human Rights Caucus www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/ ; b) > having some > sort of shared charter or mission statement (Adam once suggested we > get this > by simply extracting guiding principles from previously agreed > texts); c) > setting clear decision making rules; d) electing new coordinators; > e) maybe > seeking financial support from a foundation; etc etc. I strongly > suspect > that we are no longer in a place where any of this would be > viable. The > diversity of views on substantive issues, particularly with respect > to core > resources, is simply too great; as WSIS went on, only the procedural > questions like demanding CS inclusion proved easy to agree on > promptly and > without controversy. Perhaps the only way we could reduce that > diversity > would be to form a fairly small group that agrees to a rather specific > charter, which others would presumably find exclusionary and > odious. By > extension, I think Veni's suggestion that the caucus could become a > legal > entity is a total non-starter. An undefined range of people who don't > actually agree on much and are working as volunteers is hardly the > foundation for a viable formal organization. > > 2. Status Quo. At present, the caucus is more like a loose > network of > people with common interests (as opposed to positions), an umbrella > label we > can use for purposes of identification when interfacing with > governments > etc. No defined leadership, agreed procedures, membership, etc, > just CS > participants in a 300-person, multistakeholder e-discussion space. > When > individual or organizational participants want to develop and > represent a > common position in IGF or elsewhere, it's done on an opt-in basis, > and the > result is not presented as a caucus position per se. For example, > that's > what I did last month re: the ITU reform meeting, a text was rushed > together, two dozen people signed in a day, and I submitted it to > ITU under > the rubric 'members of the IGC,' rather than 'the IGC' (even though > there > were more signatories than we typically had expressing support back > when the > caucus did adopt joint positions). This avoids non-signatories > feeling > their views have been misrepresented etc. Similarly, individual or > organizational participants make interventions in IGF etc. without > purporting to represent the IGC. That's what we did at the IGF > consultation, except once when those attending managed to have a > meeting and > agree on some points, which Adam presented as representing the > consensus of > caucus members who happened to be in attendance. This has > basically worked > ok, and governments probably don't recognize the devolution from > what we > were doing before. However, it doesn't provide any formally > principled > basis to do what Milton mentioned as a key function, namely nominating > people for the IGF PC or whatever. And of course, if different > groupings > working under the rubric promote incompatible positions in a > meeting with > governments, it might cause a little confusion. > > 3. Status Quo Minus. We could declare the caucus to have been > dissolved, > now that WSIS is over. Smaller groupings, presumably of the like > minded on > particular issues, could be formed to address particular issues or > represent > particular political tendencies, and the list would continue to > function as > it does now. Since we can form coalitions of the willing under > option 2, > it's not clear what the advantage of this would be, other than > avoiding any > confusion on the part of governments etc. as to whether what > someone is > saying is 'the caucus position.' Maybe I'm missing something... > > All things considered, the status quo has some clear deficiencies > and is a > bit disappointing, but it seems viable for most purposes, no? > > Best, > > Bill > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Meryem >> Marzouki >> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 8:01 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus >> >> >> [Thought it's time to change the subject of this - promising... - >> thread] >> >> Le 2 mars 06 à 19:22, Milton Mueller a écrit : >> >>> I see two roles for the Caucus going forward: >>> >>> 1. To serve as an "official" nominator of CS representatives to IGF >>> structures >>> 2. To serve as a space for discussion of how CS would intervene in >>> IGF processes. >> >> This doesn't take into account a major change in post-wsis situation: >> governance was one among the many WSIS identified issues before >> Tunis, and CS was dealing with this issue almost only in the >> framework of this caucus, which was fine. Now IGF is all about >> internet governance and almost the only body where 'things can be >> done' for CS, starting with framing a - more or less agreed - >> understanding of 'internet governance'. This means that we'll face >> the following alternative: either this caucus/mailing list becomes >> the plenary or plenary-like space, or the whole CS @ WSIS should >> reconsider its structuring, starting from caucuses. >> >> I would favor the latter solution and, although this has not started >> yet, as the human rights caucus co-chairs, I think Rikke and I should >> propose to the HR caucus to discuss this issue: whether we should >> stay as a caucus and try to have a say in the IGF process, what >> should be our understanding of internet governance and the role of >> IGF, etc. In other words, should the HR caucus develop more detailed >> inputs on internet governance that what it did till now, i.e. stating >> in a very general way that Internet governance should respect HR >> standards. May I remind here that HR also include economic, social >> and cultural rights, and the right to development, not only civil and >> political rights..., and this has a lot to do with governance, in >> this context with internet governance. >> >> Obviously, this process could be undertaken by all caucuses. However, >> the governance caucus is naturally facing a particular situation: >> should it stay more or less as it is and play the two roles that you >> see and describe here (while there is no reason that it serves as an >> "official" nominator for the whole CS: I do understand what you mean, >> but this would certainly be opposed by many CS people outside of this >> caucus, I'm afraid), or should it consider that it has attracted a >> huge number of people on this mailing list, from different >> backgrounds, with different understandings of 'internet governance', >> pushing various agendas, etc., and that it may be time to try >> restructuring in coalitions (or caucuses if we want to keep this >> terminology), either following different understandings of 'internet >> governance', or by specific issues, or whatever criteria people and >> organizations usually follow to coalesce. >> >> This, I think, should be the most important discussion within CS, in >> this caucus and elsewhere, and unfortunately I don't see it >> happening. >> >> What do you people think ? >> >> Meryem >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Mar 5 21:33:29 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 21:33:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3 options] Message-ID: >>> "William Drake" 3/5/2006 5:01 AM >>> > A procedural rather than substantive focus could be viable. >But for your solution to work we'd need to address a number >of challenges, e.g.: 1) Nobody appears to want to want to >chair; Jeanette's prior call for nominations met a stony >silence. That can change. I don't think people fully realize the consequences of inaction, yet. > And preferably we'd have multiple candidates, and competitive >choice, or else we're in politburo mode. Of course, in many ways it would be better if more people were eager to do this than there were slots, but the reality is that we would be lucky to get two volunteers. It is a false leap in logic to suggest that no competition = politburo. Most volunteer organizations don't have competition for their chairs, but rather lurch from one reluctant person who agrees to do it to hold the thing together, to another. >They'd have to be dedicated procedural mavens to achieve >what you ask, too Dedicated yes, procedural maven, no. >2) Even if some folks were to step forward now, it's a >hard to have a really proper election without an >identifiable electorate. You don't need an election now, you need a couple of volunteers willing to take the responsibility who can write (and/or shepherd the rest of us into writing) a new set of rules for defining an electorate and making elections in the future. A bootstrapping problem afflicts all forms of collective authority. No need to get hung up on it, just find an acceptable way to get over it. These are problems that can be solved, if we want to solve them. If we don't, then fine, let's be open about that. >Suggestions? I suggest that we conscript Avri Doria and Meryem Merzouki (or, if she declines, Bill Drake) as co-coordinators for the next year and charge them with facilitating the creation of a structure. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sun Mar 5 22:38:12 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:38:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3 options] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <440BAEA4.7050103@lists.privaterra.org> Milton Mueller wrote: > I suggest that we conscript Avri Doria and Meryem Merzouki (or, if she declines, Bill Drake) as co-coordinators for the next year and charge them with facilitating the creation of a structure. > Some sort of regional diversity would be good. While I don't mind having all the key people be from developed European countries it would be good to have one or more persons from other regions. It would be a wise strategic decision to have the key people involved from both developed and developing countries. Not sure we can find someone, but if we can - it would be very strategic. regards Robert _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sun Mar 5 22:48:37 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 22:48:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] Mandatory and non-mandatory governance (Was: China To Launch Alternate Country CodeDomains] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 9:25 PM -0500 3/4/06, Milton Mueller wrote: >I found Bortzmeyer's creation of a distinction between things that do and do not need global governance to be important and useful. Then there is some concurrence on the point (as noted in the portion now removed from below, for better focus). We can take the point to some of its logical conclusions: Rather than a long laundry list of issues - one of the outputs of WSIS / WGIG - we need to zero in on the meat. More, rather than diplomatic circumlocutions - so that real differences never see the light of day - a new culture of direct talk needs to arise. Of course that only works when the parties to the play genuinely respect each other and want genuinely to understand opposing views, not attack those with whom they disagree. That is no small thing. To say again: That is no small thing. Diplomatic relations must be retained - straight talk with mutual respect is just another way into that same objective. Even more than that, usually the 'real differences' are hidden under layers of implicit assumptions, often invisible even to the holder of such views. Then we need ways to get at those foundational differences - with civility. That is a whole next task ... >As I argued at the Geneva consultation, "multilingualism" is too broad a category to be useful for the IGForum; some of the issues in multilingualism are purely matters of local or regional development (such as developing new content in underserved scripts and langauges); others (such as IDNs) do involve global compatibility and coordination issues. It was somewhat disturbing that the recent news release from the UN about the creation of the Forum by Annan not only prematurely signaled that "multilingualism" would be a theme of the first forum, but seemed to emphasize exactly the wrong aspect of that issue. Here's my take on it: As just suggested, we will be served best by talking straight, about the things that matter most. My clear estimate is that initial choices will not be a direct revisit of the beast that derailed WSIS - whatever we might wish, and indeed that in fact seems a wise choice to me. Therefore a practical person would ask, what other way might get to the meat of it? I see several possibilities. Multilingualism - as defined in the portion now removed - quite directly goes to shared resources where there must be international coordination. That of course is the (now agreed) promised land. Hence in ML, properly defined, there is one possibility to do what IGF needs to do (as defined here). I don't have a brief for ML. I happen to be involved with it, so understand how it is directly in the line of fire; I also see how broad is its impact, regardless. But it is only one option, to do what we need. In (of course) my view we need to get at the several candidate topics that lead directly to the main opposed positions. To say it clearly: The purpose is to bridge differences and find common ground, among all parties to the work. That especially includes governments, who are not party to the discussion here, at least in an explicit way so far. To get differences on the table is only the first - necessary - step, in the quest to locate common ground. With differences clearly laid out, the real work begins. David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Mon Mar 6 01:02:01 2006 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 01:02:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3 options] Message-ID: Robert, To play the game you have to name names, not strategic categories. Yes regional diversity is good, more important is getting someone to step forward. There's always another year coming, so others will get turns as IGF stumbles into being. And your nominees are? In the meantime I'll second all 3 of Milton's most worthy nominations to keep the ball rolling. But of course am also happy to second additional nominees from other regions, just as long as some suckers I mean volunteers accept the substantial challenge for this year of founding IGF. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Robert Guerra 3/5/2006 10:38 PM >>> Milton Mueller wrote: > I suggest that we conscript Avri Doria and Meryem Merzouki (or, if she declines, Bill Drake) as co-coordinators for the next year and charge them with facilitating the creation of a structure. > Some sort of regional diversity would be good. While I don't mind having all the key people be from developed European countries it would be good to have one or more persons from other regions. It would be a wise strategic decision to have the key people involved from both developed and developing countries. Not sure we can find someone, but if we can - it would be very strategic. regards Robert _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From db at dannybutt.net Mon Mar 6 05:26:51 2006 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 23:26:51 +1300 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3 options] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree with Lee that there's not a strong need for regional diversity if we're talking about facilitating this entire group toward a structure (as opposed to facilitating agreement on content). One of the points of the discussion on structure will undoubtedly include geographic, gender and cultural diversity of the coordinating body for the group (or at least, I'll be angling for this). I think Bill has put a lot of work into outlining structural issues in a sophisticated way and I would be most happy to see him take us forward, though I'm also happy with the other suggestions. What about someone like Jovan, who has been quieter on this list but has diplomatic expertise. A good facilitator on process is often less invested in the topic, which is why I've never been the best facilitator in the world. There are many other worthy candidates but I'm wary of the way these kind of email discussions become both a popularity contest and also require you to demonstrate allegiance to certain sectors. It'd be nice if people could nominate to someone off-list (Milton?) and a poll be set up somewhere. Danny On 06/03/2006, at 7:02 PM, Lee McKnight wrote: > Robert, > > To play the game you have to name names, not strategic categories. > Yes regional diversity is good, more important is getting someone > to step forward. There's always another year coming, so others will > get turns as IGF stumbles into being. And your nominees are? > > In the meantime I'll second all 3 of Milton's most worthy > nominations to keep the ball rolling. But of course am also happy > to second additional nominees from other regions, just as long as > some suckers I mean volunteers accept the substantial challenge for > this year of founding IGF. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>>> Robert Guerra 3/5/2006 10:38 PM >>> > Milton Mueller wrote: > >> I suggest that we conscript Avri Doria and Meryem Merzouki (or, if >> she declines, Bill Drake) as co-coordinators for the next year and >> charge them with facilitating the creation of a structure. >> > > > Some sort of regional diversity would be good. While I don't mind > having > all the key people be from developed European countries it would be > good > to have one or more persons from other regions. > > It would be a wise strategic decision to have the key people involved > from both developed and developing countries. Not sure we can find > someone, but if we can - it would be very strategic. > > > regards > > Robert > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Mar 6 05:40:31 2006 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 11:40:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Mandatory and non-mandatory governance In-Reply-To: <440A60A0.6060808@gmx.net> References: <440A60A0.6060808@gmx.net> Message-ID: <20060306104031.GA7942@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 10:53:04AM +0700, Norbert Klein wrote a message of 106 lines which said: > It is extremely difficult to fund all these things - though they are > a prerequisite for any "people-centered information society" in many > countries which do not have the English, or Russian, or Dutch > language - or any other language in a strong economy - as their > environment. Leaving all these problems to be solved locally means > - for many language/script communities - that they are beyond their > own economic reach. Yes, I understand. You argue (and very well) that there should be an international *action* (otherwise, the market will do nothing or, worse, will crush the local languages). But it has little to do with the governance. For instance, it does not require an international agreement or consensus. Some countries can choose to not spend money on it but they cannot stop it, the way the US government can stop a change it does not like in the DNS root. And your examples (localizing software, creating documentation) are very good but, each time I heard someone from the UN talking about multilingualism, it was only to mention the small and not very important issue of IDN TLDs. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Mon Mar 6 07:18:10 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 07:18:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Mandatory and non-mandatory governance In-Reply-To: <20060306104031.GA7942@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> References: <440A60A0.6060808@gmx.net> <20060306104031.GA7942@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> Message-ID: At 11:40 AM +0100 3/6/06, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >issue of IDN TLDs. Which require the international coordination of resources. David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Mon Mar 6 07:28:37 2006 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 07:28:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: GNSO review Message-ID: ! MG -----Original Message----- From: IFIP Working Group 8.2--Kevin Crowston [mailto:IFIPWG82 at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of M.Cushman at LSE.AC.UK Sent: March 6, 2006 1:18 PM To: IFIPWG82 at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: FW: GNSO review Would you be willing to circulate this to your students to enable them to participate in this survey? Also you may wish to forward this to any other colleagues outside universities who may be interested. Mike Mike Cushman [ mailto:m.cushman at lse.ac.uk] Department of Information Systems London School of Economics and Political Science Houghton Street London WC2A 2AE Phone: +44 (0)20 7955 7426 Fax: +44 (0)20 7955 7385 http://is.lse.ac.uk/ ICANN appoints London School of Economics to conduct independent review of GNSO An expert team of researchers from the Public Policy Group < www.lse.ac.uk/collections/LSEPublicPolicy/> of LSE has been appointed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) as the independent reviewers of the Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO). The GNSO plays a critical role in ICANN's policy development activities, particularly in relation to generic top level domains such as .com, .net, .info, .biz, .museum and, more recently, new top level domains such as .mobi and .travel. The review is an integral part of ICANN's normal operational reviews and is part of its ongoing efforts to ensure maximum organizational transparency and efficiency. This Review aims to survey awareness of ICANN's worldwide responsibilities and to find out if people, and particular public and private stakeholders, are satisfied with the accountability and transparency of GNSO's procedures. The review will take a number of forms including an online survey and in-depth face-to-face interviews with key stakeholders. Professor Patrick Dunleavy, Professor of Political Science and chair of the Public Policy Group, will lead the review team. Commenting on LSE's appointment to conduct the review, Professor Dunleavy said: 'We are delighted to have been appointed for this major piece of work which will inform the future direction and strategy of the global Internet community. Our approach will be to ask many people worldwide, through surveys and interviews, their views on the GNSO.' ICANN is seeking broad participation in the Review, which is seen as critical to its success. 'ICANN and LSE are working closely together to ensure we gather as much relevant material as possible. Those wishing to participate in the review will be able to do so online, and during the upcoming international meeting taking place in Wellington, New Zealand, from 25-31 March,' said Paul Twomey, president and CEO of ICANN. To participate in the GNSO Review, please visit < http://www.icann-gnsoreview.org> Contact * Professor Patrick Dunleavy, 0n +44 (0)20 7955 7178 or email p.dunleavy at lse.ac.uk < mailto:p.dunleavy at lse.ac.uk> * Judith Higgin, LSE Press Office, 020 7955 7582, email: j.a.higgin at lse.ac.uk < mailto:j.a.higgin at lse.ac.uk> About the GNSO < http://gnso.icann.org/> The GNSO manages policy issues such as selection criteria for new top level domains; competition policy impacts and contractual conditions for top level domain registry agreements. It has been particularly active in discussions about WHOIS and data management, intellectual property protection, registrar conduct and the transfer of domain names. Policies are developed by consensus through the GNSO six constituency groups which includes registrars, registries, intellectual property interests, internet service providers, business and commercial users and non-commercial user interests. The GNSO's policy program is managed by the GNSO Council on which each of the constituencies has elected representatives from ICANN's five different regions. The GNSO conducts its policy making initiatives through the activities of each of the constituencies at face to face meetings, via regular teleconferences and at special meetings of policy committees or taskforces. The GNSO is currently working on development policy for the introduction of new top level domains, on internationalised domain names and on registry contractual conditions. About ICANN < http://www.icann.org/index.html> The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an internationally organised, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions. As a private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to preserving the operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; to achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and to developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Mar 6 07:31:21 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 13:31:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3 options] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, I see that Milton is bringing his contribution to the International Women Day by nominating two women (through conscription: after Hegel and Marx, let's talk about Uncle Sam:)). However, the only little time I can dedicate to WSIS/post-WSIS activities would be rather used for human rights (caucus) activities. Thanks anyway, I appreciate. Also, I wouldn't appear as discouraging any vocation, but being on this mailing almost since its creation, I know that it would need unlimited patience to coordinate it, and this doesn't appear to be my main quality, and BTW I commend Jeanette and Adam for all their work ! Finally, to comment on Bill's options, I think his 'status quo' option, which seems to gain the larger - expressed - preference, doesn't include the key role of nominating CS people to the IGF (I mean further to people nominated on behalf of this specific caucus). I think Bill is right on this. I would also have expected some comments to my own proposal w.r.t. CS as a whole organization, which is entirely compatible with Bill's 'status quo' option for the governance caucus. I'm restating below this proposal in summary. Although it doesn't only concern the governance caucus, I'd be interested in comments from its members: - This caucus could remain a discussion place for (at large) governance issues [addition, Re: 'statu quo option': developing its own positions if possible] - Any (already existing or to be recomposed/newly formed) caucus/ coalition could be formed to develop substantive opinions on various governance issues (and other post-wsis issues as well) - One (or more) CS coordination/liaison group should be formed to deeal with organizational matters and, if desirable and possible, facilitate global CS at post-wsis opinions/declarations developments. Best, Meryem Le 6 mars 06 à 03:33, Milton Mueller a écrit : > >>>> "William Drake" 3/5/2006 5:01 AM >>> >> A procedural rather than substantive focus could be viable. >> But for your solution to work we'd need to address a number >> of challenges, e.g.: 1) Nobody appears to want to want to >> chair; Jeanette's prior call for nominations met a stony >> silence. > > That can change. I don't think people fully realize the > consequences of inaction, yet. > >> And preferably we'd have multiple candidates, and competitive >> choice, or else we're in politburo mode. > > Of course, in many ways it would be better if more people were > eager to do this than there were slots, but the reality is that we > would be lucky to get two volunteers. It is a false leap in logic > to suggest that no competition = politburo. Most volunteer > organizations don't have competition for their chairs, but rather > lurch from one reluctant person who agrees to do it to hold the > thing together, to another. > >> They'd have to be dedicated procedural mavens to achieve >> what you ask, too > > Dedicated yes, procedural maven, no. > >> 2) Even if some folks were to step forward now, it's a >> hard to have a really proper election without an >> identifiable electorate. > > You don't need an election now, you need a couple of volunteers > willing to take the responsibility who can write (and/or shepherd > the rest of us into writing) a new set of rules for defining an > electorate and making elections in the future. > > A bootstrapping problem afflicts all forms of collective authority. > No need to get hung up on it, just find an acceptable way to get > over it. These are problems that can be solved, if we want to solve > them. If we don't, then fine, let's be open about that. > >> Suggestions? > > I suggest that we conscript Avri Doria and Meryem Merzouki (or, if > she declines, Bill Drake) as co-coordinators for the next year and > charge them with facilitating the creation of a structure. > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Mon Mar 6 07:42:10 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 07:42:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3 options] In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060306073836.02b8cf48@veni.com> At 01:31 PM 06.3.2006 '?.' +0100, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >Hi all, > >I see that Milton is bringing his contribution to the International >Women Day :) Since the changes in Bulgaria, people stopped celebrating this day, because everyone thought it comes from the Soviet Union; we need some education on that... Further to your proposals: >- This caucus could remain a discussion place for (at large) >governance issues [addition, Re: 'statu quo option': developing its >own positions if possible] Agree. >- Any (already existing or to be recomposed/newly formed) caucus/ >coalition could be formed to develop substantive opinions on various >governance issues (and other post-wsis issues as well) Agree >- One (or more) CS coordination/liaison group should be formed to >deeal with organizational matters and, if desirable and possible, >facilitate global CS at post-wsis opinions/declarations developments. Agree. Would suggest also my old idea of structuring a non-profit to the IG Caucus, which will be able to talk to potential funders for funding participation of people from developing countries, and LDC. At the moment we all rely on other organizations for that; would be a mature act to be able to handle that on our own. veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Mar 6 08:00:47 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 14:00:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC Inc. [was Re: Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3 options]] In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060306073836.02b8cf48@veni.com> References:

<7.0.1.0.2.20060306073836.02b8cf48@veni.com> Message-ID: <57BD5A30-C157-4876-8EBD-04E119561944@ras.eu.org> Veni, I don't understand why you keep proposing the incorporation of IGC, while it's more than clear that it is not feasible (and unneeded and, I think, unwanted). We're all discussing the difficulty of reaching agreed positions for this caucus (process- and substance- wise), and you want it structured in a formal way ? Frankly, if you propose a for-profit incorporation it could be more feasible: at least, people would agree on making profit !! (how, this is another question :)) If the issue is funding, then one or more already existing CS organization could apply for funding for an IGC-related project ! A member of the HR caucus have successfully done that during WSIS 1st phase (as documented on the HR caucus site at: http:// www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/#7). Best, Meryem Le 6 mars 06 à 13:42, Veni Markovski a écrit : > [...] > Would suggest also my old idea of structuring a non-profit to the IG > Caucus, which will be able to talk to potential funders for funding > participation of people from developing countries, and LDC. At the > moment we all rely on other organizations for that; would be a mature > act to be able to handle that on our own. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Mon Mar 6 08:07:22 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 08:07:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC Inc. [was Re: Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3 options]] In-Reply-To: <57BD5A30-C157-4876-8EBD-04E119561944@ras.eu.org> References:

<7.0.1.0.2.20060306073836.02b8cf48@veni.com> <57BD5A30-C157-4876-8EBD-04E119561944@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060306080333.04e867a8@veni.com> At 02:00 PM 06.3.2006 '?.' +0100, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >wise), and you want it structured in a formal way ? Frankly, if you >propose a for-profit incorporation it could be more feasible: at >least, people would agree on making profit !! (how, this is another :-) I was hoping that once we create a spin-off of the IGC, we'll be in a position to help people who could contribute to the discussions at the IGF. Otherwise you are right - these people can apply to other entities, but the CS kind of shows we can't organize ourselves even to help our own members. Then, the IGC remains in this semi-formed position - we participate, but we are not allowed at all meetings. We issue statements, but there's no address, where we can receive questions. Anyway, since there's not enough support for this initiative, I am giving up. At least I tried. veni -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Mar 6 08:32:03 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:32:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum oninternet governance In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060305090649.059424e0@veni.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060305090649.059424e0@veni.com> Message-ID: <1141651923.7308.50.camel@localhost.localdomain> Il giorno dom, 05/03/2006 alle 09.13 -0500, Veni Markovski ha scritto: > I can respond as an individual: > Which parts of the Tunis Agenda are you referring to? Exactly the parts that you quoted earlier in the thread, in your message on Friday: "71. 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 will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organizations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same relevant organizations shall be requested to provide annual performance reports." (and especially the "relevant organizations should commence a process..." sentence.) ICANN is definitely one of these "relevant organizations", so I am asking to you, as an ICANN director and leader, how do you personally think that ICANN should act to comply with this paragraph. > I can speak for > the Internet Society of Bulgaria, which has a project on Internet > Governance. We have proposed to interested parties, including > Milton's IG project, to actively cooperate with each other. So far > there has been only one response - from BlueLink, who maintain a good > site about WSIS. I am still waiting to hear from others, who want to > cooperate on this issue. The lack of such positive signals from other > entities, involved in the IG and the IGF, is a sign that not > everything goes well in the civil society. So your opinion is that this is not a matter regarding ICANN, or requiring action from ICANN? -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Mon Mar 6 08:55:16 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 08:55:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Project Receives Ford Foundation Grant Message-ID: <440C3F44.3030909@lists.privaterra.org> For those of you who might not have seen this already .... below is news on a funding development regarding key people involved in the Caucus. Congrats. Though, I am concerned that there's no mention of a development focus - a key aspect in the WSIS process. regards Robert Internet Governance Project Receives Ford Foundation Grant Syracuse, New York, 1 March 2006-- The Internet Governance Project (IGP), a university-based research and policy analysis consortium, was awarded a two-year grant of $175,000 by the Ford Foundation. IGP influences international Internet policy by producing regular analyses of policy debates and proposals for international institutional change related to the Internet. Its publications played a significant role informing and shaping the debates in last year's World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). The Project is composed of six professors from three Universities: Syracuse University, Georgia Institute of Technology, and Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin fur Sozialforschung. By supporting this network of politically engaged scholars, the Ford grant will allow IGP to nurture wider public awareness of Internet governance and its consequences; a better informed and more effective global public interest advocacy network; and policies that advance individual rights to free expression and privacy, unrestricted global communication, and more democratic global governance of the Internet. "The IGP will play an important role in demystifying what to many may seem an arcane and inaccessible area of policy making, but one that demands our attention as it will increasingly affect all of our lives," remarked Ford Program Officer Becky Lentz. Over the next year, the Project will place particular emphasis on the UN effort to create a new "Internet Governance Forum." This new Forum would provide a relatively open platform for discussion and debate of international Internet policy issues. IGP members will be supporting a structural model that permits open participation and equal status for all participants, as opposed to the more restrictive, government-only deliberations of traditional UN agencies. IGP will also be pushing for the use of information technologies that permit international agencies to discuss and develop policies without face-to- face meetings. The Internet Governance Project's secretariat is hosted by Syracuse University's Convergence Center. IGP's core members are: Drs. Milton Mueller, John Mathiason, Derrick L. Cogburn and Lee McKnight of Syracuse University, USA; Dr. Jeanette Hofmann, WZB, Germany, and Dr. Hans Klein, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA. Its website is http://www.internetgovernance.org _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Mar 6 09:18:57 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 15:18:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Project Receives Ford Foundation Grant In-Reply-To: <440C3F44.3030909@lists.privaterra.org> References: <440C3F44.3030909@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: > > Syracuse, New York, 1 March 2006-- The Internet Governance Project > (IGP), a university-based research and policy analysis consortium, was > awarded a two-year grant of $175,000 by the Ford Foundation. [...] > By supporting this network of politically engaged scholars My god... This qualifyer would be seen, here in France, not only as an oxymoron to the power of 1000, but also as a death sentence from the mandarinal academic system :)) _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Mar 6 09:24:51 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 15:24:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Project Receives Ford Foundation Grant In-Reply-To: References: <440C3F44.3030909@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <91AFC95D-2F8E-40C0-9A73-068FB367D1F7@ras.eu.org> Forgot to add that, with my previous message on existing CS organization which could apply for funding for an IGC-related project (Re: Veni's (not)for profit incorporation wishes), I haven't meant that those who have applied for (and have been granted) funding for their own activities on internet governance (not internet governance caucus) would have to share this money with anyone asking. Though I wouldn't refuse a drink next time we meet to celebrate this news... Meryem Le 6 mars 06 à 15:18, Meryem Marzouki a écrit : > >> >> Syracuse, New York, 1 March 2006-- The Internet Governance Project >> (IGP), a university-based research and policy analysis consortium, >> was >> awarded a two-year grant of $175,000 by the Ford Foundation. > [...] >> By supporting this network of politically engaged scholars > > My god... This qualifyer would be seen, here in France, not only as > an oxymoron to the power of 1000, but also as a death sentence from > the mandarinal academic system :)) > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Mar 6 11:09:11 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 17:09:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] VL: VS: [Mmwg] Just for fun .. huh? Message-ID: Dear list members, wsis, wgig and icann life is so difficult: Did you see some smile on the face of members of the board, chairs of sub-committees or holders of governmental badges? So relaxe and enjoy what is going on in the parallel world of the IGF preparations (it is from the mmwg list and I was encouraged to distribute if on a braoder scale): BACKGROUND During the recent IGF Consultation Prof. Milton Mueller from Syracuse University discovered the "man off the street" in Salle XXIII of the Palais des Nations in Geneva. see. http://mm-images.blogspot.com/ He described the appearance of the "man off the street" with the IGF Badge as a "bizarre experiment". He announced, that he will keep the case "under observation" and promised to report back on a later stage. This announcement has provoked a number of questions in the broader community with regard to a "New Observation Model", based an a "New Observation Protocol" (NOP). Bill Drake one of the activists in the civil society movement, has identified the NOP issues as a new dangerous threat to the Global Internet Community as a whole. He has announced to launch a counter campaign under "stopnopnow.com". He also proposed to organize a first conference for strategy building with regard to the new challenge, which came for the majority of Internet stakeholders in general and even the listmembers in particular as a big surpise. Nevertheless, Bill Drake´s initiative already generated support. In the shadow of governmental ignorance (sic!), an "Interim Ad Hoc Committee" (IAHC) has started to draft a first outline for the proposed conference which is planned now for end of February 2007, in Trinidad. Robert Guerra meanwhile was succesful, as he wrote, "to convince an anonymous funder who is willing to fund participation of up to 400 participants from Antarctica who were profiled in the March of the Penguin." Attached is the first draft. Speakers are not yet confirmed. Please add your comments. 1st Internatioal Conference on "Global Internet for Global Observation" (GIGO I) Trinidad, February, 29, 2007 Draft Agenda (open for Discussion) 9.00 - 9.30 Opening and Welcome Speech Return to the Future by Challenging NOP: GIGO in the 21st Century N.N., Ministry for Crucial Communication, Republic of Trinidad & Tobago (to be found) 9.30 - 11.00: Theoretical Dimensions The formation of a Global Alliance for a GIGO Task Force (GAGITAFO): Design, Mandate and Modalities Prof. Milton Mueller, GIGO Project Group NOP Theories in the GIGO Context Jeanette Hofmann, GIGO Research Center Freedom for Observation (FFO) vs. Freedom from Observation (FFO): Human Rights on the Move Rikke Joergensen, Institute against Observation Rights Do we need Gigozens? An Asian Perspective Izumi Aizu, GIGO Task Force Japan >From NOP to NIP: How the "New Observation Protocol" (NOP) can be enhanced towards a "New Investigation Protocol" (NIP) Virtual Presentation by the Unknown Researcher (bring your own PPP) 11.00 - 11.15 Coffee 11.15 - 12.30 Practical Dimensions Vertical Issues: Country Reports by Cuba, Syria, Iran, Northern Korea Moderator: GIGOs without Borders Horizontal Issues: Project Reports by KGB, CIA, MFS, BND Moderator: GIGO Watch 12.30 - 14.00 Luncheon Speech live from Geneva: The Man off the Street: Why I had Lunch and did not return the second Day? 20 minutes reserved for Q&A 14.00 - 16.00: Governmental Dimensions: Authorization of the Publication of NOPs and NIPs in the GIGO Root Representative of the DoC (nominated after termination of the MoU) Can Bird Flu Stop NOP? Five Questions, Three Answers and Seven Sub-Points Representative of the Previous Presidency of the European Union (to be nominated after infection) Do we need a Voluntary Digital GIGO Solidarity Fund? Representative of the G -37 (to be nominated by the representative of the Vice-Presidency of the extended seventh Preparatory Committee for the initial launch of the VDGSF/PrepCom-VIIbis) 16.00 - 18.00: Looking Forward Structural challenge for Follow Up and Implementation: Bilateral Relationships in a Triangular Environment and the Execution of Multistakholderism in the Formation of Sub Working Groups of the GIGO-Task Force Bertrand de la Chapelle, GIGO-Online GIGO Governance: Why Stakeholders should play with Rights and Responsibilities? Vice-Spokesperson of the International Chamber of Corporations in the GIGO World (ICC-GIGO) GIGO, NOP & NIP: Virtual Reality or Real Virtuality? A Provocation in Blue N.N., Videostream from the Deep Caribean Sea Do we Need Gender Balance in the GIGO Brand? Karen Banks, Association for Balanced Gigoism (ABG) Cluster Building in the Process of Re-Definition: Agenda for Action Dr. Bill Drake, Chair of the American Radical Professionals Against NOP (ARPANOP) Proposals for the Establishment of an International Council for Advanced NOPs and NIPs (ICANN) Veni Markowski, GIGO Bulgaria 20.00 Get Together with Lottery (by invitation only) 1st Price: Full set of biometric data of the forthcoming Chairman of the GIGO Task Force 2nd Price: Digital Foto of the left Eye of the Moderator of the NOP Discussion list 3rd Price: Fingerprints from 10 governmental delegates attending IGF I (Make your own Choice) THIS IS A SECURITY ANNOUNCMENT: THE WHOLE STORY IS JUST FOR FUN . _______________________________________________ mmwg mailing list mmwg at wsis-cs.org http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Mar 6 11:53:54 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 19:53:54 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Project Receives Ford Foundation Grant In-Reply-To: <440C3F44.3030909@lists.privaterra.org> References: <440C3F44.3030909@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: On 3/6/06, Robert Guerra wrote: > > > For those of you who might not have seen this already .... below is news > on a funding development regarding key people involved in the Caucus. > Congrats. Yes, yes, well done! Though, I am concerned that there's no mention of a development focus - > a key aspect in the WSIS process. Yes, but while WSIS was supposed to be about development, it was mainly about IG. IGP is supposed to be about IG, not development. However, I have a project that needs 170k to break the current paradigm of high interconnection costs in Africa. Perhaps Milton, et. al. in IGP would like to help get something done instead of just talkin about it?? Whaddya say Milton, wanna buy a satelittle hub? I can get it for 170k (it's a demo model) instead of the retail 750k. It will bring connectivity costs down by ~ 40% all over Africa. Can't say fairier than that! ;-) -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Mar 6 12:07:26 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 20:07:26 +0300 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3 options] In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: On 3/6/06, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > Hi all, > > > Finally, to comment on Bill's options, I think his 'status quo' > option, which seems to gain the larger - expressed - preference, > doesn't include the key role of nominating CS people to the IGF (I > mean further to people nominated on behalf of this specific caucus). > I think Bill is right on this. Why would ppl need to be nominated to the IGF? It's the IGF PC (or whatever) that folk may need to be nominated for. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Mon Mar 6 12:33:14 2006 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 12:33:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Project Receives Ford Foundation Grant In-Reply-To: <91AFC95D-2F8E-40C0-9A73-068FB367D1F7@ras.eu.org> References: <440C3F44.3030909@lists.privaterra.org> <91AFC95D-2F8E-40C0-9A73-068FB367D1F7@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060306122852.057bf6d0@veni.com> At 03:24 PM 06.3.2006 '?.' +0100, Meryem Marzouki wrote: >Forgot to add that, with my previous message on existing CS >organization which could apply for funding for an IGC-related project >(Re: Veni's (not)for profit incorporation wishes), I haven't meant >that those who have applied for (and have been granted) funding for >their own activities on internet governance (not internet governance >caucus) would have to share this money with anyone asking. Though I >wouldn't refuse a drink next time we meet to celebrate this news... My point was exactly that - there are several organizations that are being funded for different IG projects. That includes ISOC-Bulgaria, by the way. But if we were to unite efforts, we could achieve much more, than individually working in the same field. Anyway, I am not promoting this idea anymore. veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Mar 6 13:06:40 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 19:06:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3 options] In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <3DA2872B-ABEB-45C7-8177-2E0C961D88DF@ras.eu.org> Le 6 mars 06 à 18:07, McTim a écrit : > > On 3/6/06, Meryem Marzouki wrote: Hi all, > > > Finally, to comment on Bill's options, I think his 'status quo' > option, which seems to gain the larger - expressed - preference, > doesn't include the key role of nominating CS people to the IGF (I > mean further to people nominated on behalf of this specific caucus). > I think Bill is right on this. > > > Why would ppl need to be nominated to the IGF? It's the IGF PC (or > whatever) that folk may need to be nominated for. That's right. But there will be for sure people to be nominated at some session or round-table (or any other restricted opportunity to speak), in more formalized venues than the IGF consultation meeting. It frequently happens.. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Mon Mar 6 13:08:39 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 19:08:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Project Receives Ford Foundation Grant In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060306122852.057bf6d0@veni.com> References: <440C3F44.3030909@lists.privaterra.org> <91AFC95D-2F8E-40C0-9A73-068FB367D1F7@ras.eu.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20060306122852.057bf6d0@veni.com> Message-ID: <027C87BD-783F-4965-8F43-642D82907D26@ras.eu.org> Le 6 mars 06 à 18:33, veni markovski a écrit : > > My point was exactly that - there are several organizations that are > being funded for different IG projects. Exactly: 'different' > [...] But if we were to unite efforts, we could achieve much > more, than individually working in the same field. Humm... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Mon Mar 6 15:21:48 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 15:21:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Project Receives Ford Foundation Grant Message-ID: >>> McTim 3/6/2006 11:53:54 AM >>> >>Though, I am concerned that there's no mention of a development focus - >> a key aspect in the WSIS process. >IGP is supposed to be about IG, not development. Exactly. The two intersect, of course. But they are not the same. And IGP's agenda is set by what is happening or needs to happen in Internet governance, not by "the WSIS process" per se. >However, I have a project that needs 170k to break the >current paradigm of high interconnection costs in Africa. >Perhaps Milton, et. al. in IGP would like to help get something >done instead of just talkin about it?? >Whaddya say Milton, wanna buy a satelittle hub? We do, of course, want to get something done, but becoming a telecom carrier in Africa is not the kind of task IGP is set up to do. Don't undervalue the importance of "talk" by the way; once you get your satellite hub you'll have to do a lot of it before certain people let you use it. ;-) >It will bring connectivity costs down by ~ 40% all over >Africa. Can't say fairier than that! ;-) Fairier? As in, more Tinkerbell than thou? Anyway, if an investment of only $170,000 can do that, I'm interested inl helping. (But not as IGP). Undercutting the rates of telecom monopolies is something that gives me great personal pleasure. I suspect, however, that by the time you finance ongoing operations, gain license and regulatory approvals, conclude negotiations with ISPs and obtain interconnections, etc., another zero or two would have to be added to the budget. Let's go offlist and talk business models of you're serious. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From cnd at knowprose.com Tue Mar 7 00:48:58 2006 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 23:48:58 -0600 Subject: [governance] Annan to establish international forum on internet governance In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060305102818.04ef4c40@veni.com> References: <1141397656.7302.97.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060303154626.27224.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060305102818.04ef4c40@veni.com> Message-ID: <440D1ECA.6060802@knowprose.com> Veni Markovski wrote: > At 07:46 AM 03.3.2006 '?.' -0800, Danny Younger wrote: > >> At the ICANN Board level consensus no longer matters. >> This attitude renders independent evaluations (such as >> the GNSO Review being conducted by the London School >> of Economics) as irrelevant. The ICANN Board will >> simply do whatever it wants to do regardless of >> informed advice or community consensus. >> > > That's a very brave statement, but I am afraid it's not quite > precise. You build asumption on your reading of facts. They can be > read differently. > For the record, I agree with Danny (and Vittorio) on this. Certainly, explaining it away as 'building assumption on your reading of facts' is true, but the argument is easily reversible. ICANN is just as guilty of the same at a meta level in aspects of non-technical matters. Giving credit for the technical side needs to balance that - I think ICANN has been doing a wonderful technical job, but even so it needs to be balanced with a 'wonderful' on the building of consensus. This is not a criticism of people, this is a criticism of structure as defined by the antiquated structures which ICANN has to deal with and be a part of. Still, if you want to say that there will be change, one must start somewhere. By the nature of the structure of ICANN, crude estimations are possible but implausible, despite the creation of various boards. What I find profoundly inadequate are the very boards themselves when ICANN can - if it chooses - give every interested party a choice without all the human filters in between. It's amazing how distillation can be used to refine things such as alcohol, but if you're looking for water and the apparatus is set for alcohol, don't be surprised if you get a hangover from the clear fluid you drink. -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago cnd at knowprose.com Looking for contracts/work! http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786 New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Mar 7 04:14:04 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 14:44:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200603070911.k279BKtD053346@trout.cpsr.org> >May I remind here that HR also include economic, social and cultural >rights, and the right to development, not only civil and political >rights (Meryem) Milton wrote: >>I don't understand the relevance of this. You don't need to introduce >>ideological debates about what "rights" are in order to justify a role for >>HR - or any other caucus - in IGC. (I myself have no idea what a "right to >>development" is. I picture a group of people sitting on the ground and >>refusing to work, waiting for their economy to develop because they have a >>"right" to it.) Of course HR is a significant factor in global governance, >>and specifically Internet governance. >>>> Milton, I am sorry to say this, but your rubbishing of the 'right to development' is alarming for someone who often leads CS interventions in IG consultations. And ideological debates are not un-necessary - they are the very basis of what we are doing here. The de-politicizing of IG debates is the reason of much of the exclusion (or keeping away) of many actors from these lists/ discussion spaces. >>I've read it. It still misses the point: development is a _product_ of >>successful policies, not a "right" which can be claimed or asserted >>against other social actors. If a society chooses the wrong policies - >>policies which waste economic resources, misallocate resources, thwart >>human capabilities, destroy potentialities, etc. - they won't develop. No >>assertion of a "right" will change that. >>>> Which 'right' is not the result of successful policies...!!!! And even if result of successful policies, as you say, how would one ensure, enforce, those policies...... That's where the language of rights come in... And the right of development should be 'enforceable' by individuals and communities against all kinds of political entities - from nation states, to global systems. That was what we have been trying to do at WSIS, but you seem to have very different views..... And you have mentioned some policy issues in development but not the issue of redistribution policies, (which is a big part of every developed country's social system as well). And your list of options show a very specific view of development, which is NOT ideologically-neutral. Though it is the long-standing tactic of this particular ideology to present itself in ideology neutral terms. So many of us (I am sure its the majority) were at WSIS, and got into IG issues, for no other reason but for assertion of rights and progressive ideologies, and the right of development is one of the main focuses. So when one gets faced with such trashing of these rights - and their long fought for and long established formulation - one begins to wonder what is it that one is doing here. And what are the common grounds over which we all here are trying to work together. What is it that we really share to be working as a group. At no other CS forum or grouping at global advocacy level have I seen such a lack of clarity on the bare minimum basic unifying ideological issues. And this brings me to the issue of structure of the forum. While I agree with the majority that status quo is the best option, we still need to have some clarity on basic unifying common grounds for us to work together as a group. And just the multi-stakeholder principle, an issue which begs the question - MSP for what, cannot by itself be the unifying principle. This is a 'status quo plus a bit more' option for IGC structure, but I think this is an important bit. This bit is important for the IGC to be effective and, it is important for everyone to know what minimums are taken as given and agreed among us, as a group. Some views have been expressed on this list in the last few days to the effect that we need to discuss some imp IG issues at times other than when we are hurrying to make a submission - so that we are more prepared when the time comes for interventions. I think this is quite necessary. For one, the very imp March end deadline isn't far away, and IGC should be tossing around possible issues that can be submitted to the formal process around the IGF as priority issues. Best Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 12:08 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; marzouki at ras.eu.org Subject: Re: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus >>> Meryem Marzouki 3/3/2006 8:11 AM >>> >A good idea may be to stop picturing and start reading. An entry >point may be found there: http://www.unhchr.ch/development/right.html I've read it. It still misses the point: development is a _product_ of successful policies, not a "right" which can be claimed or asserted against other social actors. If a society chooses the wrong policies - policies which waste economic resources, misallocate resources, thwart human capabilities, destroy potentialities, etc. - they won't develop. No assertion of a "right" will change that. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Mar 7 04:45:10 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 15:15:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] ITU reform (Was WSIS: Golden Book) In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.0.20060303170646.01e47810@gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <200603070942.k279gQx1053632@trout.cpsr.org> Dear Karen, It will certainly be useful for CS to raise this issue - of open access to the content produced by ITU - more formally and more forcefully, now especially when ITU also seems to be taking notice. Bill Drake also suggested that CS does a sign-on letter on this issue. In which context you think can this submission be made. Shd we just address a letter to ITU chief, or put in a submission to the Doha meeting. And I understand that the online consultation on ITU reform is still on, and accepting comments. I can try and prepare a statement if there is enough support for submitting such a statement. Regards Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of karen banks Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 10:40 PM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ITU reform (Was WSIS: Golden Book) [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people] Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message! _______________________________________ hi >It would be fun to look straight into Mr Utsumi's face to observe his >reaction while asking him about the Creative Commons' practices of ITU... :) yes! - but on this note, parminder raised this issue prior to the ITU reform meeting it would seem a useful thing for civil society fo followup on.. remembering the small indication that they were listening.. (in relation to 5.3 in any case, 5.2 lesser, 5.1 no - points below) parminder - would you be interested in drafting something that folks could sign onto if they agreed? karen ---- The summary made by the Chairman of the ITU meeting on reform is now at: http://www.itu.int/council/wsis/Working_Group _on_WSIS/Feb-2006/docs/summary_of_the_itu_reform_meeting.doc On openness there are the following statements: "5. Membership, access and openness "5.1. ITU is sufficiently open because legal entities can become ITU Sector Members or Associates. Technical workshops are open to individuals and external organizations. "5.2. ITU's approach to membership could be adapted to create more openness in the post WSIS environment to benefit from the knowledge of civil society about local conditions. The consequences of ITU decisions are very important to civil society as well as to the private sector. "5.3. ITU publications and standards should be freely available for downloads." _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing list Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Tue Mar 7 05:15:21 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 11:15:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] ITU reform (Was WSIS: Golden Book) In-Reply-To: <20060307094513.22C974CB8B@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, I'd think the first thing to do would be to get up to speed on where the conversation is within the ITU. This is a very long-running debate, and there have been recent proposals by some member governments to make ITU standards and some other materials freely available (not sure the format issue has been addressed), so it's already a live topic the secretariat is looking at. An optimal letter would be aware of/positioned within that context. Never hurts to give a nod toward the esteemed delegation of country xyz etc. It wouldn't hurt to submit the letter via the online forum, just for the record, but probably few member governments or firms are bothering to look there anymore. Maybe they will before the Council meeting. Either way, I'd also submit it directly to the SG and perhaps copy the heads of SPU, external relations, and the sections. I'm leaving town in a couple of hours but would be happy to follow up on this with you and others from next week. Cheers, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On > Behalf Of Parminder > > Dear Karen, > > It will certainly be useful for CS to raise this issue - of open access to > the content produced by ITU - more formally and more forcefully, now > especially when ITU also seems to be taking notice. Bill Drake also > suggested that CS does a sign-on letter on this issue. > > In which context you think can this submission be made. Shd we > just address > a letter to ITU chief, or put in a submission to the Doha meeting. And I > understand that the online consultation on ITU reform is still on, and > accepting comments. > > I can try and prepare a statement if there is enough support for > submitting > such a statement. > > Regards > > Parminder > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > 91-80-26654134 > www.ITforChange.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org > [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf > Of karen banks > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 10:40 PM > To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org > Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ITU reform (Was WSIS: Golden Book) > > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. > Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for > specific people] > > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of > this message! > _______________________________________ > > hi > > >It would be fun to look straight into Mr Utsumi's face to observe his > >reaction while asking him about the Creative Commons' practices of ITU... > :) > > yes! - but on this note, parminder raised this issue prior to the ITU > reform meeting > > it would seem a useful thing for civil society fo followup on.. > remembering the small indication that they were listening.. (in > relation to 5.3 in any case, 5.2 lesser, 5.1 no - points below) > > parminder - would you be interested in drafting something that folks > could sign onto if they agreed? > > karen > ---- > > The summary made by the Chairman of the ITU meeting on reform is now at: > > > http://www.itu.int/council/wsis/Working_Group _on_WSIS/Feb-2006/docs/summary_of_the_itu_reform_meeting.doc On openness there are the following statements: "5. Membership, access and openness "5.1. ITU is sufficiently open because legal entities can become ITU Sector Members or Associates. Technical workshops are open to individuals and external organizations. "5.2. ITU's approach to membership could be adapted to create more openness in the post WSIS environment to benefit from the knowledge of civil society about local conditions. The consequences of ITU decisions are very important to civil society as well as to the private sector. "5.3. ITU publications and standards should be freely available for downloads." _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing list Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing list Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Tue Mar 7 11:54:52 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 11:54:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline Message-ID: >>> "Parminder" 3/7/2006 4:14 AM >>> >Milton, I am sorry to say this, but your rubbishing of the 'right to >development' is alarming for someone who often leads CS interventions >in IG consultations. Parminder I think it's healthy for you, especially, to be confronted with some honest and well-considered challenges to your ideological viewpoints. Let's be clear. Development is a good thing. The issue is how to get there. I am challenging the notion that asserting a "right to development" contributes to development in any meaningful way. I haven't heard any convincing arguments from you to the contrary, yet. And -- sorry -- I am not going to let you substitute moral posturing for clear thinking. >And ideological debates are not un-necessary - they are the very basis of >what we are doing here. The de-politicizing of IG debates is the reason of >much of the exclusion (or keeping away) of many actors from these lists/ >discussion spaces. My friend, we are having an ideological debate, right now. And it is you who are attempting to short-circuit serious debate by implying that my comments are outside the proper bounds of civil society discourse. By all means, let us have an ideological debate. Don't accuse me of being the obstacle. >And the right of development should be 'enforceable' by individuals and >communities against all kinds of political entities - from nation states, to >global systems. That was what we have been trying to do at WSIS, but you >seem to have very different views..... Perhaps you could give me a specific example of how a right to development would be claimed, adjudicated and enforced. I suspect you will have a difficult time. I understand what it means when, e.g., indigenous people claim that their lands should not be expropriated or polluted, but these are not "development rights" but simple assertions of property rights. I understand what enforcing such a right would mean: return of the lands to their rightful owners/stewards, or cessation of the pollution, etc. I understand what it means when people claim that they should not be imprisoned for political dissent, or held in jails without due process, habeus corpus and other well-established procedural rights. I understand what enforcing such a right would mean: release from prison; avoidance of interference with their expression, adherence to procedural standards, etc. I understand what it means when people claim that protecting copyright or patent rights are inimical to the development of certain LDCs. I understand the counter-claims as well (that failure to protect those rights will reduce investment in technology). Whatever side you take on that question, framing the issue as a debate over "rights" makes sense, and it is clear how the rights would be asserted and enforced. Please tell me, if someone in a poor country, say Sudan, petitions a nation state (or something as vague as a "global system") for their "right to development" what are they petitioning for? who will give it to them? Is it a change in the government's monetary policy? An increase or decrease in the state's budget or debt? More investment in education? or should that money be placed in science and technology? Are they saying that the current pricing of energy should be changed? Up or down--which price movement will have better long-term consequences for the development of the economy? All such changes would affect a society's development. All would interact in complex ways. Or is the right to development just a request for a bag of cash? Is that all you mean? If so, is that really "development," or just a static transfer of wealth? If you give the bag of cash to that person, what about the other 800 million people who'd also like one? Where does the cash come from? What other activities, investments, people will it be taken away from? Are you sure you have enough to supply alll the claimed "development" rights? What if some of the people who get the bag of cash handle it unwisely? Do they get to petition for another one, based on their right to development? How will the people who saved theirs and made it grow react to that? Really, I am quite curious to learn more about how a "right to development" is articulated, claimed and enforced. Perhaps you can fill me in with some specifics. >What is it that we really share to be working as a group. >At no other CS forum or grouping at global advocacy level have I >seen such a lack of clarity on the bare minimum basic unifying ideological >issues. If you want to claim the mantle of "civil society" you'd better get used to the idea that _real_ CS is vast and diverse - ideologically as well as culturally, politically, etc. Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Mar 7 14:26:25 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 20:26:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Milton, If you genuinely want to understand what the "right to development" is - and till now I've considered that trying to "picture" it the way you did in previous messages is not a good starting point for discussion or even for request for more information -, then you may start by understanding the historical framework of HR, that there are what is called "generations" of HR: - 1st generation (roughly, civil and political rights) are rights of the _individual_ vis-a-vis the power (now the state or the government). - 2nd generation (roughly, economic, social and cultural rights) are more _collective_ rights, and are sometimes referred to as "claim- rights". Rather than being affirmed against the power, they need the positive intervention of the state (through dedicated public policies, specially in the economic and social fields) to be realized. 2nd generation because they are supposed to ensure the actual benefit of 1st generation rights. - 3rd generation (like the "right to development", "right to peace and security", "right to a sustainable environment", "rights to peoples' self-determination", etc. - not all of them necessarily formally recognized by a UN declaration) are rather seen as _solidarity_ rights, and most of the time intended neither as rights of an individual, nor rights of a group of individuals identified by their economic/social status (e.g. workers), but as rights of communities or peoples (e.g. indigeneous peoples), supposed to create the necessary conditions for the implementation of 1st and 2nd generation rights). Yes, there is a debate on this concept of "3rd generation rights", with, roughly speaking, those who think they are rights (like 1st and 2nd generation rights) and other who think they are political demands (some may even call them "ideological"...). Both categories have pros and cons, and it can reasonably be argued that recognized "rights" have started by being only "political demands". In any case, they are by no mean a right that someone could claim for himself against a State. In this sense, it is meaningless to talk about "someone in a poor country, say Sudan, [who] petitions a nation state (or something as vague as a "global system") for their "right to development"". It remains that the "right to development" has been formally universally recognized (cf. the link I provided to you in a previous message). And that, if we ever want to discuss (on this list) how an IG decision is compliant or not with the "right to development", then it would be interesting to ask ourselves questions like e.g. how telecom interconnection costs between different parts of the world impact the development of a given part of the world, and whether this is compliant with the (State binding) right to development. If we find, by chance, that this is not entirely compliant, then we may find here an international legal basis to put the issue on the table (I haven't said that this will solve the problem: if it was enough to declare a right, sign on it and be bound by it to respect it, we would have been aware of this). Sorry about the language which is certainly not the right one here: I don't feel comfortable enough in English when discussing these matters/field, and I'm not sure all this makes sense, as it is mainly roughly translated from my French thoughts... Meryem Le 7 mars 06 à 17:54, Milton Mueller a écrit : > >>>> "Parminder" 3/7/2006 4:14 AM >>> >> Milton, I am sorry to say this, but your rubbishing of the 'right to >> development' is alarming for someone who often leads CS interventions >> in IG consultations. > > Parminder I think it's healthy for you, especially, to be > confronted with some honest and well-considered challenges to your > ideological viewpoints. > > Let's be clear. Development is a good thing. The issue is how to > get there. I am challenging the notion that asserting a "right to > development" contributes to development in any meaningful way. I > haven't heard any convincing arguments from you to the contrary, > yet. And -- sorry -- I am not going to let you substitute moral > posturing for clear thinking. > >> And ideological debates are not un-necessary - they are the very >> basis of >> what we are doing here. The de-politicizing of IG debates is the >> reason of >> much of the exclusion (or keeping away) of many actors from these >> lists/ >> discussion spaces. > > My friend, we are having an ideological debate, right now. And it > is you who are attempting to short-circuit serious debate by > implying that my comments are outside the proper bounds of civil > society discourse. By all means, let us have an ideological debate. > Don't accuse me of being the obstacle. > >> And the right of development should be 'enforceable' by >> individuals and >> communities against all kinds of political entities - from nation >> states, to >> global systems. That was what we have been trying to do at WSIS, >> but you >> seem to have very different views..... > > Perhaps you could give me a specific example of how a right to > development would be claimed, adjudicated and enforced. I suspect > you will have a difficult time. > > I understand what it means when, e.g., indigenous people claim that > their lands should not be expropriated or polluted, but these are > not "development rights" but simple assertions of property rights. > I understand what enforcing such a right would mean: return of the > lands to their rightful owners/stewards, or cessation of the > pollution, etc. > > I understand what it means when people claim that they should not > be imprisoned for political dissent, or held in jails without due > process, habeus corpus and other well-established procedural > rights. I understand what enforcing such a right would mean: > release from prison; avoidance of interference with their > expression, adherence to procedural standards, etc. > > I understand what it means when people claim that protecting > copyright or patent rights are inimical to the development of > certain LDCs. I understand the counter-claims as well (that failure > to protect those rights will reduce investment in technology). > Whatever side you take on that question, framing the issue as a > debate over "rights" makes sense, and it is clear how the rights > would be asserted and enforced. > > Please tell me, if someone in a poor country, say Sudan, petitions > a nation state (or something as vague as a "global system") for > their "right to development" what are they petitioning for? who > will give it to them? > > Is it a change in the government's monetary policy? An increase or > decrease in the state's budget or debt? More investment in > education? or should that money be placed in science and > technology? Are they saying that the current pricing of energy > should be changed? Up or down--which price movement will have > better long-term consequences for the development of the economy? > All such changes would affect a society's development. All would > interact in complex ways. > > Or is the right to development just a request for a bag of cash? Is > that all you mean? If so, is that really "development," or just a > static transfer of wealth? If you give the bag of cash to that > person, what about the other 800 million people who'd also like > one? Where does the cash come from? What other activities, > investments, people will it be taken away from? Are you sure you > have enough to supply alll the claimed "development" rights? What > if some of the people who get the bag of cash handle it unwisely? > Do they get to petition for another one, based on their right to > development? How will the people who saved theirs and made it grow > react to that? > > Really, I am quite curious to learn more about how a "right to > development" is articulated, claimed and enforced. Perhaps you can > fill me in with some specifics. > >> What is it that we really share to be working as a group. >> At no other CS forum or grouping at global advocacy level have I >> seen such a lack of clarity on the bare minimum basic unifying >> ideological >> issues. > > If you want to claim the mantle of "civil society" you'd better get > used to the idea that _real_ CS is vast and diverse - ideologically > as well as culturally, politically, etc. > > > > > > Dr. Milton Mueller > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://www.digital-convergence.org > http://www.internetgovernance.org > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Mar 8 10:27:29 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 16:27:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <1141831649.11621.83.camel@localhost.localdomain> Il giorno mar, 07/03/2006 alle 20.26 +0100, Meryem Marzouki ha scritto: > - 1st generation (roughly, civil and political rights) are rights of > the _individual_ vis-a-vis the power (now the state or the government). > - 2nd generation (roughly, economic, social and cultural rights) are > more _collective_ rights, and are sometimes referred to as "claim- > rights". Rather than being affirmed against the power, they need the > positive intervention of the state (through dedicated public > policies, specially in the economic and social fields) to be > realized. 2nd generation because they are supposed to ensure the > actual benefit of 1st generation rights. > - 3rd generation (like the "right to development", "right to peace > and security", "right to a sustainable environment", "rights to > peoples' self-determination", etc. - not all of them necessarily > formally recognized by a UN declaration) are rather seen as > _solidarity_ rights, and most of the time intended neither as rights > of an individual, nor rights of a group of individuals identified by > their economic/social status (e.g. workers), but as rights of > communities or peoples (e.g. indigeneous peoples), supposed to create > the necessary conditions for the implementation of 1st and 2nd > generation rights). This is going to be quite an ideological discussion (finally, I agree we need some). However, I'll start by saying that it's unlikely that we will ever reach agreement among all of us on ideological matters, and I think that civil society works better by temporary "variable geometry" alliances on specific proposals, than by ideological cohesion. So none of us should take an ideology (whatever it is) and try to push it as if it was "the ideas of civil society" or "what's right for civil society". > Yes, there is a debate on this concept of "3rd generation rights", > with, roughly speaking, those who think they are rights (like 1st and > 2nd generation rights) Actually, just to offer some reality check, in many developed countries many wouldn't agree even on what you call "2nd generation rights" (at least in practical policy decisions - high sounding words are another matter, of course). Workers' protection, pensions, spending on public health and education are continuously decreasing, and "the positive intervention of the state" is something that even Communist Parties almost don't dare to mention any more. So I'm not sure whether you are affirming that these "three generation of rights" are to be given for granted, as a matter of fact accepted by everyone (or even just everyone in CS), or whether this is your personal view of the matter and you would like civil society as a whole to embrace your ideas. My understanding would be the latter. > It remains that the "right to development" has been formally > universally recognized (cf. the link I provided to you in a previous > message). And that, if we ever want to discuss (on this list) how an > IG decision is compliant or not with the "right to development", then > it would be interesting to ask ourselves questions like e.g. how > telecom interconnection costs between different parts of the world > impact the development of a given part of the world, and whether this > is compliant with the (State binding) right to development. This is another interesting point: a specific country might subscribe to a "right to development", but, from a legal standpoint, does that bind a multinational corporation, in which cases, and how? This becomes even more difficult as there is no practical definition of what that means: I agree that Internet interconnection costs are a hurdle to development and should be reframed, but if, by absurd, telcos were forced to give free connectivity to LDCs, are you sure that that would help development? Wouldn't that just end up in telcos providing free connectivity of such a bad quality that no one would actually use it, or in preventing investments since no one could ever return from them? So even if you agree that a right to development exists, how do you decide what that means in practice, and what's the best thing to do to support development, and whether that involves more "intervention of the state" or rather less of it? Thanks, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From cnd at knowprose.com Wed Mar 8 13:12:29 2006 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 12:12:29 -0600 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <440F1E8D.3020802@knowprose.com> I've been reading this closely and considering it... comments are inline, with a lot of stuff snipped out. I like finite emails. :-) Milton Mueller wrote: > Development is a good thing. The issue is how to get there. Splitting a hair here that I think is important: Development is not a destination, it is a process. I believe treating the speed of the process - the speed of development - as the focal issue instead of a moving snapshot allows for more creative solutions within the bounds of humanity (which includes technology and ideology, as well as other things that are so numerous that we lump them in with 'humanity' and pray that nobody confuses us with the truth). > I am challenging the notion that asserting a "right to development" contributes to development in any meaningful way. Perhaps if we see 'right of development' as, instead, 'right to increase the speed of the process of development within the context of the affected people', we could see how such a Right contributes to development. When the founding Fathers of the United States wrote, 'pursuit of life, liberty and justice' - a very open ended phrase - one could say that development is derivative since liberty would be served by the process of development. I don't know any group out there that would say that they would like to work harder instead of smarter, which means that there would be more liberty. While that's the United States as it was founded (and not necessarily the United States now), perhaps that ideology which drove the U.S. Constitution and asserted rights which themselves caused war within the United States itself... maybe it isn't limited to the United States and never was. The UN Humanitarian Charter is pretty clear along the same lines. By enabling the Rights of Human Beings, by Acknowledging these Rights, we cannot disregard the associated derivative Rights of Society, and therefore the derivative Rights of Societies withing the greater society of Global Society. I believe... as I believe others do... that one does not have to move ahead by pushing others down. That is a principle of Freedom. I am Free, as long as I do not adversely affect the Freedom of Others. Therefore, I am Free to Develop as long as I do not Adversely Affect the Freedom of Others. Therefore, any Society I belong to which claims Civility is Free to Develop as long as it does not Adversely Affect the Freedom of Other Societies. One cannot adversely affect the Freedom of Other Societies within the Global Society without an equal and opposing reaction force. That is why humanity started off with blunt objects, proceeded to sharp and pointy objects, then projectiles, and even now anticoagulant, ball bearings, fertilizer and a carbon based life form. When Freedoms are affected adversely, people react in ways that only an opposing thumb can allow. Therefore, if we want Peace then we as members of a global society need to recognize that our Freedom is curtailed by any adverse effect on other people's Freedoms, which includes the Process of Development, which by Right of Freedom creates the derivative Right to Development. Development is not a standalone process. It is a part of larger processes. In fact, development could be called a process of streamlining other processes. Moral posturing and clear thinking are not necessarily separate things... we should be careful when dealing with others in a global society not to think the two, because they may be separate in our minds, are separate in anyone else's. One mindset tends to separate things such that people who say the world is round go to prison, and people who can explain how the Space Shuttle blew up have to do so through demonstrations on television in public instead of formal documents. Many of the world's recognized scientists have established that science without morality is bad; we could say the same of anything else - including the process of development - which includes the Freedom to streamline the processes of development. >> And the right of development should be 'enforceable' by individuals and >> communities against all kinds of political entities - from nation states, to >> global systems. That was what we have been trying to do at WSIS, but you >> seem to have very different views..... >> > > Perhaps you could give me a specific example of how a right to development would be claimed, adjudicated and enforced. I suspect you will have a difficult time. You're getting to the crux of the bureaucratic problem. It's only a problem of bureaucracy, so do not be alarmed - it just requires an unbureaucratic solution. I'll take a shot at it. If I stand on your hand so that you cannot type, I have used my Freedom of movement to adversely affect your Freedom of movement. There are Laws around the world which would charge me with assault - why? Because I would be adversely affecting you. Would I be the one to complain? Of course not, unless it is uncomfortable to stand on your hand. You would complain. And who would you complain to? Probably anyone who would listen. I might stand on your other hand so that you could not make a phone call. I might gag you so that you cannot scream. But if nobody can hear you complain, does that make my actions morally proper? Of course not. Does it make your misery more bearable? No, of course not - in fact, probably the reverse would be true. In fact, at some point (depending on how much indignity you will take) you will try to retaliate, perhaps kicking at me - so I may tie your legs and create a human pedestal out of you such that I am more comfortable. Yet there are laws that assert that you have the right to not be tied up. When it comes to development, the same is true. Precedents are a dangerous thing in that most precedents include some form of bondage of Freedom. So, I think we can agree that if I were to do these things it would be morally reprehensible. And, until a few centuries ago, it was legal. Slavery still exists, but it is seen as illegal. How can we allow entire societies to be bound and tied, used as pedestals, and say, "It's too hard to ajudicate and enforce these morals! Run away!" No, there is a Right, and if there are those that wish to ignore the Rights of Human Beings and their Societies, then I can think of a few choice planets that they could move to. If we wish to live here, in peace, we have to recognize the Freedom of the Human Being and the Freedom of Human Societies. And recognizing them implies ajudication and enforcement. And that means hearing out problems, and reacting such that adverse effects are treated *as* Adverse Effects instead of Unpleasantries to Continue The Position of Those Who Benefit. If anyone wishes for a demonstration, please drop by and I'll gladly gag you, tie you up and stand on your hands with combat boots until you understand the Societal frustration associated with not recognizing your Human Rights - I'd see it as a service to Humanity that I would be performing. To say that Humans have rights but their Societies have no Rights is as foolish as making people ride on the back of the bus over their color, or tossing scientists in jail because they take on the Church, suicide bombers, telling people they cannot vote because of differences in genitalia (or use of genitalia, for that matter), or - my personal favorite - killing each other with weapons while using religious texts as shields. > I understand what it means when, e.g., indigenous people claim that their lands should not be expropriated or polluted, but these are not "development rights" but simple assertions of property rights. No. Indigenous people typically do not claim Land, they claim the Right to Use the Land. They don't claim ownership of Land. Societies which claim Land as Property are forcing these 'Rights' on indigenous peoples because it's the only way that they can find to negotiate with the indigenous peoples. I can't tell you how many reservations and indigenous areas I have walked in - from Panama to Mexico, to New Mexico to Hawaii... and I was allowed to walk there not because I asserted a right, but because I did not disrespect the Land. I have the shoes I walked with still. Those shoes have gone where many will never go because they do not respect how the indigenous peoples treat the Land. This is an alien concept for stock traders; to be able to use something without owning it - oddly, 'leasing' is a move back *toward* indigenous Land concepts as convenient for people who profit from the leasing. Assertion of 'property rights'. I believe you've found yourself in the middle of defining what property rights are, and I'm not talking just about land. Patenting of Life. The Enola Bean. Any number of native Indian plants. And a lot of these 'property rights', as enacted, ajudicated and enforced, demonstrate a lack of regard for the property itself. Sort of like slavery demonstrates a lack of regard for Human Beings. And all of this... I say as someone who uses property, who owns Land... and when I die, I will pass that ownership to someone else. Why? Because of my version of Property Rights, and the fact that the Europeans did a pretty good job of clearing out native inhabitants before they 'settled' (or as I prefer, 'unsettled') the Caribbean in the name of... Ownership. Of course, I wouldn't be here without all of that. On my mother's side, the Dutch would never have mixed with the Portugese, Blackfoot, Greek, and others before that period... and my father's side would not have come to Trinidad and Tobago as indentured servants for the English... I would not have lived in what are now two colonies... but if you ask me which heritage I call mine, you will expect me to claim *ownership* of one whereas I will tell you I am a part of *all* of them. Who owns my family tree? ahh... now we're getting somewhere. :-) > I understand what enforcing such a right would mean: return of the lands to their rightful owners/stewards, or cessation of the pollution, etc. > Steward is more appropriate, it demonstrates a lean in the right direction of what most indigenous people would consider to be their role. By indigenous people, I rule out those of indigenous heritage who are orphaned from their own culture(s). > Please tell me, if someone in a poor country, say Sudan, petitions a nation state (or something as vague as a "global system") for their "right to development" what are they petitioning for? who will give it to them? > Nobody. They must take it. It's called sovereignty. Lessening the adverse affects of claiming sovereignty is in the interest of everyone, yet there are a few who benefit from these adverse effects and when they drive process, we get what we've had for millenia. > > If you want to claim the mantle of "civil society" you'd better get used to the idea that _real_ CS is vast and diverse - ideologically as well as culturally, politically, etc. > Absolutely. And understanding what civil society is sometimes means going back to the roots instead of driving within proximity of 'those poor people', or going to a developing nation and staying in a cozy tourist hotel. If anyone wants to claim the mantle of civil society, they need to Dare to challenge their own assumptions on a daily basis. I snipped out a lot, and I apologize if anyone believes I took out something important; please point out what you think is important. I think I have. -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago cnd at knowprose.com Looking for contracts/work! http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786 New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Wed Mar 8 18:58:07 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:58:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline Message-ID: >>> Meryem Marzouki 3/7/2006 2:26 PM >>> >Sorry about the language which is certainly not the right one here: >I don't feel comfortable enough in English when discussing these >matters/field, and I'm not sure all this makes sense, as it is mainly >roughly translated from my French thoughts... No, I thought your "generational" explanation of HR thinking was quite clear, I don't know why you downplay your English capabilities. We may not connect perfectly on some of the more abstract differences, e.g. concepts of solidarity, but that could easily happen with a native English speaker! I was well aware of the first two "generations." But we tend to code them differently in the U.S. Re: first-gen rights, it is not correct in my opinion to claim that they are entirely claims against the state. My right to free expression entails a claim against any individual who would smash my computer or blow up my printing press, e.g.. These rights are claims against anyone, and to be consistent must be reciprocal and equal across all individuals. We would call the 2nd-gen HR "entitlements" rather than "rights." I, and probably many others in the U.S., put them in a different category because the ability of govts to "positively intervene" to guarantee an entitlement to, say, health care, is contingent upon and always limited by its budgetary capabilities. As such, they have to compete with other entitlements for a claim on the budget, and thus are not "rights" but political benefits doled out according to political criteria. True, long-established entitlements (e.g., Social Security benefits here) can "feel like" rights after a while, but as we are learning with our aging population, if fiscal responsibilities are ignored they can and will go away. And coming from a more libertarian political tradition, we would recognize the way in which 2G entitlements can sometimes work against, or at least create tensions with, 1st-generation individual rights. the Social Security number is the bane of privacy advocates. If you are completely dependent upon state-subsidized education, your ability to freely exercise your culture and religion may be restricted by the (perfectly legitimate) demands of other groups to have public education reflect their values or not to subsidize cultures and religions they find objectionable. If the state controls communication media, free expression rights are more likely to be compromised in democratic systems whenever majorities find minority views intolerable. So I do not share the equanimity with which you view 2nd-gen "HR" as an extension and expansion of the more basic rights. (I know that Europeans tend to view this differently, but until recently their societieis were far more homogeneous. J! ust wait.) >- 3rd generation (like the "right to development", "right to peace >and security", "right to a sustainable environment", "rights to >peoples' self-determination", etc. - not all of them necessarily >formally recognized by a UN declaration) are rather seen as >_solidarity_ rights, and most of the time intended neither as rights >of an individual, nor rights of a group of individuals identified by >their economic/social status (e.g. workers), but as rights of >communities or peoples (e.g. indigeneous peoples), supposed to create >the necessary conditions for the implementation of 1st and 2nd >generation rights). My view of these 3G "rights" is that they are either nonsense (quite literally, in the linguistic and logical sense) or they are important but can and should be decomposed into more meaningful 1st-gen rights or 2nd-gen entitlements. E.g., I strongly support a right to "self-determination" as I understood that term to be used in national liberation struggles against military domination or colonialism, but to me this is simply an extension of individual rights, from which concepts of popular sovereignty are derived -- the rights to vote, assemble, control your own government. What could be more basic, more 1st-Gen, than that? To be ruled by a foreign power is to have no claims, no rights, against the state. Right to peace and security - how is that different from my individual right not to be subjected to physical violence and domination by others? It is states who mostly wage war, so this could be considered a claim against states. But of course private, non-state actors also engage in violence, and I have the same claim against them. If by "right to peace and security" you mean we as citizens have a "right" to expect our politicians to pursue policies that maintain a stable international order, sure, but as with the "right to development" mere assertion of this right does not tell us anything significant about how to achieve it. George Bush claims, and seems to genuinely believe, that fighting a war in Iraq will, long term, create more peace and security in the region. I think he's wrong. Better to argue about effects, not about "rights." Same with "right to development." If you say first-world cotton subsidies and closing of markets to developing world cotton producers are intolerable we will agree. You don't need a "Right to development" to get there. 1st-gen rights easily incorporate the idea that willing buyers and sellers should be able to trade. The 1st-gen concepts also allow for regulation of the trades when harmful externalities occur or the trade violates rights (e..g, slavery). >It remains that the "right to development" has been formally >universally recognized (cf. the link I provided to you in a previous >message). Well. I must say, it looked like a bunch of General Assembly rhetoric. A few lines asserting lots of good things for humanity and condemning racism and other evils. I have difficulty taking it seriously as binding international law. >And that, if we ever want to discuss (on this list) how an >IG decision is compliant or not with the "right to development", >then it would be interesting to ask ourselves questions like e.g. >how telecom interconnection costs between different parts of >the world impact the development of a given part of the world, >and whether this is compliant with the (State binding) right to >development. If we find, by chance, that this is not entirely >compliant, then we may find here an international legal basis >to put the issue on the table You already have an international legal basis -- and a sound economic basis -- for talking about interconnection costs. It's called the WTO basic telecommunication services agreement -- something the businesses and governments will take a lot more seriously. Telecom service providers are obligated to provide interconnection at reasonable cost at "any technically feasible point on the network." That was US regulatory doctrine imposed on the world in 1997. Now let them eat their own fruit. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Wed Mar 8 20:53:23 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 20:53:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 6:58 PM -0500 3/8/06, Milton Mueller wrote: >But we tend to code them differently in the U.S. ... >And coming from a more libertarian political tradition, we would recognize ... Sorry, but by no means is the US mainly libertarian (nor is its tradition such). In fact those who can be classified as true libertarian are in a fairly limited minority. It is one tradition, but among others which collectively have a much wider following in the US. The great schism that now characterizes US political life finds libertarian thought on one side, arrayed against quite opposite thinking. While the constant blunders - by themselves - of the current administration play a large role in its very shrunken status with the populace as a whole, the diminished place of libertarian thought is also discernible in those numbers, if not perfectly. A libertarian interpretation is entirely appropriate for an individual to claim. It cannot be said to characterize the US - that would be a misrepresentation. David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Wed Mar 8 21:48:04 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 21:48:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <440F9764.5020907@lists.privaterra.org> I believe a few weeks ago Max on the MMWG list suggested that we try in include citations and references to ongoing discussions as it could be useful for the academics, researchers, students and those wanting further background information. Thus, below you will find the section in Wikipedia on the generations of human rights. regards Robert -- Three generations of human rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_generations_of_human_rights The division of human rights into three generations was initially proposed in 1979 by the Czech jurist Karel Vasak at the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg. His division follows the three great watchwords of the French Revolution: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. The 3 generations are reflected in some of the rubrics of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. First-generation human rights First-generation human rights deal essentially with liberty. They are fundamentally civil and political in nature and serve to protect the individual from excesses of the state. First-generation rights include, among other things, freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, and freedom of religion. First generation rights are therefore mostly negative rights. They were first enshrined at the global level by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. See: Articles 3 to 21 of the Universal Declaration, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Second-generation human rights Second-generation human rights are related to equality and were established after the Russian Revolution. They are fundamentally social, economic, and cultural in nature. In social terms, they ensure different members of the citizenry equal conditions and treatment. They also grant people the right to work and to be employed, thus securing the ability of the individual to support a family. They are mostly positive rights, representing things that the State is required to provide to the people under its jurisdiction. See: Articles 22 to 27 of the Universal Declaration, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. [edit] Third-generation human rights Third-generation human rights focus essentially on fraternity and, in generic terms, can be seen as rights of solidarity. They cover group and collective rights: * Right to self-determination * Right to economic and social development * Right to natural resources * Right to communicate * Right to participation in mankind's heritage These rights are briefly covered in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (see above), but these provisions are an exceptional addition to the documents, which generally conceive of rights as an individual's claim upon society. Otherwise, this third generation has not yet been incorporated into any legally-binding human rights equivalent. An alternative explanation for the Three-generations rests on the political divisions of the Cold War, where first-generation civil and political rights were promoted by the West, second-generation economic, social and cultural rights promoted by the East and third-generation, solidarity rights by the Third-World. These divisions were also reflected in the creation of the international human rights framework. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Wed Mar 8 22:12:05 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 22:12:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline Message-ID: >A libertarian interpretation is entirely appropriate for an >individual to claim. It cannot be said to characterize the US - >that would be a misrepresentation. David: I think you are confusing your own normative judgment with an empirical assessment of the American legal and philosphical tradition. An individualist approach to rights is deeply engrained in American culture -- even among its Left and democrats -- relative to Europe and Asia. That's why a Mao or a Hitler -- both sides of the collectivist coin -- could never happen here. The Lockean basis of the thinking of the constitution drafters and of American political institutions is firmly established in the historical literature. No point in debating that. When you say this, >The great schism that now characterizes US political life >finds libertarian thought on one side, arrayed against >quite opposite thinking. I am not sure which sides you are talking about. Which in itself proves you wrong. Both the American left and right claim on the surface to be libertarian - the conservatives claiming to be for small government and free markets (an increasingly dubious claim under Bush) and the liberals claiming to be for civil liberties and for the positive, 2nd-gen freedoms and entitlements of the post-WW2 era. Both rely heavily on the rhetoric of liberal freedoms. True, the religious right have hugely undermined the freedom orientation of the Republicans, combining with militaristic nationalism in dangerous ways. But I was talking about the prevailing understanding of philosophical approaches to rights, I was not in any way attempting to characterize the current political alignments of the population. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Thu Mar 9 00:34:27 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 00:34:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 10:12 PM -0500 3/8/06, Milton Mueller wrote: > >A libertarian interpretation is entirely appropriate for an >>individual to claim. It cannot be said to characterize the US - >>that would be a misrepresentation. > >David: >I think you are confusing your own normative judgment with an empirical assessment of the American legal and philosphical tradition. You are of course welcome to think what you want. But I am in charge of what I think, and your statement is distinctly mistaken. >An individualist approach is more in tune with American tradition. The usual description is (classical) liberalism. Libertarianism is quite another matter, having a distinct oeuvre and fairly narrow tradition. All that is tradition. When we come to the more recent past and the present, yet other strains become important if not dominant, at least on one side. >to rights is deeply engrained in American culture -- even among its Left and democrats -- relative to Europe and Asia. That's why a Mao or a Hitler -- both sides of the collectivist coin -- could never happen here. A counterfactual, which, by its nature, cannot be known until and unless it occurs. The US is a culture in its infancy, extremely young. Much evolution lies ahead, and with it previously unthinkable possibilities. >The Lockean basis of the thinking of the constitution drafters and of American political institutions is firmly established in the historical literature. There indeed we get to the - early - tradition of (classical) liberalism, quite distinct from libertarianism. And again, the present has already moved from past anchor points. >No point in debating that. > >When you say this, > >>The great schism that now characterizes US political life >>finds libertarian thought on one side, arrayed against >>quite opposite thinking. > >I am not sure which sides you are talking about. Which in itself proves you wrong. Again, you are welcome to assert as you see fit. Assertion, unfortunately, does not establish veracity nor by itself necessarily advance the conversation. >Both the American left and right claim on the surface to be libertarian Not by any definitions with which I ordinarily truck. Some on the right, yes, not by any means all on the right. The (typical) left, not even classical liberal (let alone libertarian), rather new liberal, often opposite classical liberal. > - the conservatives claiming to be for small government and free markets (an increasingly dubious claim under Bush) and the liberals claiming to be for civil liberties and for the positive, 2nd-gen freedoms and entitlements of the post-WW2 era. Both rely heavily on the rhetoric of liberal freedoms. Which are quite distinct from the particular notions of libertarianism, as said already. And again, the left quite opposite in some cases, in favor of state interventions etc. > >True, the religious right have hugely undermined the freedom orientation of the Republicans, combining with militaristic nationalism in dangerous ways. But I was talking about the prevailing understanding of philosophical approaches to rights, I was not in any way attempting to characterize the current political alignments of the population. I was and did, as one illustration of the narrow place for libertarianism per se (not liberalism, either classical or its sometimes opposite on today's left). David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From cnd at knowprose.com Thu Mar 9 04:31:35 2006 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:31:35 -0600 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline In-Reply-To: <1141831649.11621.83.camel@localhost.localdomain> References:

<1141831649.11621.83.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <440FF5F7.7090006@knowprose.com> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > So even if you agree that a right to development exists, how do you > decide what that means in practice, and what's the best thing to do to > support development, and whether that involves more "intervention of the > state" or rather less of it? > You don't. I don't. We don't. We get the input of people who have this Right (and, I suppose, ignore those who don't... haha...) and each state does what it thinks is best because the very nature of the question you ask is covered by the Right of Development. BUT... problems that do arise (and they already exist or we wouldn't be here) there has to be a group which helps resolve the conflicts. For example, does Brazil have the right to make U.S. based corporation's patented pharmaceuticals at a lower cost within the country to allow Brazilians to live? While that example is beyond the context of ICT and perhaps WSIS, it is heavily linked to patent issues which are present in the WSIS process but largely ignored because... well, who ran that process anyway? When UN member nations have problems, they are supposed to work within the UN structure to deal with the problem - that's what the UN is supposed to be for. Defending a Right to Development could be considered much the same thing. Consider the Right to Development when it comes to nuclear energy - the present case with Iran. Iran does have a Right to develop nuclear energy, but since that development is considered to be a potential infringement on the Rights of other nations (especially with sentiments recently expressed). Iran's Right to Develop nuclear energy exists, but to use it they have to assure the rest of the world that they aren't going to do anything naughty with it. I don't see why the same couldn't be done in this context. In fact, in a different context, it's already being done - thought there is certainly room for improvement. -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago cnd at knowprose.com Looking for contracts/work! http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786 New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Mar 9 06:55:08 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 12:55:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline In-Reply-To: <440FF5F7.7090006@knowprose.com> References:

<1141831649.11621.83.camel@localhost.localdomain> <440FF5F7.7090006@knowprose.com> Message-ID: <1141905308.7357.62.camel@localhost.localdomain> I like to play theoretical debates, so I will play the devil's advocate here, well beyond my personal convictions. (By the way, I am totally ignorant of the theory in these matters, I am an engineer and I can only provide a layman's point of view from a specific place and time.) Il giorno gio, 09/03/2006 alle 03.31 -0600, Taran Rampersad ha scritto: > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > So even if you agree that a right to development exists, how do you > > decide what that means in practice, and what's the best thing to do to > > support development, and whether that involves more "intervention of the > > state" or rather less of it? > > > You don't. I don't. We don't. We get the input of people who have this > Right (and, I suppose, ignore those who don't... haha...) So, another question: who has this right, and who doesn't? As you point out, development is an ongoing process, so even the richest country in the world still has plenty of room to further develop. Do they have a right to development as well? > When UN member nations have problems, they are supposed to work within > the UN structure to deal with the problem - that's what the UN is > supposed to be for. Defending a Right to Development could be considered > much the same thing. Consider the Right to Development when it comes to > nuclear energy - the present case with Iran. Iran does have a Right to > develop nuclear energy, but since that development is considered to be a > potential infringement on the Rights of other nations (especially with > sentiments recently expressed). Iran's Right to Develop nuclear energy > exists, but to use it they have to assure the rest of the world that > they aren't going to do anything naughty with it. > > I don't see why the same couldn't be done in this context. In fact, in a > different context, it's already being done - thought there is certainly > room for improvement. So, who gets to decide whether Iran's right to development includes the development of nuclear energy (or even of nuclear weapons, as many other countries already have)? What you point out is already a practical declination of this abstract "right to development", but there could be many others. In any case, the UN system works by agreement. Country X may well think that they have a right to get something done by country Y to support their development, but if country Y disagrees - either disagrees that that action would help development of country X, or disagrees completely about the existence of a "right to development" by country X - there's nothing anyone else can do about it. And, personally, I think that something that is not enforceable not commonly agreed is not a right, but just wishful thinking. I was quite interested by reading Meryem's connection of "third generation rights" with solidarity, because in my culture solidarity is by definition a personal, volunteer, optional action, not something that is prescribed by law or constitutions. Italy is perhaps the biggest source of [Catholic] cooperation efforts in the world, with plenty of missions all around Africa and Latin America; Turin, in particular, is the birthplace of many famous missionary orders. Still, no one here would say that developing countries have a right to receive this kind of help from developed countries; that's something you do, if you like, as an act of generosity. Almost everyone here does that, in one form or the other, and yet would not see it as a right of those who receive the help. I am sure that this is exactly the vision that supporters of a "right to development" might challenge, as they might think that developed countries have a moral and legal duty to help developing countries. Am I right? I also have a comment to your other message: > I believe... as I believe others do... that one does not have to move > ahead by pushing others down. That is a principle of Freedom. I am Free, > as long as I do not adversely affect the Freedom of Others. Therefore, I > am Free to Develop as long as I do not Adversely Affect the Freedom of > Others. I think that you have a clear problem here, as resources on our planet are finite and are becoming more and more scarce. So, apart from second-level and long-term global economical effects, every dime given (or not exacted) by developed countries to developing countries to speed up their development is a dime less for developed countries to preserve their "second generation rights", or "entitlements", depending on which terminology you like. If you base it on the "non-adversely-affect" principle, then there's no way that you can establish any kind of right to development for developing countries, other than based only on their own market / military / cultural resources. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu Thu Mar 9 07:52:06 2006 From: jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu (John Mathiason) Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 13:52:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4046638E-5449-4726-8702-4A93AA523D61@maxwell.syr.edu> Just an addition to the debate. One reason that the "right to development" has been controversial is that it is often seen as a collective, rather than an individual right. Human rights have usually been seen as pertaining to individuals rather than collectivities. The issue becomes complicated if a collective right (say, national security) can be seen as trumping an individual right (say, right to free expression). John On Mar 9, 2006, at 6:34, David Allen wrote: > At 10:12 PM -0500 3/8/06, Milton Mueller wrote: >>> A libertarian interpretation is entirely appropriate for an >>> individual to claim. It cannot be said to characterize the US - >>> that would be a misrepresentation. >> >> David: >> I think you are confusing your own normative judgment with an >> empirical assessment of the American legal and philosphical >> tradition. > > You are of course welcome to think what you want. But I am in > charge of what I think, and your statement is distinctly mistaken. > >> An individualist approach > > is more in tune with American tradition. The usual description is > (classical) liberalism. Libertarianism is quite another matter, > having a distinct oeuvre and fairly narrow tradition. > > All that is tradition. When we come to the more recent past and > the present, yet other strains become important if not dominant, at > least on one side. > >> to rights is deeply engrained in American culture -- even among >> its Left and democrats -- relative to Europe and Asia. That's why >> a Mao or a Hitler -- both sides of the collectivist coin -- could >> never happen here. > > A counterfactual, which, by its nature, cannot be known until and > unless it occurs. The US is a culture in its infancy, extremely > young. Much evolution lies ahead, and with it previously > unthinkable possibilities. > >> The Lockean basis of the thinking of the constitution drafters and >> of American political institutions is firmly established in the >> historical literature. > > There indeed we get to the - early - tradition of (classical) > liberalism, quite distinct from libertarianism. And again, the > present has already moved from past anchor points. > >> No point in debating that. >> >> When you say this, >> >>> The great schism that now characterizes US political life >>> finds libertarian thought on one side, arrayed against >>> quite opposite thinking. >> >> I am not sure which sides you are talking about. Which in itself >> proves you wrong. > > Again, you are welcome to assert as you see fit. Assertion, > unfortunately, does not establish veracity nor by itself > necessarily advance the conversation. > >> Both the American left and right claim on the surface to be >> libertarian > > Not by any definitions with which I ordinarily truck. Some on the > right, yes, not by any means all on the right. The (typical) left, > not even classical liberal (let alone libertarian), rather new > liberal, often opposite classical liberal. > >> - the conservatives claiming to be for small government and free >> markets (an increasingly dubious claim under Bush) and the >> liberals claiming to be for civil liberties and for the positive, >> 2nd-gen freedoms and entitlements of the post-WW2 era. Both rely >> heavily on the rhetoric of liberal freedoms. > > Which are quite distinct from the particular notions of > libertarianism, as said already. And again, the left quite > opposite in some cases, in favor of state interventions etc. > >> >> True, the religious right have hugely undermined the freedom >> orientation of the Republicans, combining with militaristic >> nationalism in dangerous ways. But I was talking about the >> prevailing understanding of philosophical approaches to rights, I >> was not in any way attempting to characterize the current >> political alignments of the population. > > I was and did, as one illustration of the narrow place for > libertarianism per se (not liberalism, either classical or its > sometimes opposite on today's left). > > David > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Thu Mar 9 09:26:02 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 09:26:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline In-Reply-To: <4046638E-5449-4726-8702-4A93AA523D61@maxwell.syr.edu> References: <4046638E-5449-4726-8702-4A93AA523D61@maxwell.syr.edu> Message-ID: It is helpful to have debate, respectful debate. Ad hominem attacks, by contrast, disturb the force and pollute our prospects, in a fundamentally disruptive way. At 1:52 PM +0100 3/9/06, John Mathiason wrote: >Just an addition to the debate. One reason that the "right to development" has been controversial is that it is often seen as a collective, rather than an individual right. Human rights have usually been seen as pertaining to individuals rather than collectivities. The issue becomes complicated if a collective right (say, national security) can be seen as trumping an individual right (say, right to free expression). This seems to go to one heart of differences here. It does not say what has not already been said. But it distills a focus - and we need to get at underlying differences, in assumptions. Then we may talk about our differences in a way that has prospect to identify where the common ground is missing. As noted earlier, there are discernible streaks in social thinking. Anglo attitudes do seem to favor the individual; Continental Europe and some Asian societies do find a greater place for the collective. It seems. Though such generalizations are fragile - at the very best - with so much variety as to invite great caution in their use. And many other great civilizations have been of course left out of this little thought ... To the extent that this distinction does apply, we can see how some would be more comfortable with 'rights' for a community - when others would be more inclined to restrict the term to individual action. As the writer all but leads us to see. Since we live in a world where wo/man is - unavoidably - social, we need to find a way across this, fairly stark, difference in understanding. The individual must have its due; equally, the community will be a potent force. This makes one of the most intriguing puzzles - for me anyway, of course. At least now perhaps we have some pointer, where to concentrate puzzlement. Between and among us. David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Mar 9 14:02:51 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 20:02:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44107BDB.4050708@wz-berlin.de> Hi, I've been offline for some days and missed an interesting debate. I hope I can push it a bit further. As I said before, I think it would be a real mistake to give up on the IG caucus as civil society actor. Most government and private sector people in the WSIS context know of our existence. We form one of several interfaces to civil society in the broader sense and have thus become some sort of a platform and brand name. The very fact that people from ITU, ISOC or ICANN have subscribed and listen indicates the relevance of this space. As most of us know, it is not easy to establish such a status. New, more specific cs groups would have a hard time to reach the reputation we have right now. And there is another point I want to make: I really believe that it is our duty to work on structures and procedures that allow us to form common positions and develop such positions over several years. If we want civil society to be taken seriously, and if it is our goal to change dominant policy preferences, we have to establish ourselves as a reliable long-term organization. So, please, lets think of a caucus reform rather than reverting to a mere discussion space. To me, this list has and should also in future have two functions. First, it is indeed a space for discussing IG related issues across organizational and sectoral boundaries. Second, the caucus is a working group for civil society folks to form opinions on those issues, to prepare interventions. A potentially third role would be to select people for specific committees, working groups or whatever. In the first and second year of its existence, the caucus could fulfill those two roles on the basis of a rather lose structure. (Just to remind you, Adam and I insisted on being only coordinators. We didn't want any formal authority and therefore refused to become "chairs".) In the third year, I observed a growing tension between the two functions of the caucus as a discussion space and as an intervention-oriented working group. What was good for the caucus as an open discussion space, became an obstacle for the caucus as a working group. If we want to keep both functions, the working group part needs a better structure. My proposal would be to create an opt-in structure for those who regard themselves as active members of the caucus (as opposed to listen to its discussions) and want a voting right. An option would be to combine a voting membership with signing a charter. A charter could bind members to certain tasks and/or positions. Bill mentions Adam's suggestion to extract parts of former caucus statements as the basis for such a charter. This sound like a useful procedure provided people want a charter that defines limits of acceptable positions. The new chairs of such a voting membership should have more authority than the former coordinators. As things are right now, one veto can be enough to kill a draft statement, no matter how many people support it. In order to welcome and support diversity among the caucus membership but also attain again the ability to agree on positions and makes decisions, we need to develop some form of majority ruling. Personally I wouldn't want to vote on every substantial decision. I prefer the concept of rough consensus because it emphasizes the need for debate and convincing others. If you havn't done so, please read Avri's account of IETF's decision making rules: http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf The important message of the IETF paper is that all notions of rough consensus need somebody to determine rough consensus. This somebody, the chair, is accountable to the group. He/she can be recalled if a majority doesn't trust the chair anymore. In short, I propose to create a smaller entity amidst the caucus as it is. The place for discussion would still be the IG list. The only difference is that members of the smaller unit would elect the chair and agree on statements. The future chairs should be elected and given some authority to call consensus on positions or papers. Perhaps, if the rules and the role of the chairs are clearer, we are able to find candidates for this position. In the last half year or so, being coordinator was a pretty thankless job. I know from private discussions that this is one of the reasons why nobody wanted to take over. Sorry for being so long, jeanette >> >> I wonder whether a "Status Quo Plus Minus" is possible: in which we >> give the caucus a capacity to elect/select chairs, and delegate decision >> making responsibility to them, but do not develop a common set of >> positions on >> policy issues but simply attempt to be a vehicle for the >> representations of CS >> in IGF-related activities. E.g., we elect chairs who develop democratic >> procedures to nominate people to serve on IGF-related program committees, >> councils, etc. > > Understand your concern about the need for procedures to handle nominations > for IGF etc, and noted that this is a problem with the SQ. A procedural > rather than substantive focus could be viable. But for your solution to > work we'd need to address a number of challenges, e.g.: 1) Nobody appears to > want to want to chair; Jeanette's prior call for nominations met a stony > silence. And preferably we'd have multiple candidates, and competitive > choice, or else we're in politburo mode. They'd have to be dedicated > procedural mavens to achieve what you ask, too (maybe they could work with > the MMWG on that). 2) Even if some folks were to step forward now, it's a > hard to have a really proper election without an identifiable electorate. > In the absence of any affirmative opting-in, who knows how many of the 300 > people on the list consider themselves to be CS and members of the caucus? > I suppose we could continue with the 'whoever bothers to speak by a certain > time' model, but it's a bit lame and open to controversy. 3) How would we > conduct it? Use a private voting site, per MMWG, or try the list? Who'd > count, decide on voter eligibility based on what criteria, etc? > > Suggestions? > > Bill > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Mar 9 14:26:28 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:26:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus In-Reply-To: <44107BDB.4050708@wz-berlin.de> References: <44107BDB.4050708@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060309142202.065462f0@veni.com> Thank you, Jeanette! Quite a nice letter! After reading it, I understood where my mistake in the proposal for have a non-profit was. Here's my idea, in a - hopefully - more user-friendly option: Civil Society could create a spin-off, a non-profit, which will channel funding for the work of the CS caucus. The non-profit will not "replace" the CS Caucus; that's impossible, also due to the reasons stated by Jeanette. The need for such an organization is even only technical (although there are more): if someone wants to support the CS Caucus, they can't even wire money to it. The non-profit will be a tool for better work of the CS. Obviuosly there is going to be a lot of work in the next few years, and a lot of growing problems, and it's up to us to show that we're also growing - in the way we propose solutions. best, veni At 08:02 PM 09.3.2006 '?.' +0100, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Hi, I've been offline for some days and missed an interesting debate. I >hope I can push it a bit further. > >As I said before, I think it would be a real mistake to give up on the >IG caucus as civil society actor. Most government and private sector >people in the WSIS context know of our existence. We form one of several >interfaces to civil society in the broader sense and have thus become >some sort of a platform and brand name. The very fact that people from _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Mar 9 14:49:56 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 20:49:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus In-Reply-To: <44107BDB.4050708@wz-berlin.de> References: <44107BDB.4050708@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <441086E4.3080803@bertola.eu.org> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: > Hi, I've been offline for some days and missed an interesting debate. I > hope I can push it a bit further. Jeanette, I agree with your analysis, and also with the importance of continuing the caucus and trying to preserve its role as the main civil society coordination forum for IG matters (which, however, can happen only on an opt-in basis, i.e. if the caucus is credible and inclusive, and not by authority or force of majority). So I would support your proposal; the only slight change I would make is on this part: > In short, I propose to create a smaller entity amidst the caucus as it > is. The place for discussion would still be the IG list. The only > difference is that members of the smaller unit would elect the chair and > agree on statements. Rather than saying that we create a new smaller entity, I'd rather say that the caucus will now start to have a formal membership roll; we keep this list as an open forum, where also non-members can participate, but we start to maintain an opt-in membership roll, which you can join by signing up the charter. So we're not creating anything new, we're just making the caucus structure a bit more defined. Of course, as in any of the countless bottom-up online membership organization projects that we tried in the last years, we could now start an endless discussion about the content of the charter... but perhaps we can keep it to the bare minimum, and maybe also trust a few of us to prepare it. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Mar 10 08:27:02 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:27:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus Message-ID: Dear JEANETTE; no you haven´t be too long. I fully support the various elements of your proposal. Let´s go down this road - follow the IEZF example and develop new innovative forms on the move. First thing: Somebody shouls start to draft a charter. best w ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann Gesendet: Do 09.03.2006 20:02 An: William Drake Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; marzouki at ras.eu.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus Hi, I've been offline for some days and missed an interesting debate. I hope I can push it a bit further. As I said before, I think it would be a real mistake to give up on the IG caucus as civil society actor. Most government and private sector people in the WSIS context know of our existence. We form one of several interfaces to civil society in the broader sense and have thus become some sort of a platform and brand name. The very fact that people from ITU, ISOC or ICANN have subscribed and listen indicates the relevance of this space. As most of us know, it is not easy to establish such a status. New, more specific cs groups would have a hard time to reach the reputation we have right now. And there is another point I want to make: I really believe that it is our duty to work on structures and procedures that allow us to form common positions and develop such positions over several years. If we want civil society to be taken seriously, and if it is our goal to change dominant policy preferences, we have to establish ourselves as a reliable long-term organization. So, please, lets think of a caucus reform rather than reverting to a mere discussion space. To me, this list has and should also in future have two functions. First, it is indeed a space for discussing IG related issues across organizational and sectoral boundaries. Second, the caucus is a working group for civil society folks to form opinions on those issues, to prepare interventions. A potentially third role would be to select people for specific committees, working groups or whatever. In the first and second year of its existence, the caucus could fulfill those two roles on the basis of a rather lose structure. (Just to remind you, Adam and I insisted on being only coordinators. We didn't want any formal authority and therefore refused to become "chairs".) In the third year, I observed a growing tension between the two functions of the caucus as a discussion space and as an intervention-oriented working group. What was good for the caucus as an open discussion space, became an obstacle for the caucus as a working group. If we want to keep both functions, the working group part needs a better structure. My proposal would be to create an opt-in structure for those who regard themselves as active members of the caucus (as opposed to listen to its discussions) and want a voting right. An option would be to combine a voting membership with signing a charter. A charter could bind members to certain tasks and/or positions. Bill mentions Adam's suggestion to extract parts of former caucus statements as the basis for such a charter. This sound like a useful procedure provided people want a charter that defines limits of acceptable positions. The new chairs of such a voting membership should have more authority than the former coordinators. As things are right now, one veto can be enough to kill a draft statement, no matter how many people support it. In order to welcome and support diversity among the caucus membership but also attain again the ability to agree on positions and makes decisions, we need to develop some form of majority ruling. Personally I wouldn't want to vote on every substantial decision. I prefer the concept of rough consensus because it emphasizes the need for debate and convincing others. If you havn't done so, please read Avri's account of IETF's decision making rules: http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf The important message of the IETF paper is that all notions of rough consensus need somebody to determine rough consensus. This somebody, the chair, is accountable to the group. He/she can be recalled if a majority doesn't trust the chair anymore. In short, I propose to create a smaller entity amidst the caucus as it is. The place for discussion would still be the IG list. The only difference is that members of the smaller unit would elect the chair and agree on statements. The future chairs should be elected and given some authority to call consensus on positions or papers. Perhaps, if the rules and the role of the chairs are clearer, we are able to find candidates for this position. In the last half year or so, being coordinator was a pretty thankless job. I know from private discussions that this is one of the reasons why nobody wanted to take over. Sorry for being so long, jeanette >> >> I wonder whether a "Status Quo Plus Minus" is possible: in which we >> give the caucus a capacity to elect/select chairs, and delegate decision >> making responsibility to them, but do not develop a common set of >> positions on >> policy issues but simply attempt to be a vehicle for the >> representations of CS >> in IGF-related activities. E.g., we elect chairs who develop democratic >> procedures to nominate people to serve on IGF-related program committees, >> councils, etc. > > Understand your concern about the need for procedures to handle nominations > for IGF etc, and noted that this is a problem with the SQ. A procedural > rather than substantive focus could be viable. But for your solution to > work we'd need to address a number of challenges, e.g.: 1) Nobody appears to > want to want to chair; Jeanette's prior call for nominations met a stony > silence. And preferably we'd have multiple candidates, and competitive > choice, or else we're in politburo mode. They'd have to be dedicated > procedural mavens to achieve what you ask, too (maybe they could work with > the MMWG on that). 2) Even if some folks were to step forward now, it's a > hard to have a really proper election without an identifiable electorate. > In the absence of any affirmative opting-in, who knows how many of the 300 > people on the list consider themselves to be CS and members of the caucus? > I suppose we could continue with the 'whoever bothers to speak by a certain > time' model, but it's a bit lame and open to controversy. 3) How would we > conduct it? Use a private voting site, per MMWG, or try the list? Who'd > count, decide on voter eligibility based on what criteria, etc? > > Suggestions? > > Bill > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Fri Mar 10 08:57:18 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:57:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Wolfgang, I'm a little confused. What Jeanette is proposing is essentially what I previously described as a Status Quo Plus model---opt-in and identifiable membership, endorse a charter, have clear decision making rules, enhanced facilitator/chair roles, etc---which you and others replied was probably too ambitious, so let's stick with the Status Quo approach. Now you're saying let's do it. I agree that this would be the most desirable way forward, I'm just skeptical that enough of us would commit the volunteer time and effort to really make it viable. Even then, it could quickly run into the problem of disparate visions, procedural and substantive. To determine whether this has chance of flying, at a minimum we'd need a committed core team to work up proposals, including a charter, and a live web space, preferably with wiki (hi Meryem;-) to shape texts. Working on a list alone has proven time and again to be problematic, with threads getting lost before ideas are fully vetted etc. and inadequate cumulation. It would be useful to hear from more people whether there's real demand to try this, and whether they'd be willing to be part of said team. I'd certainly join something with critical mass and mo, but another process that eats time and drifts inconclusively is not enticing. Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 2:27 PM > To: Jeanette Hofmann; William Drake > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; marzouki at ras.eu.org > Subject: AW: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus > > > Dear JEANETTE; > > no you haven´t be too long. > > I fully support the various elements of your proposal. Let´s go > down this road - follow the IEZF example and develop new > innovative forms on the move. > > First thing: Somebody shouls start to draft a charter. > > best > > w > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann > Gesendet: Do 09.03.2006 20:02 > An: William Drake > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; marzouki at ras.eu.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus > > > > Hi, I've been offline for some days and missed an interesting debate. I > hope I can push it a bit further. > > As I said before, I think it would be a real mistake to give up on the > IG caucus as civil society actor. Most government and private sector > people in the WSIS context know of our existence. We form one of several > interfaces to civil society in the broader sense and have thus become > some sort of a platform and brand name. The very fact that people from > ITU, ISOC or ICANN have subscribed and listen indicates the relevance of > this space. > > As most of us know, it is not easy to establish such a status. New, more > specific cs groups would have a hard time to reach the reputation we > have right now. And there is another point I want to make: I really > believe that it is our duty to work on structures and procedures that > allow us to form common positions and develop such positions over > several years. If we want civil society to be taken seriously, and if it > is our goal to change dominant policy preferences, we have to establish > ourselves as a reliable long-term organization. > > So, please, lets think of a caucus reform rather than reverting to a > mere discussion space. > > To me, this list has and should also in future have two functions. > First, it is indeed a space for discussing IG related issues across > organizational and sectoral boundaries. Second, the caucus is a working > group for civil society folks to form opinions on those issues, to > prepare interventions. A potentially third role would be to select > people for specific committees, working groups or whatever. > > In the first and second year of its existence, the caucus could fulfill > those two roles on the basis of a rather lose structure. (Just to remind > you, Adam and I insisted on being only coordinators. We didn't want any > formal authority and therefore refused to become "chairs".) > > In the third year, I observed a growing tension between the two > functions of the caucus as a discussion space and as an > intervention-oriented working group. What was good for the caucus as an > open discussion space, became an obstacle for the caucus as a working > group. > > If we want to keep both functions, the working group part needs a better > structure. My proposal would be to create an opt-in structure for > those who regard themselves as active members of the caucus (as opposed > to listen to its discussions) and want a voting right. > > An option would be to combine a voting membership with signing a > charter. A charter could bind members to certain tasks and/or positions. > Bill mentions Adam's suggestion to extract parts of former caucus > statements as the basis for such a charter. This sound like a useful > procedure provided people want a charter that defines limits of > acceptable positions. > > The new chairs of such a voting membership should have more authority > than the former coordinators. As things are right now, one veto can be > enough to kill a draft statement, no matter how many people support it. > In order to welcome and support diversity among the caucus membership > but also attain again the ability to agree on positions and makes > decisions, we need to develop some form of majority ruling. > > Personally I wouldn't want to vote on every substantial decision. I > prefer the concept of rough consensus because it emphasizes the need for > debate and convincing others. > > If you havn't done so, please read Avri's account of IETF's decision > making rules: > http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf > > The important message of the IETF paper is that all notions of rough > consensus need somebody to determine rough consensus. This somebody, the > chair, is accountable to the group. He/she can be recalled if a majority > doesn't trust the chair anymore. > > In short, I propose to create a smaller entity amidst the caucus as it > is. The place for discussion would still be the IG list. The only > difference is that members of the smaller unit would elect the chair and > agree on statements. > > The future chairs should be elected and given some authority to call > consensus on positions or papers. > > Perhaps, if the rules and the role of the chairs are clearer, we are > able to find candidates for this position. In the last half year or so, > being coordinator was a pretty thankless job. I know from private > discussions that this is one of the reasons why nobody wanted to > take over. > > Sorry for being so long, jeanette > > > > > > > >> > >> I wonder whether a "Status Quo Plus Minus" is possible: in which we > >> give the caucus a capacity to elect/select chairs, and > delegate decision > >> making responsibility to them, but do not develop a common set of > >> positions on > >> policy issues but simply attempt to be a vehicle for the > >> representations of CS > >> in IGF-related activities. E.g., we elect chairs who develop democratic > >> procedures to nominate people to serve on IGF-related program > committees, > >> councils, etc. > > > > Understand your concern about the need for procedures to handle > nominations > > for IGF etc, and noted that this is a problem with the SQ. A procedural > > rather than substantive focus could be viable. But for your solution to > > work we'd need to address a number of challenges, e.g.: 1) > Nobody appears to > > want to want to chair; Jeanette's prior call for nominations met a stony > > silence. And preferably we'd have multiple candidates, and competitive > > choice, or else we're in politburo mode. They'd have to be dedicated > > procedural mavens to achieve what you ask, too (maybe they > could work with > > the MMWG on that). 2) Even if some folks were to step > forward now, it's a > > hard to have a really proper election without an identifiable > electorate. > > In the absence of any affirmative opting-in, who knows how many > of the 300 > > people on the list consider themselves to be CS and members of > the caucus? > > I suppose we could continue with the 'whoever bothers to speak > by a certain > > time' model, but it's a bit lame and open to controversy. 3) > How would we > > conduct it? Use a private voting site, per MMWG, or try the > list? Who'd > > count, decide on voter eligibility based on what criteria, etc? > > > > Suggestions? > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Mar 10 09:12:04 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:12:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44118934.4010409@wz-berlin.de> William Drake wrote: > Hi Wolfgang, > > I'm a little confused. What Jeanette is proposing is essentially what I > previously described as a Status Quo Plus model---opt-in and identifiable > membership, endorse a charter, have clear decision making rules, enhanced > facilitator/chair roles, etc--- Dear Bill, don't be confused :-) Yes, there are lots of similarities between our proposals (and I intended to say that but then forgot to do so). The only difference I see is that I put more emphasis on the hybrid character of the new structure. The most visible and perhaps relevant function of the caucus so far, the open space for debate, remains as it is right now. The new chartered space concerns only those who wish to vote and regard themselves as members. You are right, we would need to form a core team to set this up. And we should wait for more comments /support for such a model. I am pleased with the positive comments so far, thank you! jeanette which you and others replied was probably too > ambitious, so let's stick with the Status Quo approach. Now you're saying > let's do it. I agree that this would be the most desirable way forward, I'm > just skeptical that enough of us would commit the volunteer time and effort > to really make it viable. Even then, it could quickly run into the problem > of disparate visions, procedural and substantive. To determine whether this > has chance of flying, at a minimum we'd need a committed core team to work > up proposals, including a charter, and a live web space, preferably with > wiki (hi Meryem;-) to shape texts. Working on a list alone has proven time > and again to be problematic, with threads getting lost before ideas are > fully vetted etc. and inadequate cumulation. > > It would be useful to hear from more people whether there's real demand to > try this, and whether they'd be willing to be part of said team. I'd > certainly join something with critical mass and mo, but another process that > eats time and drifts inconclusively is not enticing. > > Best, > > Bill > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter >> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 2:27 PM >> To: Jeanette Hofmann; William Drake >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; marzouki at ras.eu.org >> Subject: AW: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus >> >> >> Dear JEANETTE; >> >> no you haven´t be too long. >> >> I fully support the various elements of your proposal. Let´s go >> down this road - follow the IEZF example and develop new >> innovative forms on the move. >> >> First thing: Somebody shouls start to draft a charter. >> >> best >> >> w >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann >> Gesendet: Do 09.03.2006 20:02 >> An: William Drake >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; marzouki at ras.eu.org >> Betreff: Re: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus >> >> >> >> Hi, I've been offline for some days and missed an interesting debate. I >> hope I can push it a bit further. >> >> As I said before, I think it would be a real mistake to give up on the >> IG caucus as civil society actor. Most government and private sector >> people in the WSIS context know of our existence. We form one of several >> interfaces to civil society in the broader sense and have thus become >> some sort of a platform and brand name. The very fact that people from >> ITU, ISOC or ICANN have subscribed and listen indicates the relevance of >> this space. >> >> As most of us know, it is not easy to establish such a status. New, more >> specific cs groups would have a hard time to reach the reputation we >> have right now. And there is another point I want to make: I really >> believe that it is our duty to work on structures and procedures that >> allow us to form common positions and develop such positions over >> several years. If we want civil society to be taken seriously, and if it >> is our goal to change dominant policy preferences, we have to establish >> ourselves as a reliable long-term organization. >> >> So, please, lets think of a caucus reform rather than reverting to a >> mere discussion space. >> >> To me, this list has and should also in future have two functions. >> First, it is indeed a space for discussing IG related issues across >> organizational and sectoral boundaries. Second, the caucus is a working >> group for civil society folks to form opinions on those issues, to >> prepare interventions. A potentially third role would be to select >> people for specific committees, working groups or whatever. >> >> In the first and second year of its existence, the caucus could fulfill >> those two roles on the basis of a rather lose structure. (Just to remind >> you, Adam and I insisted on being only coordinators. We didn't want any >> formal authority and therefore refused to become "chairs".) >> >> In the third year, I observed a growing tension between the two >> functions of the caucus as a discussion space and as an >> intervention-oriented working group. What was good for the caucus as an >> open discussion space, became an obstacle for the caucus as a working >> group. >> >> If we want to keep both functions, the working group part needs a better >> structure. My proposal would be to create an opt-in structure for >> those who regard themselves as active members of the caucus (as opposed >> to listen to its discussions) and want a voting right. >> >> An option would be to combine a voting membership with signing a >> charter. A charter could bind members to certain tasks and/or positions. >> Bill mentions Adam's suggestion to extract parts of former caucus >> statements as the basis for such a charter. This sound like a useful >> procedure provided people want a charter that defines limits of >> acceptable positions. >> >> The new chairs of such a voting membership should have more authority >> than the former coordinators. As things are right now, one veto can be >> enough to kill a draft statement, no matter how many people support it. >> In order to welcome and support diversity among the caucus membership >> but also attain again the ability to agree on positions and makes >> decisions, we need to develop some form of majority ruling. >> >> Personally I wouldn't want to vote on every substantial decision. I >> prefer the concept of rough consensus because it emphasizes the need for >> debate and convincing others. >> >> If you havn't done so, please read Avri's account of IETF's decision >> making rules: >> http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf >> >> The important message of the IETF paper is that all notions of rough >> consensus need somebody to determine rough consensus. This somebody, the >> chair, is accountable to the group. He/she can be recalled if a majority >> doesn't trust the chair anymore. >> >> In short, I propose to create a smaller entity amidst the caucus as it >> is. The place for discussion would still be the IG list. The only >> difference is that members of the smaller unit would elect the chair and >> agree on statements. >> >> The future chairs should be elected and given some authority to call >> consensus on positions or papers. >> >> Perhaps, if the rules and the role of the chairs are clearer, we are >> able to find candidates for this position. In the last half year or so, >> being coordinator was a pretty thankless job. I know from private >> discussions that this is one of the reasons why nobody wanted to >> take over. >> >> Sorry for being so long, jeanette >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> I wonder whether a "Status Quo Plus Minus" is possible: in which we >>>> give the caucus a capacity to elect/select chairs, and >> delegate decision >>>> making responsibility to them, but do not develop a common set of >>>> positions on >>>> policy issues but simply attempt to be a vehicle for the >>>> representations of CS >>>> in IGF-related activities. E.g., we elect chairs who develop democratic >>>> procedures to nominate people to serve on IGF-related program >> committees, >>>> councils, etc. >>> Understand your concern about the need for procedures to handle >> nominations >>> for IGF etc, and noted that this is a problem with the SQ. A procedural >>> rather than substantive focus could be viable. But for your solution to >>> work we'd need to address a number of challenges, e.g.: 1) >> Nobody appears to >>> want to want to chair; Jeanette's prior call for nominations met a stony >>> silence. And preferably we'd have multiple candidates, and competitive >>> choice, or else we're in politburo mode. They'd have to be dedicated >>> procedural mavens to achieve what you ask, too (maybe they >> could work with >>> the MMWG on that). 2) Even if some folks were to step >> forward now, it's a >>> hard to have a really proper election without an identifiable >> electorate. >>> In the absence of any affirmative opting-in, who knows how many >> of the 300 >>> people on the list consider themselves to be CS and members of >> the caucus? >>> I suppose we could continue with the 'whoever bothers to speak >> by a certain >>> time' model, but it's a bit lame and open to controversy. 3) >> How would we >>> conduct it? Use a private voting site, per MMWG, or try the >> list? Who'd >>> count, decide on voter eligibility based on what criteria, etc? >>> >>> Suggestions? >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> governance mailing list >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Fri Mar 10 09:14:39 2006 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:14:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus In-Reply-To: <44107BDB.4050708@wz-berlin.de> References: <44107BDB.4050708@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20060310231111.0af82eb0@anr.org> Dear Jeanette and all, I have been on the road for almost one month, Europe, Singapore and now in US and therefore have hard time reading the messages, if not thinking about. Anyway, I read your LONG message, it is rich and good. And I fully agree with your analysis and support the proposed direction. I read Bill's skepticism, or caution, but I am more optimistic than you are, perhaps. I have to pack and check-out in next 10 min, otherwise Adam will be mad ;-) izumi At 20:02 06/03/09 +0100, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Hi, I've been offline for some days and missed an interesting debate. I >hope I can push it a bit further. > >As I said before, I think it would be a real mistake to give up on the >IG caucus as civil society actor. Most government and private sector >people in the WSIS context know of our existence. We form one of several >interfaces to civil society in the broader sense and have thus become >some sort of a platform and brand name. The very fact that people from >ITU, ISOC or ICANN have subscribed and listen indicates the relevance of >this space. > >As most of us know, it is not easy to establish such a status. New, more >specific cs groups would have a hard time to reach the reputation we >have right now. And there is another point I want to make: I really >believe that it is our duty to work on structures and procedures that >allow us to form common positions and develop such positions over >several years. If we want civil society to be taken seriously, and if it >is our goal to change dominant policy preferences, we have to establish >ourselves as a reliable long-term organization. > >So, please, lets think of a caucus reform rather than reverting to a >mere discussion space. > >To me, this list has and should also in future have two functions. >First, it is indeed a space for discussing IG related issues across >organizational and sectoral boundaries. Second, the caucus is a working >group for civil society folks to form opinions on those issues, to >prepare interventions. A potentially third role would be to select >people for specific committees, working groups or whatever. > >In the first and second year of its existence, the caucus could fulfill >those two roles on the basis of a rather lose structure. (Just to remind >you, Adam and I insisted on being only coordinators. We didn't want any >formal authority and therefore refused to become "chairs".) > >In the third year, I observed a growing tension between the two >functions of the caucus as a discussion space and as an >intervention-oriented working group. What was good for the caucus as an >open discussion space, became an obstacle for the caucus as a working >group. > >If we want to keep both functions, the working group part needs a better > structure. My proposal would be to create an opt-in structure for >those who regard themselves as active members of the caucus (as opposed >to listen to its discussions) and want a voting right. > >An option would be to combine a voting membership with signing a >charter. A charter could bind members to certain tasks and/or positions. >Bill mentions Adam's suggestion to extract parts of former caucus >statements as the basis for such a charter. This sound like a useful >procedure provided people want a charter that defines limits of >acceptable positions. > >The new chairs of such a voting membership should have more authority >than the former coordinators. As things are right now, one veto can be >enough to kill a draft statement, no matter how many people support it. >In order to welcome and support diversity among the caucus membership >but also attain again the ability to agree on positions and makes >decisions, we need to develop some form of majority ruling. > >Personally I wouldn't want to vote on every substantial decision. I >prefer the concept of rough consensus because it emphasizes the need for >debate and convincing others. > >If you havn't done so, please read Avri's account of IETF's decision >making rules: >http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf > >The important message of the IETF paper is that all notions of rough >consensus need somebody to determine rough consensus. This somebody, the >chair, is accountable to the group. He/she can be recalled if a majority >doesn't trust the chair anymore. > >In short, I propose to create a smaller entity amidst the caucus as it >is. The place for discussion would still be the IG list. The only >difference is that members of the smaller unit would elect the chair and >agree on statements. > >The future chairs should be elected and given some authority to call >consensus on positions or papers. > >Perhaps, if the rules and the role of the chairs are clearer, we are >able to find candidates for this position. In the last half year or so, >being coordinator was a pretty thankless job. I know from private >discussions that this is one of the reasons why nobody wanted to take over. > >Sorry for being so long, jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Fri Mar 10 09:52:32 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:52:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus In-Reply-To: <44118934.4010409@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: Hi J, I was confused about W's position, not about your proposal. I hadn't suggested either that the list would have to change if the caucus became more structured, so we actually are on the same page regarding vision. If you and Izumi are more optimistic than I am at present about the actualy viability, that's good---something to build on. Cheers, BD > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de] > Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 3:12 PM > To: William Drake > Cc: Wolfgang Kleinwächter; governance at lists.cpsr.org; > marzouki at ras.eu.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus > > > > > William Drake wrote: > > Hi Wolfgang, > > > > I'm a little confused. What Jeanette is proposing is essentially what I > > previously described as a Status Quo Plus model---opt-in and > identifiable > > membership, endorse a charter, have clear decision making > rules, enhanced > > facilitator/chair roles, etc--- > > Dear Bill, don't be confused :-) > Yes, there are lots of similarities between our proposals (and I > intended to say that but then forgot to do so). The only difference I > see is that I put more emphasis on the hybrid character of the new > structure. The most visible and perhaps relevant function of the caucus > so far, the open space for debate, remains as it is right now. The new > chartered space concerns only those who wish to vote and regard > themselves as members. > > You are right, we would need to form a core team to set this up. And we > should wait for more comments /support for such a model. > I am pleased with the positive comments so far, thank you! > jeanette > > which you and others replied was probably too > > ambitious, so let's stick with the Status Quo approach. Now > you're saying > > let's do it. I agree that this would be the most desirable way > forward, I'm > > just skeptical that enough of us would commit the volunteer > time and effort > > to really make it viable. Even then, it could quickly run into > the problem > > of disparate visions, procedural and substantive. To determine > whether this > > has chance of flying, at a minimum we'd need a committed core > team to work > > up proposals, including a charter, and a live web space, preferably with > > wiki (hi Meryem;-) to shape texts. Working on a list alone has > proven time > > and again to be problematic, with threads getting lost before ideas are > > fully vetted etc. and inadequate cumulation. > > > > It would be useful to hear from more people whether there's > real demand to > > try this, and whether they'd be willing to be part of said team. I'd > > certainly join something with critical mass and mo, but another > process that > > eats time and drifts inconclusively is not enticing. > > > > Best, > > > > Bill > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter > >> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > >> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 2:27 PM > >> To: Jeanette Hofmann; William Drake > >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; marzouki at ras.eu.org > >> Subject: AW: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus > >> > >> > >> Dear JEANETTE; > >> > >> no you haven´t be too long. > >> > >> I fully support the various elements of your proposal. Let´s go > >> down this road - follow the IEZF example and develop new > >> innovative forms on the move. > >> > >> First thing: Somebody shouls start to draft a charter. > >> > >> best > >> > >> w > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> > >> Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann > >> Gesendet: Do 09.03.2006 20:02 > >> An: William Drake > >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; marzouki at ras.eu.org > >> Betreff: Re: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi, I've been offline for some days and missed an interesting debate. I > >> hope I can push it a bit further. > >> > >> As I said before, I think it would be a real mistake to give up on the > >> IG caucus as civil society actor. Most government and private sector > >> people in the WSIS context know of our existence. We form one > of several > >> interfaces to civil society in the broader sense and have thus become > >> some sort of a platform and brand name. The very fact that people from > >> ITU, ISOC or ICANN have subscribed and listen indicates the > relevance of > >> this space. > >> > >> As most of us know, it is not easy to establish such a status. > New, more > >> specific cs groups would have a hard time to reach the reputation we > >> have right now. And there is another point I want to make: I really > >> believe that it is our duty to work on structures and procedures that > >> allow us to form common positions and develop such positions over > >> several years. If we want civil society to be taken seriously, > and if it > >> is our goal to change dominant policy preferences, we have to establish > >> ourselves as a reliable long-term organization. > >> > >> So, please, lets think of a caucus reform rather than reverting to a > >> mere discussion space. > >> > >> To me, this list has and should also in future have two functions. > >> First, it is indeed a space for discussing IG related issues across > >> organizational and sectoral boundaries. Second, the caucus is a working > >> group for civil society folks to form opinions on those issues, to > >> prepare interventions. A potentially third role would be to select > >> people for specific committees, working groups or whatever. > >> > >> In the first and second year of its existence, the caucus could fulfill > >> those two roles on the basis of a rather lose structure. (Just > to remind > >> you, Adam and I insisted on being only coordinators. We didn't want any > >> formal authority and therefore refused to become "chairs".) > >> > >> In the third year, I observed a growing tension between the two > >> functions of the caucus as a discussion space and as an > >> intervention-oriented working group. What was good for the caucus as an > >> open discussion space, became an obstacle for the caucus as a working > >> group. > >> > >> If we want to keep both functions, the working group part > needs a better > >> structure. My proposal would be to create an opt-in structure for > >> those who regard themselves as active members of the caucus (as opposed > >> to listen to its discussions) and want a voting right. > >> > >> An option would be to combine a voting membership with signing a > >> charter. A charter could bind members to certain tasks and/or > positions. > >> Bill mentions Adam's suggestion to extract parts of former caucus > >> statements as the basis for such a charter. This sound like a useful > >> procedure provided people want a charter that defines limits of > >> acceptable positions. > >> > >> The new chairs of such a voting membership should have more authority > >> than the former coordinators. As things are right now, one veto can be > >> enough to kill a draft statement, no matter how many people support it. > >> In order to welcome and support diversity among the caucus membership > >> but also attain again the ability to agree on positions and makes > >> decisions, we need to develop some form of majority ruling. > >> > >> Personally I wouldn't want to vote on every substantial decision. I > >> prefer the concept of rough consensus because it emphasizes > the need for > >> debate and convincing others. > >> > >> If you havn't done so, please read Avri's account of IETF's decision > >> making rules: > >> http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf > >> > >> The important message of the IETF paper is that all notions of rough > >> consensus need somebody to determine rough consensus. This > somebody, the > >> chair, is accountable to the group. He/she can be recalled if > a majority > >> doesn't trust the chair anymore. > >> > >> In short, I propose to create a smaller entity amidst the caucus as it > >> is. The place for discussion would still be the IG list. The only > >> difference is that members of the smaller unit would elect the > chair and > >> agree on statements. > >> > >> The future chairs should be elected and given some authority to call > >> consensus on positions or papers. > >> > >> Perhaps, if the rules and the role of the chairs are clearer, we are > >> able to find candidates for this position. In the last half year or so, > >> being coordinator was a pretty thankless job. I know from private > >> discussions that this is one of the reasons why nobody wanted to > >> take over. > >> > >> Sorry for being so long, jeanette > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> I wonder whether a "Status Quo Plus Minus" is possible: in which we > >>>> give the caucus a capacity to elect/select chairs, and > >> delegate decision > >>>> making responsibility to them, but do not develop a common set of > >>>> positions on > >>>> policy issues but simply attempt to be a vehicle for the > >>>> representations of CS > >>>> in IGF-related activities. E.g., we elect chairs who develop > democratic > >>>> procedures to nominate people to serve on IGF-related program > >> committees, > >>>> councils, etc. > >>> Understand your concern about the need for procedures to handle > >> nominations > >>> for IGF etc, and noted that this is a problem with the SQ. A > procedural > >>> rather than substantive focus could be viable. But for your > solution to > >>> work we'd need to address a number of challenges, e.g.: 1) > >> Nobody appears to > >>> want to want to chair; Jeanette's prior call for nominations > met a stony > >>> silence. And preferably we'd have multiple candidates, and > competitive > >>> choice, or else we're in politburo mode. They'd have to be dedicated > >>> procedural mavens to achieve what you ask, too (maybe they > >> could work with > >>> the MMWG on that). 2) Even if some folks were to step > >> forward now, it's a > >>> hard to have a really proper election without an identifiable > >> electorate. > >>> In the absence of any affirmative opting-in, who knows how many > >> of the 300 > >>> people on the list consider themselves to be CS and members of > >> the caucus? > >>> I suppose we could continue with the 'whoever bothers to speak > >> by a certain > >>> time' model, but it's a bit lame and open to controversy. 3) > >> How would we > >>> conduct it? Use a private voting site, per MMWG, or try the > >> list? Who'd > >>> count, decide on voter eligibility based on what criteria, etc? > >>> > >>> Suggestions? > >>> > >>> Bill > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> governance mailing list > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > >> _______________________________________________ > >> governance mailing list > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Mar 10 13:51:28 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:51:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <31111052-21E3-4B04-A3C0-B90205DE9202@psg.com> Hi, I have appreciated the discussion on the right of development and it has given me a lot to think about. in thinking about this and was trying to understand a context for development rights. it seemed correct to me that a communinity would have such a right yet, i did not find a basis for it in things I had already considered. first, in thinking about it, i don't want to think of community as any particular region, like the South, or in terms of some sovereign entity, but rather leave community as any undeveloped grouping of individuals . my more naive thoughts see these as derivative from the other rights we do hold and have fairly universal agreement on - right to food, shelter, medical care and now, the recently declared right of information. the derivative aspect, for me, has to do with the fact that these other rights end up empty words without the method to obtain them. it is all well to say one has the right to food, but unless one provides food, or better yet, the means of growing food (agricultural development in a sense) there there is no way for a person to achieve what is their right. likewise with the right to information, without an infrastructure to obtain information what does it mean to have the right? for the right of development to see any notion of being satisfied, there needs to be a corresponding duty to enable and provide development. finding the targets of this duty is somewhat more difficult. what places the duty on another community? it is easy to find the moral necessity, this is what motivates all 'charity'. and one can certainly see a requirement in the notion of compensation for colonial exploitation. but the developed world has shown itself relatively immune to the reasons of morality or compensation for the crimes of history. so to find other bases is the challenge i am struggling with. certainly treaty agreement that recognizes the general benefit of world wide parity, a pragmatism, could serve as a basis. but how is this achieved? and certainly open discussion of the problems and solutions implied by such a right would be helpful. i realize that i don't really have an answer to the question of whether there are rights of development and how these can be substantiated in an academic sense. but in some sense it makes sense to me that as a caucus we consider advocating for the realization of such rights even if the basis is not crystal clear. so what does it mean for such rights to be relevant to internet governance. i think this has to come in the guise of policies that enable development and in advocating for agreements that would aid in development, e.g. some reasonable response to international connection costs. i don't know if we need to actually claim such rights in what the IGC suggests at the end of March as topics (2 weeks now), but i do see this as a reasonable caucus motivation for arguing in favor of ICC as a reasonable topic. in other words, even if we can't fully substantiate, in the academic sense, the right of development, can the IGC be a force in seeing this presumptive right satisfied? and in the meantime, it is good exercise for the academics among us to develop the argumentation that substantiates the reality of such rights. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rbloem at ngocongo.org Fri Mar 10 14:23:49 2006 From: rbloem at ngocongo.org (Renate Bloem) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:23:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline In-Reply-To: <31111052-21E3-4B04-A3C0-B90205DE9202@psg.com> Message-ID: <200603101925.k2AJOwOR001788@mta-gw1.infomaniak.ch> Hi, I enjoyed listening to all your arguments on the RTD. After years of discussion in the WG of the UN Commission on Human Rights on the RTD, and under the guidance of RTD expert Professor Arjun Sengupta, the nutshell was that the international community has an obligation/duty to give support that in all countries all human rights (civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights) can be realized. The US even abstained to go against it. Renata ----------------------------------- -----Message d'origine----- De : governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] De la part de Avri Doria Envoyé : vendredi, 10. mars 2006 19:51 À : Internet Governance Caucus Objet : Re: [governance] right to development,the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline Hi, I have appreciated the discussion on the right of development and it has given me a lot to think about. in thinking about this and was trying to understand a context for development rights. it seemed correct to me that a communinity would have such a right yet, i did not find a basis for it in things I had already considered. first, in thinking about it, i don't want to think of community as any particular region, like the South, or in terms of some sovereign entity, but rather leave community as any undeveloped grouping of individuals . my more naive thoughts see these as derivative from the other rights we do hold and have fairly universal agreement on - right to food, shelter, medical care and now, the recently declared right of information. the derivative aspect, for me, has to do with the fact that these other rights end up empty words without the method to obtain them. it is all well to say one has the right to food, but unless one provides food, or better yet, the means of growing food (agricultural development in a sense) there there is no way for a person to achieve what is their right. likewise with the right to information, without an infrastructure to obtain information what does it mean to have the right? for the right of development to see any notion of being satisfied, there needs to be a corresponding duty to enable and provide development. finding the targets of this duty is somewhat more difficult. what places the duty on another community? it is easy to find the moral necessity, this is what motivates all 'charity'. and one can certainly see a requirement in the notion of compensation for colonial exploitation. but the developed world has shown itself relatively immune to the reasons of morality or compensation for the crimes of history. so to find other bases is the challenge i am struggling with. certainly treaty agreement that recognizes the general benefit of world wide parity, a pragmatism, could serve as a basis. but how is this achieved? and certainly open discussion of the problems and solutions implied by such a right would be helpful. i realize that i don't really have an answer to the question of whether there are rights of development and how these can be substantiated in an academic sense. but in some sense it makes sense to me that as a caucus we consider advocating for the realization of such rights even if the basis is not crystal clear. so what does it mean for such rights to be relevant to internet governance. i think this has to come in the guise of policies that enable development and in advocating for agreements that would aid in development, e.g. some reasonable response to international connection costs. i don't know if we need to actually claim such rights in what the IGC suggests at the end of March as topics (2 weeks now), but i do see this as a reasonable caucus motivation for arguing in favor of ICC as a reasonable topic. in other words, even if we can't fully substantiate, in the academic sense, the right of development, can the IGC be a force in seeing this presumptive right satisfied? and in the meantime, it is good exercise for the academics among us to develop the argumentation that substantiates the reality of such rights. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Mar 10 14:29:05 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:29:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus In-Reply-To: <4411BD6B.1060501@lextext.com> References:

<4411BD6B.1060501@lextext.com> Message-ID: <4411D381.9030000@wz-berlin.de> Bret Fausett wrote: > Terrific conversation the last week on this thread. One issue to > consider is whether civil society potentially dilutes its voice by > organizing under a single umbrella organization. For example, at the > recent meeting in Geneva, it was refreshing to hear many voices from > civil society speak rather than have all of the input channeled into a > single intervention. Hi Bret, we discussed this matter also on the mmwg list. To me it seems unlikely that we (in the sense of cs working groups) would get away with dissolving into a bunch of individuals who make "I think..." statements. It simply doesn't fit in a world of aggregated positions developed by countries, groups of countries or even supranational entities like the EU. I think in the long run, we dilute our voice if we speak as individuals. jeanette > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Mar 10 15:24:01 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:24:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline In-Reply-To: <200603101925.k2AJOwOR001788@mta-gw1.infomaniak.ch> References: <200603101925.k2AJOwOR001788@mta-gw1.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <88938995-0236-4B96-BB59-17AA15410DDD@psg.com> Hi, I understand this. But is it actually accepted as a reason for action? From what I have read this is not binding. And while the US may have signed it, I do not see any signs that the US is doing much to support it. Or any other country for that matter. On the hand, it does not appear as if even all of the CS accepts the RTD, and thus we still need to do work among ourselves to find the basis for going forward with this as a presumption. For my own part, I accept it naively and as a basis for action. but I would also like to understand how it fits into general theories of rights. a. On 10 mar 2006, at 14.23, Renate Bloem wrote: > Hi, > > I enjoyed listening to all your arguments on the RTD. After years of > discussion in the WG of the UN Commission on Human Rights on the > RTD, and > under the guidance of RTD expert Professor Arjun Sengupta, the > nutshell was > that the international community has an obligation/duty to give > support that > in all countries all human rights (civil, cultural, economic, > political and > social rights) can be realized. The US even abstained to go against > it. > > Renata _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Fri Mar 10 15:29:54 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:29:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline In-Reply-To: <31111052-21E3-4B04-A3C0-B90205DE9202@psg.com> References:

<31111052-21E3-4B04-A3C0-B90205DE9202@psg.com> Message-ID: Throughout yours, there run (at least) two chords - the caucus and the academic (or academic point of view) within the caucus. May I suggest considering two alternates? - the advocate and the neutral eye, for 'establishing the facts and perhaps also for analysis.' In my experience, no one is actually neutral. But all of us can work at - when we need that neutral 'truth' - seeing the other side / seeing all sides (and inviting others to fill in our blind spots, where we don't see). And regardless of professional label, we may advocate (from an academic perch) or we may try hard to get at the facts (from some other perch) - myself, I find as much wisdom in friends who wouldn't go near an academic-by-name ... Hence, the suggestion to parse between advocate and 'thinker' (or, doer and thinker). In that spirit, if I may raise some additional questions, that yours inspire ... At 1:51 PM -0500 3/10/06, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, > >I have appreciated the discussion on the right of development and it has given me a lot to think about. > >in thinking about this and was trying to understand a context for development rights. it seemed correct to me that a communinity would have such a right yet, i did not find a basis for it in things I had already considered. > >first, in thinking about it, i don't want to think of community as any particular region, like the South, or in terms of some sovereign entity, but rather leave community as any undeveloped grouping of individuals . Someone earlier (Vittorio? - pls forgive any failure of memory on my part ...) pointed out that we are all developing, all the time. So then it would just be a question of where we are on the curve, and at what rate and with what trajectory we are moving. [See yours below on 'world wide parity,' or perhaps constant evolution - as a framework from which to see this?] So in that vein, would relevant community indeed be all groupings who present themselves, for the question? South, north or whatever (there is of course v widespread 'divide inside,' particularly for some 'developed' countries ... once the 'north' has a stake, they care!) > >my more naive thoughts see these as derivative from the other rights we do hold and have fairly universal agreement on - right to food, shelter, medical care and now, the recently declared right of information. > >the derivative aspect, for me, has to do with the fact that these other rights end up empty words without the method to obtain them. So 'derivative' comes from whether there is any action, behind otherwise-empty-words? so then, actually all rights are in this spotlight? >it is all well to say one has the right to food, but unless one provides food, or better yet, the means of growing food (agricultural development in a sense) there there is no way for a person to achieve what is their right. likewise with the right to information, without an infrastructure to obtain information what does it mean to have the right? [turning back to yours earlier, so replicating it here:] >other rights we do hold and have fairly universal agreement on Parminder earlier pointed out that discussion of rights is fundamentally political. You, here, point to 'fairly universal agreement.' Are rights - and their basis - really agreement, among ourselves (increasingly writ large, globally)? perhaps about the best way to go forward, living together? On the subject of 'agreement' as basis, especially noting Renate's succinct point to the UN Commission on Human Rights WG conclusion: >The US even abstained to go against it. We can see how, if 'agreement' is the basis, there can sure be a potential problem of empty words. But agreement can also mean action, presumably the whole point? > >for the right of development to see any notion of being satisfied, there needs to be a corresponding duty to enable and provide development. finding the targets of this duty is somewhat more difficult. what places the duty on another community? it is easy to find the moral necessity, this is what motivates all 'charity'. and one can certainly see a requirement in the notion of compensation for colonial exploitation. but the developed world has shown itself relatively immune to the reasons of morality or compensation for the crimes of history. so to find other bases is the challenge i am struggling with. certainly treaty agreement that recognizes the general benefit of world wide parity, a pragmatism, could serve as a basis. Again, 'agreement.' >but how is this achieved? God question! >and certainly open discussion of the problems and solutions implied by such a right would be helpful. > >i realize that i don't really have an answer to the question of whether there are rights of development and how these can be substantiated in an academic sense. but in some sense it makes sense to me that as a caucus we consider advocating for the realization of such rights even if the basis is not crystal clear. So the caucus role is for advocacy - doing? >so what does it mean for such rights to be relevant to internet governance. i think this has to come in the guise of policies that enable development and in advocating for agreements that would aid in development, e.g. some reasonable response to international connection costs. i don't know if we need to actually claim such rights in what the IGC suggests at the end of March as topics (2 weeks now), but i do see this as a reasonable caucus motivation for arguing in favor of ICC as a reasonable topic. in other words, even if we can't fully substantiate, in the academic sense, the right of development, can the IGC be a force in seeing this presumptive right satisfied? > >and in the meantime, it is good exercise for the academics among us to develop the argumentation that substantiates the reality of such rights. Or, is there also a neutral - thinking - role in the caucus, too? > >a. [Appreciating that you have just responded to Renate, I'll start with this anyway.] David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Fri Mar 10 15:37:53 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:37:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] erratum - Re: right to development Message-ID: Good question! (sorry, one eye on granddaughter-sitting ...) D _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From garth.graham at telus.net Fri Mar 10 16:24:05 2006 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:24:05 -0800 Subject: [governance] identity - an IG-related issue that crosses boundaries Message-ID: <71A50A99-3791-454D-9561-3D0C96E7D21E@telus.net> Shortly after stumbling into the global conversation on IG, I began to say something in my attempts to synthesis that conversation for the community networking groups I work with. I began to say that, in the longer term, "Internet governance is not about governance 'of' the Internet. It's governance 'by' the Internet." In winkling out examples of what I meant by that, today I encountered the following excellent presentation on a key governance issue - the expression of identity: Identity 2.0, by Dick Hardt, Founder & CEO, Sxip Identity, O'Reilly Open Source convention, August 4, 2005. http://www.identity20.com/media/OSCON2005/ "...as the online world moves towards Web 2.0, the concept of digital identity is evolving and existing identity systems are faltering. New systems are emerging that center identity around the user instead of a directory,..." Hardt is making a prediction that simple and open "user centric" identity is inevitable. If anything is close to the heart of IG in the sense that I meant, it's the issue of how participation in an online world changes our personal need to control the expression of identity. If Hardt is right (and I hope he is), then beyond IG Forum/ Caucus process issues, identity is an issue where civil society voices from within the Information Society must play a strong advocacy role. GG Telecommunities Canada _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 21:03:09 2006 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 03:03:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] identity - an IG-related issue that crosses boundaries In-Reply-To: <71A50A99-3791-454D-9561-3D0C96E7D21E@telus.net> References: <71A50A99-3791-454D-9561-3D0C96E7D21E@telus.net> Message-ID: <954259bd0603101803n4ab91274v9e5e7ac73ef26c60@mail.gmail.com> On 3/10/06, Garth Graham wrote: > > > "in the longer term, "Internet governance is not about governance 'of' > the Internet. It's governance 'by' the Internet." Actually, you could distinguish three different aspects : - governance OF the Internet (the typical DNS and scarce resources question) - governance ON the Internet (rules and processes for activities conducted on the Internet) - and, governance IN THE AGE of the Internet (or also TROUGH the Internet and other electronic tools) The later seems to me what you mean by governance BY the Internet. But the word "by" evokes a submission to the instrument rather than the empowerment. You probably could also say governance VIA the Internet or even "Internet-supported governance". This broader dimension addresses how the emergence of the global network is giving birth to a new global polity. This polity needs governance mechanisms as different from the traditional representative democracy of the industrial age as representative democracy itself was from the feudal and monarchic regimes of the agricultural age. What we have come to call multi-stakeholderism is an other name for internet-supported participative democracy. Best Bertrand -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From garth.graham at telus.net Sat Mar 11 01:04:32 2006 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:04:32 -0800 Subject: [governance] identity - an IG-related issue that crosses boundaries In-Reply-To: <954259bd0603101803n4ab91274v9e5e7ac73ef26c60@mail.gmail.com> References: <71A50A99-3791-454D-9561-3D0C96E7D21E@telus.net> <954259bd0603101803n4ab91274v9e5e7ac73ef26c60@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2ACB7C7E-D1B6-4DA7-BE6A-8D0CDA4E00C2@telus.net> On 10-Mar-06, at 6:03 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > This polity needs governance mechanisms as different from the > traditional representative democracy of the industrial age as > representative democracy itself was from the feudal and monarchic > regimes of the agricultural age. What we have come to call multi- > stakeholderism is an other name for internet-supported > participative democracy. And I agree with that, except for that word "needs." What I mean by referring to governance "by" the Internet is that the polity coming into being already "has" those governance mechanisms. In relating peer-to- peer, Internet Protocol acts as a new form of social contract. GG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Sat Mar 11 06:58:46 2006 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 12:58:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] identity - an IG-related issue that crosses boundaries In-Reply-To: <71A50A99-3791-454D-9561-3D0C96E7D21E@telus.net> References: <71A50A99-3791-454D-9561-3D0C96E7D21E@telus.net> Message-ID: <4412BB76.3020402@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Garth Graham wrote: > Hardt is making a prediction that simple and open "user centric" > identity is inevitable. If anything is close to the heart of IG in the > sense that I meant, it's the issue of how participation in an online > world changes our personal need to control the expression of identity. > If Hardt is right (and I hope he is), then beyond IG Forum/ Caucus > process issues, identity is an issue where civil society voices from > within the Information Society must play a strong advocacy role. Very good point, and one that we largely missed to discuss during the WSIS phase (Bertrand made one brief attempt last year, but then everybody was too busy). The issue of identity (and of online identity management) is strongly related to privacy, in the sense that the netizens (or citizens - whatever) have to be able to control what kind of information they give to whom, and how that is used afterwards. It also is related to pseudonymity and anonymity, and a strong fear among privacy advocates is that all these infrastructures (the Internet, ambient intelligence systems, RFID passports, ...) will make is less easy of even impossible to do things anonymously. There is a great deal of work currently being done on "Privacy and Identity Management" (PIM) infrastructures, but largely without public participation... Best, Ralf <- who also supports Jeanette's and Bill's proposals for the IGC+ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Mar 11 11:41:26 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:41:26 +0300 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus In-Reply-To: <4411D381.9030000@wz-berlin.de> References:

<4411BD6B.1060501@lextext.com> <4411D381.9030000@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: Hello, On 3/10/06, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Bret Fausett wrote: > > Terrific conversation the last week on this thread. One issue to > > consider is whether civil society potentially dilutes its voice by > > organizing under a single umbrella organization. For example, at the > > recent meeting in Geneva, it was refreshing to hear many voices from > > civil society speak rather than have all of the input channeled into a > > single intervention. > > Hi Bret, > > we discussed this matter also on the mmwg list. To me it seems unlikely > that we (in the sense of cs working groups) would get away with > dissolving into a bunch of individuals who make "I think..." statements. > It simply doesn't fit Why does IG have to "fit" into their model? If they want to play the IG game, shouldn't they have to play by current IG rules? -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Mar 11 12:22:01 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 22:52:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGCand IG issues for march deadline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200603111719.k2BHJl2P066025@trout.cpsr.org> Milton, >> Parminder I think it's healthy for you, especially, to be confronted with >>some honest and well-considered challenges to your ideological viewpoints. I have no problem with ideological debates, in fact I have been asking for them on this list. The issue here started with your impatience with Meryem's mention of some ideological issues. >>I don't understand the relevance of this. You don't need to introduce >>ideological debates about what "rights" are in order to justify a role >>for HR>>>> And then, your pictorial treatment of the right to development would have brought strong reactions from anyone involved in the theory and practice of development. If you still think my reaction was too strong, picture making similar derogatory statements on this list on issues like MSP, or right to privacy, and wait for reactions. >>Let's be clear. Development is a good thing. The issue is how to get there. I am challenging the notion that asserting >>a "right to development" contributes to development in any meaningful way.>>>> How to get it there - yes, that's the question, and in development thinking the role of state is considered very important for this purpose. This directly implicates the issue of strong obligations on the state, which brings in the language of rights. Political thinking is evolutionary - and new issues get cast in terms of rights. The right to development is now an accepted formulation of a set of obligations of various actors - chiefly the state, but also various inter-state mechanisms(that's why I used the term 'global systems'). So I really do not understand what problem you have with casting such development obligations on the political actors in strong terms (as rights). You really didn't clarify that. And I don't see why I need to begin a discourse on this list on the 'right to development' which is a well theorized subject. But since you have raised issues like moral posturing, lack of clarity of thinking etc, and challenged whether anyone can translate this concept of 'right to development' into something real and discrete, let me try to answer you briefly on these issues. Looking at the examples of what you think could be construed 'legitimately' as rights, I am inclined to see that you mostly consider 'negative rights' as acceptable but not so the 'positive rights'...... And this conception has to do with the political ideology of what one thinks is the legitimate role of the state. It is difficult to get into a debate here on this other than to mention that 'development' thinking necessarily sees much greater positive intervention by the state than such a restrictive conception of rights and the role of the state allows. >> Please tell me, if someone in a poor country, say Sudan, petitions a nation state (or something as vague as a "global system") for their "right to development" what are they petitioning for? who will give it to them? Now, I can understand where your above conception comes from - you understand development in terms of macro level economic growth - so you find it silly for someone to do something like try to enforce a right that her economy should grow at, say, 8 percent. If you have referred to the literature on the concept of development, or even to the conception of right to development (that Meryem pointed you to) you will have seen that the concept of development goes much beyond macro level economic growth. >> Perhaps you could give me a specific example of how a right to development would be claimed, adjudicated and enforced. I suspect you will have a difficult time. Contrary to what you suspect it is not at all difficult task. For anyone who as much as reads the daily newspaper in India knows that at least three distinct 'rights' have been decreed officially in India, over just the last two years. Right to information, right to education, and right to work. All these are 'positive rights', with strong 'development' implications, and cast strong and enforceable obligations on the state.(and if you want further details on how these rights are claimed and enforced, I can share them with you.) And all these rights can be directly derived from the broad language of the 'right to development' as adopted by the international community..... And these rights have followed strong advocacy and grassroots movements, and represent important milestones for development ideology (before you trash them again, please relate these 'rights' to the similar obligations that almost all 'welfare states' of the North already fulfill.) While arranging rights neatly into generational categories do serve some analytical purposes, I do not completely accept the hierarchy implied in saying that the second and third generation rights came into being in order to create conditions for fulfillment of the first generation rights. There is a big debate in development theory about how such perspectives may have differing validities in cases of extreme poverty, which is still very widespread. The use of the 'rights' terminology in new areas represents political evolution of our civilization, and new concepts and descriptions in this area - like the right to development - often represent elaborations upon, as well as an additions to, what was included in the earlier generation of rights. 'Rights' also signify some significant areas/ issues on which a widespread acceptance and relative unanimity (at least in principle) of the world community is achieved. Still, I am not averse to an honest and open discussion of even these issues, but the manner in which the 'right to development' was rubbished offhand by you, represents to me a great insensitivity. (like your comment - "Or is the right to development just a request for a bag of cash?") Could you have spoken about the human rights of political freedom, personal liberty etc in a similar fashion?? A 'rights' based language also helps open up new spaces for strengthening political claims - and such claims often arise in CS spaces. WSIS was characterized with CS claims for a set of 'communication rights'. While such claims may need to go through some evolutionary changes, and adjustments, CS spaces are generally associated with such progressive notions and advocacies. That was the reason for my wonderment on regressive debates on right to development on this list. I am also laboring these points because they have direct relevance to the mandate and future of this caucus. Clarity on such basic political orientations is necessary to build the context of what really are we seeking here from our engagements with IG. Whether a positive interventionist role of global IG structures for using the power of Internet technologies to further development is strongly sought by the civil society constituency represented on this list is an issue that needs to be clarified. And whether such a role will be sought on terms of charity and moral appeals, or of self-interest based negotiations (if you do so and so it will also be useful to you in such and such manner), or as a matter of right of the under-developed and disadvantaged communities and groups (as a part of their 'right to development') is an important political issue in IG. This caucus needs to have its position clear on this. >>>If you want to claim the mantle of "civil society" you'd better get used to the idea that _real_ CS is vast and >>diverse - ideologically as well as culturally, politically, etc. >>> While the manner in which IG and the development connection will be interpreted in specific contexts is an issue that is open to debate and contestation, for me the overall issue of the whether the governance of the Internet will pro-actively be used to promote development and the 'right to development' (as adopted by the international community, and as it works out in various local contexts) is not negotiable. I hope I have made my position clear. I request you also to make your position clear on the IG and development connection. This debate is important for the IG caucus. Regards Parminder PS: I also want to make it clear once more - because I expect a typical response to this demand for putting IG in the development context - that by this demand we do not mean that the IG Forum should be used as another good place for open ended discussion on IPR, open source, community networks etc. That will be quite wasteful, and that's not what is being demanded here. A development agenda in IG means that all issues of IG must be seen and judged from the perspective of development - and if you like, in terms of 'right to development' - and this should remain a strong focus of CS involved in the IG, and of the IGF. And we need not repeat the debates and arguments here about how no technology and no techno-social phenomenon is neutral in terms of its 'developmental' impact. ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 10:25 PM To: parminder at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org; marzouki at ras.eu.org Subject: Re: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGCand IG issues for march deadline >>> "Parminder" 3/7/2006 4:14 AM >>> >Milton, I am sorry to say this, but your rubbishing of the 'right to >development' is alarming for someone who often leads CS interventions >in IG consultations. Parminder I think it's healthy for you, especially, to be confronted with some honest and well-considered challenges to your ideological viewpoints. Let's be clear. Development is a good thing. The issue is how to get there. I am challenging the notion that asserting a "right to development" contributes to development in any meaningful way. I haven't heard any convincing arguments from you to the contrary, yet. And -- sorry -- I am not going to let you substitute moral posturing for clear thinking. >And ideological debates are not un-necessary - they are the very basis of >what we are doing here. The de-politicizing of IG debates is the reason of >much of the exclusion (or keeping away) of many actors from these lists/ >discussion spaces. My friend, we are having an ideological debate, right now. And it is you who are attempting to short-circuit serious debate by implying that my comments are outside the proper bounds of civil society discourse. By all means, let us have an ideological debate. Don't accuse me of being the obstacle. >And the right of development should be 'enforceable' by individuals and >communities against all kinds of political entities - from nation states, to >global systems. That was what we have been trying to do at WSIS, but you >seem to have very different views..... Perhaps you could give me a specific example of how a right to development would be claimed, adjudicated and enforced. I suspect you will have a difficult time. I understand what it means when, e.g., indigenous people claim that their lands should not be expropriated or polluted, but these are not "development rights" but simple assertions of property rights. I understand what enforcing such a right would mean: return of the lands to their rightful owners/stewards, or cessation of the pollution, etc. I understand what it means when people claim that they should not be imprisoned for political dissent, or held in jails without due process, habeus corpus and other well-established procedural rights. I understand what enforcing such a right would mean: release from prison; avoidance of interference with their expression, adherence to procedural standards, etc. I understand what it means when people claim that protecting copyright or patent rights are inimical to the development of certain LDCs. I understand the counter-claims as well (that failure to protect those rights will reduce investment in technology). Whatever side you take on that question, framing the issue as a debate over "rights" makes sense, and it is clear how the rights would be asserted and enforced. Please tell me, if someone in a poor country, say Sudan, petitions a nation state (or something as vague as a "global system") for their "right to development" what are they petitioning for? who will give it to them? Is it a change in the government's monetary policy? An increase or decrease in the state's budget or debt? More investment in education? or should that money be placed in science and technology? Are they saying that the current pricing of energy should be changed? Up or down--which price movement will have better long-term consequences for the development of the economy? All such changes would affect a society's development. All would interact in complex ways. Or is the right to development just a request for a bag of cash? Is that all you mean? If so, is that really "development," or just a static transfer of wealth? If you give the bag of cash to that person, what about the other 800 million people who'd also like one? Where does the cash come from? What other activities, investments, people will it be taken away from? Are you sure you have enough to supply alll the claimed "development" rights? What if some of the people who get the bag of cash handle it unwisely? Do they get to petition for another one, based on their right to development? How will the people who saved theirs and made it grow react to that? Really, I am quite curious to learn more about how a "right to development" is articulated, claimed and enforced. Perhaps you can fill me in with some specifics. >What is it that we really share to be working as a group. >At no other CS forum or grouping at global advocacy level have I >seen such a lack of clarity on the bare minimum basic unifying ideological >issues. If you want to claim the mantle of "civil society" you'd better get used to the idea that _real_ CS is vast and diverse - ideologically as well as culturally, politically, etc. Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat Mar 11 22:13:33 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 22:13:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGCand IG issues for march deadline Message-ID: >>> "Parminder" 03/11/06 12:22 PM >>> >And then, your pictorial treatment of the right to development >would have brought strong reactions from anyone involved in the >theory and practice of development. One thing that happens in an ideologically homogeneous environment is that people's critical faculties tend to atrophy. Its often useful to snap people back to reality in such a fashion. >If you still think my reaction was too strong, picture making >similar derogatory statements on this list on issues like MSP >or privacy I think that either of those topics are legitimate areas of debate, especially MSP. Be my guest. >in development thinking >the role of state is considered very important for this purpose. >This directly implicates the issue of strong obligations on the >state, which brings in the language of rights. As far as I know, the countries that have succeeded in developing in the post-colonial period have never done so by asserting a right to development. Various paths have been taken, Often development has been fostered by REDUCING an overly burdensome and protectionist role of the state. But perhaps you can provide me with an example of a specific country whose development has been aided by claiming or asserting a "right to development." What is the track record of this claim? Or is it, as I suspect, more of a rhetorical game? Indeed, there is a danger such an assertion can act as a substitute for other, more necessary reforms. >Political thinking is evolutionary - and new issues get cast in terms of >rights. But this is precisely what I am questioning, Parminder. I think it is not helpful, and may be harmful, to confuse rights with processes like development. You don't settle a debate by assuming you're right and reasserting it. >The right to development is now an accepted formulation of a Accepted by whom? If it is accepted by states and inter-state mechanisms, then I guess the problem of development is solved, huh? Good news! I eagerly await the impending delivery of this right by states....;-) >And I don't see why I need to begin a discourse on this list on the >'right to development' which is a well theorized subject. Because, based on what I've seen, it is clearly not as well theorized as you think. >Looking at the examples of what you think could be construed 'legitimately' >as rights, I am inclined to see that you mostly consider 'negative rights' >as acceptable but not so the 'positive rights'...... And this conception has >to do with the political ideology of what one thinks is the legitimate role >of the state. It is difficult to get into a debate here on this other than >to mention that 'development' thinking necessarily sees much greater >positive intervention by the state than such a restrictive conception of >rights and the role of the state allows. It should be obvious from history that an overly large role of the state can impede development. Certainly there are development economists who believe that more emphasis on individual rights and rule of law is more important for development. >Contrary to what you suspect it is not at all difficult task. For anyone who >as much as reads the daily newspaper in India knows that at least three >distinct 'rights' have been decreed officially in India, over just the last >two years. Right to information, right to education, and right to work. All >these are 'positive rights', with strong 'development' implications, and >cast strong and enforceable obligations on the state.(and if you want >further details on how these rights are claimed and enforced, I can share >them with you.) That's fine with me. But none of them are "rights to development." You are proving my point for me. If you want to deliver something tangible to a population, you have to specific specific sectors and benefits - education, information, work, etc. >And all these rights can be directly derived from the broad language of the >'right to development' as adopted by the international community..... No, I suspect that these rights stand on their own. Certainly a right (entitlement) to education predates by centuries the concept of a right to development. There is a belief that education will help produce economnic development as well as social benefits. There is no need for a "right to development" here. So your example fails. >Still, I am not averse to an honest and open >discussion of even these issues, but the manner in which the 'right to >development' was rubbished offhand by you, represents to me a great >insensitivity. (like your comment - "Or is the right to development just a >request for a bag of cash?") I am truly sorry if you viewed that as rubbishing. I guess it's an academic perspective in which I am discussing ideas and honestly and openly reflecting my own questions and views. I will try to be more sensitive. But if something doesn't make sense to me I am going to question it. >That was the reason for my wonderment on regressive debates on >right to development on this list. Again, I reject your assumption of an ideological homogeneity among civil society and I reject the notion that you have discovered the truth and any deviation from it is "regressive." Better use other rhetorical tactics. That one is not flying. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From cnd at knowprose.com Sun Mar 12 00:52:00 2006 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:52:00 -0600 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGCand IG issues for march deadline In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4413B700.2060705@knowprose.com> Now, if this is a private debate, I say go to it with vigor - but I haven't had responses on my comments yet. Is this a private discussion? Milton Mueller wrote: > > As far as I know, the countries that have succeeded in developing in the post-colonial period have never done so by asserting a right to development. No, the countries that have 'succeeded' (and what do we call success, anyway?) in developing in the post-colonial period exercised that Right of Development. There is a difference between having a Right and Exercising the right. That was the point I made in my previous post. Perhaps I was intruding. If we say people have Freedom, the derivative Freedom of Development exists which demonstrates a Right to Development. -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago cnd at knowprose.com Looking for contracts/work! http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786 New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com http://www.knowprose.com http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sat Mar 11 23:15:08 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:15:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] Worried that we aren't developping text for March deadline.. Message-ID: <4413A04C.4050705@lists.privaterra.org> I am worried by the fact that we seem to be spending more time discussing the "right to development" then a text for the end of March deadline. Can we ALSO spend some time as well on identifying the specific themes and/or topics for the IGF to take up. Has any thought been given on how each "possible" themes could be developed further and/or sub-divided ? regards Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Sat Mar 11 23:45:17 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:45:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGCand IG issues for march deadline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060312044517.94768.qmail@web54715.mail.yahoo.com> (Please note: Last email read with this thread before writing: "David Allen: [governance] erratum - Re: right to development") Dear all: I had followed the beginning of this thread and dropped off; now I see how dense it has grown. If you donât mind, Iâd like to add my belated two cents. >From Avri, Miltonâs and probably some otherâs earlier postings, the question emerges as to how to claim and operationalize any right to development (RTD). I see this rather as a collection of more basic rights such as rights to potable water, food, shelter, justice, and more if you will, which may pertain to different legal corpuses and fail to be coded in any unified âDevelopment Lawâ (if such thing is imaginable. Note: I use âlawâ here in a generic sense, either national law or international treaty, which may provide any framework for implementation and enforcement). Now, since RTD âexistsâ in, and pervade from, the discourse and the literature (of the kind of UN âagreementâ Renata was referring to, and probably other pieces Meryem may have been thinking of), I will make the provisional hypothesis â what a pleonasm! â that RTD exists positively. In their attempt to address or discuss this question, I note a few participants refer to philanthropy-based philosophy of (aid to) development. Avri, Mar10, was musingâ¦ and "struggling": "for the right of development to see any notion of being satisfied, there needs to be a corresponding duty to enable and provide development. finding the targets of this duty is somewhat more difficult. what places the duty on another community? it is easy to find the moral necessity, this is what motivates all 'charity'. and one can certainly see a requirement in the notion of compensation for colonial exploitation. but the developed world has shown itself relatively immune to the reasons of morality or compensation for the crimes of history. so to find other bases is the challenge i am struggling with." In Vittorioâs language, Mar9, we are referred to "solidarity", "generosity", "help" (obviously from those who have enough to afford such leanings) as founding notions of development cooperation and/or assistance, and asked: "I am sure that this is exactly the vision that supporters of a "right to development" might challenge, as they might think that developed countries have a moral and legal duty to help developing countries. Am I right?" Though I agree with Avri that our common history is paved of crimes on, and deprivations of some peoples in the name of some others, and that this might be a basis to some moral claim of entitlement to any kind of compensation, I do think both are missing an important point here â especially if your intention is to lessen the ideological charge of the debate for the sake of operational purposes of a possible RTD. The point is there might be another "species" of supporters of the RTD, those for whom the first "targets of this duty" must be the developing country Governments. As simple as that. They are the first to be held accountable as to whether their people have potable water, food, shelter, or are protected against injustice or any arbitrary and illegitimate violence, have a reasonable access to the symbolic resources useful to the development of the individual citizens, etc. If there is any claim that can only be resolved beyond that line of responsibility, I think it is the duty of those national Governments, pressured, spurred or assisted by CS entities or any citizen organizations, to take the case further before their peers in the relevant institutions of the international arena. The issue may then become a global one, with possible/desirable involvement of a global CS movement. It might sound weird to hear this within a CS group, but sorry folks in the real world, the first actors and the final decision makers are still the states. As CS participant, I see our role in clarifying the debates, analyzing the issues, advocating for a wider public interest, foiling hindering hidden agendas, disclosing adverse machinations, alerting on equally adverse impacts on human rights, etc. Ok, Iâm aware we are heading for "multistakeholderism" but you also know we are not near the time the CS (even globally represented by just one seat around the table) will have one vote equaling that of a state. All we can do is to discuss and try to convince the decision and policy makers that we are right or our opinion/analysis is legitimate to be taken into account. Though I understand the temptation to consider a "community as a any undeveloped grouping of individuals", at any level, but avoiding "any particular region [â¦] or [â¦] sovereign entity", I think we still live in a world where the nation states are still strong and have the leverage to frame and determine our collective life. So we cannot just skip that level of analysis andâ¦ responsibility. Am I making any sense out of this? Well, if you have understood by now that my problem with RTD is not on "right", but on "development", then I guess I do. We must be kidding when we think of philanthropy-led, charity-based agency as driving force for development!!! I take that as a response to crises â and that was much needed to face the devastating effects of the hurricane Katarina, the Tsunami, etc. It is just unfortunate that Africa has got crises as its usual trick, and you may notice that those are often consequences of political situations. But charity is by no means a solution for long-term development. So I have hard time trying to build a concept out of "development"; at best I see it as an ideology born from a mis-take or a stammering of history. Of course development is an old word, and it is obvious, or should be, that when we say every country or community (including the rich) is at a certain level of development, and still develops, we donât mean exactly the same thing (at least not ideologically or politically) as in the expression "public assistance to development", "developing countries", or "right to development." In the former we refer to something more neutral, maybe to development as a concept (probably as old as human thinking), and in the former we refer to a mix of ideas and practices that have been there only from mid-20th century. Indeed when President Truman first mentioned the term in that sense of public assistance to development, in the Point IV of his address on the state of the nation, on Jan 20, 1949, I doubt anybody knew what exactly we were heading into. Anyway, for some reasons that are obscure to me "development" has become something that is believed _exclusively_ achievable by means of _international_ resources: be it technical assistance, financial aid, or claims, negotiations, and subsequent rights, etc. And I see the CS supporting this trend; I guess itâs a natural move â nature always fills the holes, the empty spaces. People, part of the nature, will even more, if in addition those spaces provide some resources, even simply symbolic. The international organizations, especially UN, are today more likely to accommodate CS than plenty of the national Governments on this earth. For those of the CS from countries were they are not given a say in the government decision-making, it is the place and opportunity to compensate, play a role, and be heard (and I guess it is an old strategy trick to try to get from another way - outside - what you can't get from one way - inside). On the other hand, I suppose for those of the CS who have the possibility to be heard in their home country, it is still one more platform for maybe a farther-reaching impact. So, everything should be fine. The thing is the development has meanwhile become an _international_ business, but guess what, not only for international development agencies and global advocators, but more and more for the people we would like better developed. Now they are waiting for the solutions to come from outside â the developed world â because outside is the cradle of modernity. Yes, I think the average African sees the developed countries as if they have always been developed, so they have all the solutions, and in his mind being developed is confounded to being modern: in Europe and North America, the Tradition is by essence Modernity. And the behavior of most of the political leadership and that of the development agencies throwing out their experimental "take-it or take-it" solutions does not make it any better for him to stop beleiving that. That is, for me, the most dreadful outcome oe effect of "development": the business of development does not produce development, but thwarts it, impedes it, by making it quite exclusively an international affair. I have been wondering finally if there has ever been a case where development has been achieved through international/foreign public assistance. I first thought no, but finally I found one: the Marshall Plan (not surprisingly, this is also a result of the Truman doctrine, which was announced in 1947 by the Secretariat of State George C. Marshall, and authorized by the Congress the following year). But we know in what specific conditions that Plan was implemented. Other than that, one can hardly find examples of success. So what's wrong? Why are we stubbornly favoring that path? I could go on with this, but please let me not, and just add: if you want to fight for a RTD, please make sure that our Governments be reminded that the first, if not only, raison dâÃªtre for a Gvt is to be the guardian of, and to be answerable for, the interests of his people. And then codify so that if another country is illegimately behaving in a way to impede them to fulfill that duty, then they can claim an infringement to the RTD before the international community. It is not the CS to decide of a RTD, since it cannot be held as a target of the duty of development; it can only advocate for it, if it wants. This sould be done in a very cautious and articulated way so that not only it makes sense, but it helps achieve something. Mawaki P.S. For those who want references, Rist 1996 could be a starter for questioning development. This is a debate I have publicly started with the ADF III (Third African Development Forum, organized by the UNECA) on their discussion list in 2002: http://www.bellanet.org/lyris/helper/index.cfm?fuseaction=Visit&listname=adf3 See email from Chango, Mawaki or 'chango4scan at arc.sn', especially on 2002/03/13 Subject: DÃ©veloppement et intÃ©tÃ©gration rÃ©gionale (French only) More in: Chango, Mawaki - 2002/02/25 Subject: Infrastructures pour l'intÃ©gration rÃ©gionale en Afrique Translation by moderator (non-endorsed by the author): Email from Muthoni Muriu (or Rifche2000 at hotmail.com) - 2002/03/05 Subject: ADF III: Integration through Infrastructure development from Chango Mawaki _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Mar 12 03:56:38 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:56:38 +0300 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGCand IG issues for march deadline In-Reply-To: <20060312044517.94768.qmail@web54715.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060312044517.94768.qmail@web54715.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Mawaki, On 3/12/06, Mawaki Chango wrote: > duty" must be the developing country Governments. As simple as that. > They are the first to be held accountable as to whether their people > have potable water, food, shelter, or are protected against injustice > or any arbitrary and illegitimate violence, have a reasonable access > to the symbolic resources useful to the development of the individual > citizens, etc. frequently not held accountable though, but in theory, yes. > rights, etc. Ok, I'm aware we are heading for "multistakeholderism" > but you also know we are not near the time the CS (even globally > represented by just one seat around the table) will have one vote > equaling that of a state. All we can do is to discuss and try to > convince the decision and policy makers that we are right or our > opinion/analysis is legitimate to be taken into account. >From my perspective, this is looking at it backwards. CS already has a clear, strong role in IG issues. Why go "cap in hand", begging governments for that which we already have in existing fora?? We have many seats at the table(s) already reserved for us, it's our fault if we don't take those seats, but they are their for us! > > Though I understand the temptation to consider a "community as a any > undeveloped grouping of individuals", at any level, but avoiding "any > particular region […] or […] sovereign entity", I think we still > live in a world where the nation states are still strong and have the > leverage to frame and determine our collective life. So we cannot > just skip that level of analysis and… responsibility. We have given them this role in the IGF, by agreeing to be "junior partners". Thank God it can only produce non-binding recommendations! > > Am I making any sense out of this? Well, if you have understood by > now that my problem with RTD is not on "right", but on "development", > then I guess I do. We must be kidding when we think of > philanthropy-led, charity-based agency as driving force for > development!!! I take that as a response to crises – and that was > much needed to face the devastating effects of the hurricane > Katarina, the Tsunami, etc. It is just unfortunate that Africa has > got crises as its usual trick, and you may notice that those are > often consequences of political situations. But charity is by no > means a solution for long-term development. but it can be a catalyst for development. > It is not the CS to decide of a RTD, since it cannot be held as a > target of the duty of development; it can only advocate for it, if it > wants. This sould be done in a very cautious and articulated way so > that not only it makes sense, but it helps achieve something. And why it is a topic for this caucus is beyond me. It's OT AFAIAC. Please move the discussion to another forum. Robert is right, let's focus on what we need to produce for the end of the month. Here are my suggestions: 1. SPAM reason: There is no single forum that works on SPAM, instead lots of fora do this. If the IGF can produce FUSSP, good on 'em!. 2. Right to communicate (I prefer this to right to information) reason: quite obvious 3. Encouraging Open Access/liberalising telecoms sector regulations in order to stimulate the spread of the edge of the network reason: also quite obviouos I the "3" limit is a red-herring, The IGF wants a list of prioritised issues, We can submit 4 or 20. I am sure they will be collated with others input and a prioritised list will coume out of the process. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Mar 12 09:48:05 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:48:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus Message-ID: Bret: One issue to consider is whether civil society potentially dilutes its voice by organizing under a single umbrella organization. For example, at the recent meeting in Geneva, it was refreshing to hear many voices from civil society speak rather than have all of the input channeled into a single intervention. Wolfgang: Yes and No. I heard some voices in Geneva arguing that CS undermines its role if it does not speak with one voice (or lets say a limited number of voices). Governments want to have one contact point (or at least a calculable number of partners) to know with whom they have to deal (if they are ready to communicate at all). One natural difficulty is certainly that CS risks to end up like the EU: Hours of multilateral consultations behind closed doors and finaly a statement with ten lines, representing the "consensus" on the lowest level. Such an input would not lead to impact. On the other hand there is a need to act in a way which signals that there is more than diverse individual positions of academics and activists, representing minority of expert groups. One way to settle it could be the introduction of two categories of questions: * Central Policy Questions/CPQ (where a coordinated voice is needed) * Peripheral Policy Questions/PPQ (where individual voices are invited) In such a case we would need a procedure to identify CPQs. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Mar 12 10:34:29 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 10:34:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus Message-ID: >>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter >One natural difficulty is certainly that CS risks to end up like the >EU: Hours of multilateral consultations behind closed doors and >finaly a statement with ten lines, representing the "consensus" >on the lowest level. Such an input would not lead to impact This is an important question. Lacking time, I can only say that I agree more with Brett than with Wolfgang and Jeanette when it comes to arriving at common positions on policy issues of substance. IG Caucus should NOT attempt to develop common policy statements but should simply facilitate convergence of opinion within CS to whatever degree it can. Deliberation within the caucus will allow us to find areas of agreement, providing some aggregation of voices, but there is no reason to force that deliberation into ONE opinion or statement, and claim for it the voice of "civil society." Such a claim would be illegitimate in any case. Also, from a practical standpoint If you try to arrive at one statement, one opinion, you will end up with the EU situation Wolfgang decscribes above. However, I think we need a caucus structure with the capacity to appoint people to posts, and in doing so we will tacitly represent opinions. This is in fact a more flexible way to aggregate opinion than writing joint statements. For example, I might never agree with Parminder on certain policy position statements, but I would easily accept him as a legitimate CS representative from India and see his views as representing a subtantial segment of opinion within CS. (and I hope he would have a reciprocal view). _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Sun Mar 12 10:48:16 2006 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 10:48:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, [iso-8859-1] Wolfgang Kleinw�chter wrote: > Yes and No. I heard some voices in Geneva arguing that CS undermines >its role if it does not speak with one voice (or lets say a limited >number of voices). This whole WSIS process is a farce. Much like ICANN has been a horse and pony show for years now. I think the best the WSIS can hope for is to help ICANN and government constitutencies acknowledge the obvious. The root belong to the people of the internet - not self interests. The future is based in honesty: http://www.netkwesties.nl/editie140/artikel1.html >Governments want to have one contact point (or at >least a calculable number of partners) to know with whom they have to >deal (if they are ready to communicate at all). Look. Governments just want control and a fixed outcome. The can't have control but they can have a fixed outcome. The DNS and root belongs to everyone. Governments will only be able to control namespaces within their own jurisdictions. Just like the Turkish root does. And the china root. But in the end the only way we are going to see everything in one co-ordinated root wil not be determined by the WSIS process. >One natural difficulty is >certainly that CS risks to end up like the EU: Hours of multilateral >consultations behind closed doors and finaly a statement with ten lines, >representing the "consensus" on the lowest level. Such an input would not >lead to impact. On the other hand there is a need to act in a way which >signals that there is more than diverse individual positions of academics >and activists, representing minority of expert groups. I'm not sure I would agree with you that there are many experts here. I think it was intentional that human rights and internet roots got mixed up together in the WSIS process. These issues of rights are irrelevant to root. And the most important issue - the root - control and archiving - has never been delt with. As this group wallows in some delussion it is acomplishing anything of merit I would like to point out that it is not. I don't see many stakeolders here - just alot of experts - some i wold even accredit as such. Do your best. All I can say is thank god the world don't have to depend on the WSIS. cheers joe baptista -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sun Mar 12 10:57:04 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 10:57:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGCand IG issues for march deadline In-Reply-To: References: <20060312044517.94768.qmail@web54715.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <441444D0.9060700@lists.privaterra.org> I've taken McTim's comments and placed them online for others to revise and/or add to. The address is as follows: http://www.writely.com/View.aspx?docid=bbfcskzpsx44x regards Robert > 1. SPAM > reason: There is no single forum that works on SPAM, instead lots of > fora do this. If the IGF can produce FUSSP, good on 'em!. > > 2. Right to communicate (I prefer this to right to information) > reason: quite obvious > > 3. Encouraging Open Access/liberalising telecoms sector regulations in > order to stimulate the spread of the edge of the network > reason: also quite obviouos > > I the "3" limit is a red-herring, The IGF wants a list of prioritised > issues, We can submit 4 or 20. I am sure they will be collated with > others input and a prioritised list will coume out of the process. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu Sun Mar 12 10:57:33 2006 From: jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu (John Mathiason) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:57:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0769FBB9-8D90-477E-89C2-A6DEF26BA781@maxwell.syr.edu> Just to add my 2 pfennig's worth. Having worked with civil society in other UN contexts, I have seen them to be most effective when both conditions Milton mentions is in place: when they have a common position on an issue, governments and Secretariats take notice, because it reflects a broad underlying consensus. and when individual or smaller group members of civil society have strong, well-argued positions that are derived from their particular experience, they have effect because their legitimacy (based on experience) contributes to the understanding of the issue. Therefore, I think that when an IG Caucus has a common position (or members believe that one can be reached reasonably quickly), that should be placed on the table, as clearly and bluntly as possible. When it is clear after an initial round that there are significant differences, those having different opinions should express them. Unlike government groups, civil society does not have to forge consensus when none is possible. Regards, John On Mar 12, 2006, at 16:34, Milton Mueller wrote: >>>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter >>> halle.de> >One natural difficulty is certainly that CS risks to >>>> end up like the >> EU: Hours of multilateral consultations behind closed doors and >> finaly a statement with ten lines, representing the "consensus" >> on the lowest level. Such an input would not lead to impact > > This is an important question. Lacking time, I can only say that I > agree more with Brett than with Wolfgang and Jeanette when it comes > to arriving at common positions on policy issues of substance. IG > Caucus should NOT attempt to develop common policy statements but > should simply facilitate convergence of opinion within CS to > whatever degree it can. > > Deliberation within the caucus will allow us to find areas of > agreement, providing some aggregation of voices, but there is no > reason to force that deliberation into ONE opinion or statement, > and claim for it the voice of "civil society." Such a claim would > be illegitimate in any case. > > Also, from a practical standpoint If you try to arrive at one > statement, one opinion, you will end up with the EU situation > Wolfgang decscribes above. > > However, I think we need a caucus structure with the capacity to > appoint people to posts, and in doing so we will tacitly represent > opinions. This is in fact a more flexible way to aggregate opinion > than writing joint statements. > > For example, I might never agree with Parminder on certain policy > position statements, but I would easily accept him as a legitimate > CS representative from India and see his views as representing a > subtantial segment of opinion within CS. (and I hope he would have > a reciprocal view). > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Sun Mar 12 11:32:22 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:32:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75C16F60-B267-4484-9775-BD64197F03B1@psg.com> hi, I think that the multiple voices of CS is good and think it will be the case even if the IGC gets its act together in the direction of SQ +, i.e. if we achieve the ability to publish IGC rough consensus positions. Just because the IGC comes to a consensus position does not then stop any other group from also making a statement. I think that the IGC will normally end up representing a centrist CS position given the diversity of participation in the IGC. And I believe that while the IGC can represent CS positions, it can not ever claim to actually represent CS. I think that is one of the important distinctions which we pretty much all probably accept. Though representing centrist CS positions is probably a worthwhile thing in and of itself. In other words, the EU model for the IGC is probably not such a bad thing. I think that if the caucus at large wants to make a statement by the end of March, it needs to start drafting soon. I think we have heard several threads, from the importance of the development perspective as cross cutting to specific recommendations for Spam, right to communicate (i anticipate wit certain trepidation the discussions over this right) and liberalizing telecoms. I think I agree about 3 or 20, as long as the list is prioritized it will probably be a worthwhile contribution to the discussion. I personally don't know how many topics the IGF can handle in its first meeting, but we are talking about a 5 year process, so I expect many topics will be covered over the life of the forum. I do think that it is important that, as McTim did, we explain why a topic is both important for the IGF and tractable within the IGF. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Sun Mar 12 11:38:52 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:38:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] right to development, the structure of IGCand IG issues for march deadline In-Reply-To: <441444D0.9060700@lists.privaterra.org> References: <20060312044517.94768.qmail@web54715.mail.yahoo.com> <441444D0.9060700@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <7AA2B7C9-41D5-4AEC-9D32-C67E4CBD02F7@psg.com> interesting idea, but registration on writely is closed off as it makes its move to google. a. On 12 mar 2006, at 10.57, Robert Guerra wrote: > I've taken McTim's comments and placed them online for others to > revise > and/or add to. The address is as follows: > > > http://www.writely.com/View.aspx?docid=bbfcskzpsx44x _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Mar 12 11:43:41 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:43:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] (no subject) Message-ID: Dear List the IGF dates are fixed now. After informal consultations held by the Government of Greece, it was decided that the first meeting of the IGF will take place in Athens from 30 October - 2 November 2006. Best wolfgang _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sun Mar 12 13:06:25 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 13:06:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGF Topics - very draft proposals ... In-Reply-To: References: <20060312044517.94768.qmail@web54715.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44146321.2000704@lists.privaterra.org> McTim wrote: > > 1. SPAM > reason: There is no single forum that works on SPAM, instead lots of > fora do this. If the IGF can produce FUSSP, good on 'em!. > > 2. Right to communicate (I prefer this to right to information) > reason: quite obvious > > 3. Encouraging Open Access/liberalising telecoms sector regulations in > order to stimulate the spread of the edge of the network > reason: also quite obviouos > > I the "3" limit is a red-herring, The IGF wants a list of prioritised > issues, We can submit 4 or 20. I am sure they will be collated with > others input and a prioritised list will coume out of the process. > As I mentioned earlier, below is my very skeleton proposal on how each specific topic could be broken down. * SPAM - technical methods - human rights implications of filtering as censorship: unintended consequences of filtering. " When one person's free speech is someone else's blasphemy" - RG comments: Censorship could be a topic all to itself. * CYBERCRIME - Law enforcement co-operation. - Overview & comparison of existing instruments: CoE Convention, etc - International legal assistance - the good, the bad, and the ugly.. - Human Rights implications - Developments : What, if any intl. protocols should be proposed to deal with Harmful content ? (happy slapping, Anorexic self-help clubs, etc). - RG comments: 1. If the CoE convention is indeed flawed, then what do we propose in it's place ? Do we have anything better to offer ? 2. How can CS be more involved in the ongoing discussions to develop new legal instruments 3. Should Privacy & Data protection be suggested as separate topics, or instead considered as horizontal cross-cutting issue that need to be considered in each theme? * INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE INTERNET This could encompass: International Domain Names (IDN), Multi-lingual content. -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Sun Mar 12 16:11:28 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 13:11:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGF Topics - very draft proposals ... In-Reply-To: <44146321.2000704@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <20060312211128.60693.qmail@web54706.mail.yahoo.com> So let's move on and get ready for March 31 - my take on this: 1/ Diversification of the DN space - introduction of new gTLDs, and above all, adoption of a policy that demystifies the DNspace and opens up for a wider audience to request and obtain the introduction of new gTLDs; support to and implementation of IDNs; adoption of policy processes that ensure broad dissemination of the opportunities and fair conditions of market entry for the new comers in the registration (registries & registrars) business. 2/ Capacity-building and meaningful participation in policy development - ensure participation from all the regions and support the regions in need to have access to policy development fora and build a knowledge base on policy issues of global relevance. 3/ Freedom of expression, data protection and privacy rights - hmm... "quite obvious"! Mawaki _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sun Mar 12 16:49:57 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:49:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGF Topics - very draft proposals ... In-Reply-To: <20060312211128.60693.qmail@web54706.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060312211128.60693.qmail@web54706.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44149785.6040103@lists.privaterra.org> Mawaki Chango wrote: > So let's move on and get ready for March 31 - my take on this: > > 3/ Freedom of expression, data protection and privacy rights > - hmm... "quite obvious"! In my earlier comments, I had suggested that Human Rights (freedom of expression, data protection, privacy, etc) be thought more as a cross cutting theme - one that can either be dealt with identifying it as a separate theme, or as a key aspect of each identified theme. I think that for any proposed theme, details have to be given as to what key aspects could be analyzed and how discussions could take place (virtually and at the Greece meeting) let's take a specific example. Let's say we propose Privacy & Data Protection as a specific theme. How would be broken down? Who would do that? etc. As always, keen to hear everyone's comments.. regards Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From db at dannybutt.net Sun Mar 12 20:58:56 2006 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:58:56 +1300 Subject: [governance] IGF Topics - very draft proposals ... and the caucus In-Reply-To: <20060312211128.60693.qmail@web54706.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060312211128.60693.qmail@web54706.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <68BA9C69-2AA0-462D-9947-DB374FDDB00F@dannybutt.net> Benn offline for a few days... I like Mawaki's proposed topics for March 31 - they emerged strongly in the Asia-Pacific fora. I also support this statement: > As CS participant, I see our role in clarifying the debates, > analyzing the issues, advocating for a wider public interest, > foiling hindering hidden agendas, disclosing adverse machinations, > alerting on equally adverse impacts on human rights, etc. And so, I also support Milton's suggestion: > IG Caucus should NOT attempt to develop common policy statements > but should simply facilitate convergence of opinion within CS to > whatever degree it can. Of course, where there is broad agreement (and is some areas we do have it - I haven't heard too many defenses of USG involvement or the gTLD approval process) we can make forceful collective statements. But otherwise, I agree with Brett's suggestion that focused, diverse outputs on specific issues is better than compromised, by-committee rough consensus. The question is "What is the most effective structure for coordinating those outputs among this group?" My only issue with Milton's suggestion of appointments is that I am wary of the representative mode which puts the person from the least developed country as some kind of representative of issues pertaining to LDCs, and sort of excuses everyone else from dealing with it (see also: gender). Perhaps working groups on specific issues is the best way? I am appreciative of Robert's attempts to add the collaborative writing infrastructure - however we probably need consensus ;) on a technical platform that will suit everybody (I also couldn't sign up). Danny On 13/03/2006, at 10:11 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > So let's move on and get ready for March 31 - my take on this: > > 1/ Diversification of the DN space > - introduction of new gTLDs, and above all, adoption of a policy that > demystifies the DNspace and opens up for a wider audience to request > and obtain the introduction of new gTLDs; support to and > implementation of IDNs; adoption of policy processes that ensure > broad dissemination of the opportunities and fair conditions of > market entry for the new comers in the registration (registries & > registrars) business. > > 2/ Capacity-building and meaningful participation in policy > development > - ensure participation from all the regions and support the regions > in need to have access to policy development fora and build a > knowledge base on policy issues of global relevance. > > 3/ Freedom of expression, data protection and privacy rights > - hmm... "quite obvious"! > > Mawaki > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Mon Mar 13 12:02:24 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 09:02:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] identity - an IG-related issue that crosses boundaries In-Reply-To: <954259bd0603101803n4ab91274v9e5e7ac73ef26c60@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060313170224.94946.qmail@web54706.mail.yahoo.com> I hope it doesn't hurt to have an eye on other threads while discussing the priorities for the IGF. A question Bertrand: --- Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > On 3/10/06, Garth Graham wrote: > > > > > > "in the longer term, "Internet governance is not about governance > 'of' > > the Internet. It's governance 'by' the Internet." > > > Actually, you could distinguish three different aspects : > - governance OF the Internet (the typical DNS and scarce resources > question) > - governance ON the Internet (rules and processes for activities > conducted > on the Internet) > - and, governance IN THE AGE of the Internet (or also TROUGH the > Internet > and other electronic tools) > > The later seems to me what you mean by governance BY the Internet. > But the > word "by" evokes a submission to the instrument rather than the > empowerment. > You probably could also say governance VIA the Internet or even > "Internet-supported governance". > > This broader dimension addresses how the emergence of the global > network is > giving birth to a new global polity. This polity needs governance > mechanisms > as different from the traditional representative democracy of the > industrial > age as representative democracy itself was from the feudal and > monarchic > regimes of the agricultural age. If the difference in you mind is net and clear between those two types of democracy ("the traditional representative of the industrial age" and the "representative democracy (...) from the feudal and monarchic regimes of the agricultural age"), please I would like to hear about it, thanks. Mawaki What we have come to call > multi-stakeholderism is an other name for internet-supported > participative > democracy. > > Best > > Bertrand > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mr.marouen at gmail.com Mon Mar 13 12:18:37 2006 From: mr.marouen at gmail.com (Marouen MRAIHI) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:18:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for Applications: Internet Governance Capacity Building Training and Research Message-ID: <9ea79150603130918k3d88b9abk@mail.gmail.com> FYI Marouen MRAIHI IGCBP Alumni 2005 http://www.mraihi.com ________________________________________ Call for Applications: Internet Governance Capacity Building Training and Research Programme - April - November 2006 DiploFoundation, in cooperation with various partners, is currently accepting applications for the Internet Governance Capacity Building Training and Research Programme. This programme aims at improving Internet Governance (IG) related knowledge and skills for participants from developing countries and facilitating community building among participants from different national, cultural and professional backgrounds. The programme includes an online training phase (April 1 to July 10, 2006), a research phase (July 15 to November 1, 2006), and capacity building fellowships. Fellowships, which will be awarded to the most successful participants in the programme, include internships with partner organisations and attendance at Internet Governance related meetings including the proposed meeting in Athens later in 2006. The application deadline for this programme is March 24, 2006. For further information and to apply online, please visit the Internet Governance Capacity Building Training Programme website. : http://www.diplomacy.edu/IG/ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Tue Mar 14 00:09:24 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:09:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus [3 options] Message-ID: On its face, the IGC would seem to have little choice but to move beyond a discussion space. As a core of its 'offer' for IGF, IGC invites governments to join and adopt its practices for online deliberation. Unless IGC can conduct its own online affairs in exemplary fashion, it is unclear why governments would give such an invitation serious consideration. Important IGC aims for IGF are at stake. But there seemed a clear reason why Bill tended toward a discussion space, rather than anything more: To go farther is a major challenge, across sharp divides in the group, which so far have not been surmounted. By far the largest number of the original responses to Bill's - and from a reasonably wide spectrum - echoed his choice for just a discussion space. In some cases the reasons seemed to confirm Bill's, for instance weariness at numerous earlier attempts. Bottom line - no wave of a magic wand seems likely to move IGC beyond a discussion space. (In fact, to acknowledge creation of a discussion space could actually be taken as a milestone - Vittorio might point us to the passeggiata as a sort of rough analog.) One experience so far has shown that trappings such as a charter and voting may appear to move beyond past differences - but apparently it takes more, a good bit more. What is 'exemplary conduct of online affairs'? Really - that is the whole question. Though perhaps a radical notion in a discussion here, group outcomes turn, IMO, first of all, on the human dynamics among those involved. The radical part of the notion: this means online tools are only subsidiary and in support, rather than the starting place. What does that buy us? Among others, we design the use of the online tools to suit our group needs, not the other way around. Most especially, we focus on our group needs, as any start point for thinking (not on online tools). For a (slightly circuitous) example, consider the IETF as a model, as Avri points us. (My papers have long used the IETF as a canonical case, so of course personally I am in full support.) Here are two points to start - there is a longer list ... i. Strong tie between larger discussion space and smaller guiding group. A person in the IETF, to use the example, has a stake in both the larger discussion group and in outcomes from the smaller guiding group. (This arises from roles both in innovation and in the standardization phases - see the appendix here for a really brief description.) Another way to put this: There is some level of trust (not just votes ...) between the levels. Even another way to put it: At certain times there are effectively hierarchical relations between levels (despite rhetoric to the contrary). While she may or may not agree with these characterizations, Avri's is surely a necessary starting point, to understand. Of course the best online tools are what support such a dynamic story-going-forward. But: ii. A key difference between the classic IETF model and IGC is the relative homogeneity in outlook among the engineers who first created the IETF. The relative similarity meant the dynamics just above could operate in a more-or-less seamless fashion. By comparison CS and the IGC welcome the full range of styles and views. The recent line of thought, started by Bret, has tried to plumb the question. The sociologist would speak in terms of differentiation and integration - how to break apart into natural units while still arranging for some connection among the pieces? This does make the dynamics above more challenging to pull off. To put it in practical terms, we could notice that groups often perform better when there is some task in hand. With very different viewpoints among subparts of IGC, a common task is harder to find. But it is the common bond that pulls the pieces together. These of course are transformations that take time, commitment, vision, leadership and the right moment (for which, in my book, read: a ready community). The good online tools support it. The time, commitment, vision, leadership and the right moment probably bear re-emphasis. Of course, we could now spin out the challenge to keep the strong tie in i), when there are large differences in ii). But that is next points. Some of this is heretical to at least some readers. Overall, are we on the right track? By formal decree IGF also is no more than a talk shop, a discussion space. (As Milton pointed out, nor should we sell short the importance of talk.) Apparently the smart thinking about the IGF 'designated discussion space'? - that it also be the two-level design now in the wind for IGC. [Yes, there is a silly paradox in this ... to get a discussion space, we need more than that ...] After Jeanette fairly faithfully turned Bill's spec into a proposal, he at least looks to something to build on. Would that it were so. David At 5:25 PM +0100 3/3/06, William Drake wrote: >Hi Meryem, > >Thanks for restarting this discussion, although I was hoping we >could stick with your prior dialectical thread long enough to find >out what Marx and Hegel would have to say about IG... > >A few responses to the options you pose. Personally, I can't see the >caucus/mailing list becoming the plenary or plenary-like space for >the whole CS coalition that formed around WSIS, much less for a more >ambitious configuration that would draw in other CS actors that >haven't been involved to date (which would be important, going >forward). While we've moved toward a broad understanding of IG that >touches on many issue-areas, much of the 'global information >society' type agenda and the WSIS follow-up and implementation >action lines are outside the realm of IG, and it would make no sense >to try to cram everything from community networking to FLOSS and >beyond into the IG framework. The people and organizations involved >would quickly become very frustrated. So I agree, a broader >restructuring and reinvigoration is in order (but probably >unlikely), the IGC would remain one component of that coalition, and >of course individual organizations or caucuses not involved here >would not need to work through the IGC to participate in the IGF if >their issues are on the agenda, or should be. > >As to the IGC itself, it would seem there are three options: > >1. Status Quo Plus. Try to strengthen the group and position it to >actually be able to agree on common positions, as we used to do, and >represent them in IGF and beyond. Prior efforts to start >conversations about this went nowhere. One could imagine pursuing >steps like a) determining who actually considers themselves to be in >the caucus---which inter alia would make it easier to tell when >there's consensus on a proposal---by having people formally opt in, >similar to what you did in the Human Rights Caucus >www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/ ; b) having some sort of >shared charter or mission statement (Adam once suggested we get this >by simply extracting guiding principles from previously agreed >texts); c) setting clear decision making rules; d) electing new >coordinators; e) maybe seeking financial support from a foundation; >etc etc. I strongly suspect that we are no longer in a place where >any of this would be viable. The diversity of views on substantive >issues, particularly with respect to core resources, is simply too >great; as WSIS went on, only the procedural questions like demanding >CS inclusion proved easy to agree on promptly and without >controversy. Perhaps the only way we could reduce that diversity >would be to form a fairly small group that agrees to a rather >specific charter, which others would presumably find exclusionary >and odious. By extension, I think Veni's suggestion that the caucus >could become a legal entity is a total non-starter. An undefined >range of people who don't actually agree on much and are working as >volunteers is hardly the foundation for a viable formal organization. > >2. Status Quo. At present, the caucus is more like a loose network >of people with common interests (as opposed to positions), an >umbrella label we can use for purposes of identification when >interfacing with governments etc. No defined leadership, agreed >procedures, membership, etc, just CS participants in a 300-person, >multistakeholder e-discussion space. When individual or >organizational participants want to develop and represent a common >position in IGF or elsewhere, it's done on an opt-in basis, and the >result is not presented as a caucus position per se. For example, >that's what I did last month re: the ITU reform meeting, a text was >rushed together, two dozen people signed in a day, and I submitted >it to ITU under the rubric 'members of the IGC,' rather than 'the >IGC' (even though there were more signatories than we typically had >expressing support back when the caucus did adopt joint positions). >This avoids non-signatories feeling their views have been >misrepresented etc. Similarly, individual or organizational >participants make interventions in IGF etc. without purporting to >represent the IGC. That's what we did at the IGF consultation, >except once when those attending managed to have a meeting and agree >on some points, which Adam presented as representing the consensus >of caucus members who happened to be in attendance. This has >basically worked ok, and governments probably don't recognize the >devolution from what we were doing before. However, it doesn't >provide any formally principled basis to do what Milton mentioned as >a key function, namely nominating people for the IGF PC or whatever. >And of course, if different groupings working under the rubric >promote incompatible positions in a meeting with governments, it >might cause a little confusion. > >3. Status Quo Minus. We could declare the caucus to have been >dissolved, now that WSIS is over. Smaller groupings, presumably of >the like minded on particular issues, could be formed to address >particular issues or represent particular political tendencies, and >the list would continue to function as it does now. Since we can >form coalitions of the willing under option 2, it's not clear what >the advantage of this would be, other than avoiding any confusion on >the part of governments etc. as to whether what someone is saying is >'the caucus position.' Maybe I'm missing something... > >All things considered, the status quo has some clear deficiencies >and is a bit disappointing, but it seems viable for most purposes, >no? > >Best, > >Bill At 8:02 PM +0100 3/9/06, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Hi, I've been offline for some days and missed an interesting >debate. I hope I can push it a bit further. > >As I said before, I think it would be a real mistake to give up on >the IG caucus as civil society actor. Most government and private >sector people in the WSIS context know of our existence. We form one >of several interfaces to civil society in the broader sense and have >thus become some sort of a platform and brand name. The very fact >that people from ITU, ISOC or ICANN have subscribed and listen >indicates the relevance of this space. > >As most of us know, it is not easy to establish such a status. New, >more specific cs groups would have a hard time to reach the >reputation we have right now. And there is another point I want to >make: I really believe that it is our duty to work on structures and >procedures that allow us to form common positions and develop such >positions over several years. If we want civil society to be taken >seriously, and if it is our goal to change dominant policy >preferences, we have to establish ourselves as a reliable long-term >organization. > >So, please, lets think of a caucus reform rather than reverting to a >mere discussion space. > >To me, this list has and should also in future have two functions. >First, it is indeed a space for discussing IG related issues across >organizational and sectoral boundaries. Second, the caucus is a >working group for civil society folks to form opinions on those >issues, to prepare interventions. A potentially third role would be >to select people for specific committees, working groups or whatever. > >In the first and second year of its existence, the caucus could >fulfill those two roles on the basis of a rather lose structure. >(Just to remind you, Adam and I insisted on being only coordinators. >We didn't want any formal authority and therefore refused to become >"chairs".) > >In the third year, I observed a growing tension between the two >functions of the caucus as a discussion space and as an >intervention-oriented working group. What was good for the caucus as >an open discussion space, became an obstacle for the caucus as a >working group. > >If we want to keep both functions, the working group part needs a >better structure. My proposal would be to create an opt-in structure >for those who regard themselves as active members of the caucus (as >opposed to listen to its discussions) and want a voting right. > >An option would be to combine a voting membership with signing a >charter. A charter could bind members to certain tasks and/or >positions. Bill mentions Adam's suggestion to extract parts of >former caucus statements as the basis for such a charter. This sound >like a useful procedure provided people want a charter that defines >limits of acceptable positions. > >The new chairs of such a voting membership should have more >authority than the former coordinators. As things are right now, one >veto can be enough to kill a draft statement, no matter how many >people support it. In order to welcome and support diversity among >the caucus membership but also attain again the ability to agree on >positions and makes decisions, we need to develop some form of >majority ruling. > >Personally I wouldn't want to vote on every substantial decision. I >prefer the concept of rough consensus because it emphasizes the need >for debate and convincing others. > >If you havn't done so, please read Avri's account of IETF's decision >making rules: >http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf > >The important message of the IETF paper is that all notions of rough >consensus need somebody to determine rough consensus. This somebody, >the chair, is accountable to the group. He/she can be recalled if a >majority doesn't trust the chair anymore. > >In short, I propose to create a smaller entity amidst the caucus as >it is. The place for discussion would still be the IG list. The only >difference is that members of the smaller unit would elect the chair >and agree on statements. > >The future chairs should be elected and given some authority to call >consensus on positions or papers. > >Perhaps, if the rules and the role of the chairs are clearer, we are >able to find candidates for this position. In the last half year or >so, being coordinator was a pretty thankless job. I know from >private discussions that this is one of the reasons why nobody >wanted to take over. > >Sorry for being so long, jeanette -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Mar 14 10:25:43 2006 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:25:43 -0300 Subject: [governance] Unesco online platform... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4416E077.7040204@rits.org.br> Interesting to know UNESCO has activated an "online platform" for some of the Internet governance themes (see below email msg received today and an excerpt of the corresponding Web site's front page). frt rgds --c.a. ============== UNESCO opens online platform for planning multi-stakeholder implementation of WSIS Plan of Action UNESCO has now opened an online platform to facilitate initial contacts among stakeholders and to launch activities under the Action Lines of the Geneva Plan of Action that are in the area of competence of the Organization. This includes the following action lines: C3: Access to information and knowledge C7: E-learning and E-science C8: Cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local content C9: Media C10: Ethical dimensions of the Information Society Link to online platform http://www.unesco.org/webworld/wsis/consultation/ [Extracted from the Web page above:] Geneva Plan of Action: Planning multi-stakeholder implementation Towards Knowledge Societies The participants of the Consultation meeting of action lines moderators/facilitators on 24 February 2006 in Geneva decided that, in order to launch activities under each Action Line and facilitate the initial contacts among facilitators and participants, that UNESCO should be provisionally appointed as the interim focal point for action lines falling in its areas of competence. Through this platform, UNESCO seeks to gather the opinion of those interested in these action lines on all aspects related to multi stakeholder implementation. Action Line C3: Access to information and knowledge Action Line C7: E-learning Action Line C7: E-science Action Line C8: Cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local content Action Line C9: Media Action Line C10: Ethical dimensions of the Information Society -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br ******************************************** * Sacix -- distribuição Debian CDD Linux * * orientada a projetos de inclusão digital * * com software livre e de código aberto, * * mantida pela Rits em colaboração com o * * Coletivo Digital. * * Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br * ******************************************** _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Mar 15 11:38:04 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:38:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] WG: Next Steps Message-ID: Dear IGC list, while MMWG is dealing with methodology and procedural issues, there is also an overlapping with substance. To avoid any misunderstanding, substantial issues are belonging to the IGC list and should be discussed there. Nevertheless I encourage the IGC list to move forward and preparing a statement for March, 31, 2006. Best regards wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Wolfgang Kleinwächter Gesendet: Mi 15.03.2006 10:35 An: Milton Mueller; LFaubert at conceptum.ca; drake at hei.unige.ch; jam at jacquelinemorris.com; mmwg at wsis-cs.org Betreff: Next Steps Dear list, yes here we have full consensus with regard to the "Methodology". We agree that the IGF Committtee will need some subsidary groups, organized bottom up as specific discussion groups, open to everybody and linked (in a formal or informal way) to the IGF Committee and to guarantee that the IGF is not a (singular annual) "project" but a (multiple permanent) "process". What we have to do here is to define a number of "criteria" for the launch and the recognition of a "Discussion Group on Internet Governance" (DGIG) and relevant procedural aspects. But there is no need to be in a hurry. As Bill has said, the IGF Committee will define its own rules of procedure and working methods, including procedures for sub-groups etc. But I agree also with Luc that we can produce a "Food for Thought" paper. Timing is here important. We should not do the second step before the first one. My expectation is that the IGF Committee will be launched end of April and will meet for the first time in May. If we have such a paper in May would be okay. The first step is to identify the priority issues. Here the dateline is March, 31, 2006. Jackie and I have asked several times for your "Top Three" but the response was rather low so far. I have on my list at the moment the following six "prirority issues" * IG & Development * IG & Human Rights * IG & Critical Ressources (Root, DNS, IPAddresses) * IG & Cybersecurity * IG & Spam * IG & Multiligualism We have to send a statement with regard to the "priority issues" until March, 31, 2006. We can certainly use this opportunity to add some initial ideas for a "Working Method", based on "bottom up, inclusive and transparent procedures". But, as I said above, in our public statetment we should not be too specific at this stage. On the other hand, in our internal discussuon we should move ahead. Avri´s proposal to look deeper into the IETF practices makes sense. The way of making a RFC is an inspiring model. Could we develop something equivalent to an IETF-RFC, probably a IGF-RCR (Rough Consensus Recommendation)? Best Jackie & Wolf ________________________________ Von: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] Gesendet: Mi 15.03.2006 00:15 An: LFaubert at conceptum.ca; drake at hei.unige.ch; jam at jacquelinemorris.com; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; mmwg at wsis-cs.org Betreff: RE: [Mmwg] March item to work on >>> "William Drake" 3/12/2006 1:47 PM >>> >Bottom line, [snip] Unless CS pushes the idea of bottom-up MS groupings >able to tackle particular issues, gets that built into the framework, and >then proposes/initiates some, there probably won't be any. To me, this >would mean that the potential opportunity represented by the IGF >has been largely missed. We will not be able to effectively push global >public interest considerations or reforms of extant governance mechanisms, Amen. I agree completely. I think Luc was making the same point. So, let's do it. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Wed Mar 15 16:47:49 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:47:49 -0500 Subject: [governance] Suggestions for how to propose themes Message-ID: Let me make some suggestions for how these proposals should be framed. We should revert to the well thought out suggestion of Bertrand de la Chapelle and go about it in this way: [quoting Bertrand:] Stakeholders would contribute *one page submission, in a proposed six point format: a. A *concise formulation* for the proposed theme; b. A brief *description* of why it is important in their view; c. How it is in conformity with the Tunis Agenda in terms of *substance*, particularly in reference to para. 34 to 54; d. How it fits *within the mandate* of the IGF as detailed in para 72; e. Who the *main actors* in the field are, who could be encouraged to participate in the Forum and its thematic sessions f. Last but not least, why, in their view, this issue should be addressed *in the first annual meeting* of the Forum rather than in subsequent ones. [end quote] Let me expand a bit on point a). I hope that our "concise formulations" of themes are NOT put forward as broad labels like "IG and cybercrime" or "IG and human rights." They should be framed as specific questions relating to policy formulation, such as: "How can the need for global mechanisms to counteract cybercrime be reconciled with the need for the privacy of user communications?" or "Are global norms or rules needed to govern Internet hosting companies interaction with governments that engage in political repression and censorship? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Mar 16 04:59:42 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:59:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] History Message-ID: Dear list, the last couple of days I did some research and (re-) discovered some nice documents from the very early days of the Caucus. As you remember, Internet Governance was not an issue during PrepCom1 (June 2002), but became the subject of discussions after the series of regional ministerial conferences (2002/2003) and consequently of PrepCom2 (February 2003). The first open discussion was organized by CS on February, 21, 2003 in the ILO building. After the meeting we had a CS Plenary and established the IG Caucus. With other words, February, 21st, 2003 is the IGC Birthday. http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/pc2/inf/workshop/flyer3.doc The next event was the first official intervention of the IGC in a WSIS PrepCom Plenary. This was done in Paris during the InterSessional on July 16, 2003. If you read the text of the statement and compare what was decided in Tunis, you will discover some nice points. http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/pcip/plenary/internet_governance_group.doc We said: "We see NO need to for any INTER-GOVERNMENTAL organization to take responsibility for management of the domain names and the IP addresses, but we see a need for ongoing improvement of the existing structures and mechanisms." And in Tunis we got the "enhanced cooperation". We said: "In a broader context of ICT policy making and global governance, we invite the WSIS to consider launching a "Global Information Society Observation Council" which could serve as a meeting point for improved coordination, consultation and communication on ICT issues. Such a "Council" should be composed of representatives of governments, private industry and civil society. It could promote the exchange of information, experiences and best practices on issues from privacy to free speech on the Internet, from IPR to eCommerce, from Ipv6 to ENUM. Listening to the good experiences of others is a cheap investment and could become a source of inspiration for innovative policy development in the 21st Century." And we got the "Internet Governance Forum". It would be stupid not to build on this achievements :-))) _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Mar 10 12:47:02 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 12:47:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I used to be less then fully optimistic about the future of the IGC doing anything more then continuing to function as a mailing list for discussing issues - the status quo (SQ) position. After the last few days of messages, I begin to think that if we could make it through a transition process to the SQ+ we might actually be able to turn the IGC into a functional civil society body that could participate in the ongoing IGF process. We certainly need to do something and I agree with Jeanette's determination that the IGC has achieved a degree of recognition that it would be sad to see lost. On a couple of the specific recommendations: - i think the idea of creating a charter is a good one. In my experience, someone (or a small group) has to come up with a first draft and then be willing to give it to the caucus without fear of the changes, sometimes extensive, it might go through. I think Bill's endorsement of Adam's starting place is a good way to start. I also think the perennial idea of using a wiki to do this is a good one, and i am willing to participate with those who take the first crack at it. - i think Vittorio's idea is a good one. It seems to me that the open list that is IGC should remain, that is the SQ that we should protect. And i agree that the the membership group should not become separate Ie. currently I don't think the membership group should move to another list. But this does present some difficulties, e.g. how are decisions reached when everyone, those who sign up for membership and those who don't, can speak on a equal basis. Makes any determination of rough consensus more difficult. Though it may be possible for sufficiently empowered chairs to be able to make a determination based on knowledge of the membership. Tricky though. and as Jeanette indicated, even though it is good to have the option of a vote, one does not want to have to resort to voting very often. _ i think that in the rework of the IGC, though the list remains open, we need to institute some rules of netiquette. I think they should be minimal, but they should give the chairs the ability to censure participants in the list who become disruptive. - i don't quite understand the suggestion for a non profit entity. while i understand the great usefulness of fund raising, especially if we want to help those from developing areas to participate in the IGF participate. I don't object to the idea, but I don't understand how it would work. Would it serve as an umbrella for the IGC membership list? Or would be a totally seperate venture, and NGO that supported CS participation in Internet Governance that just happened to make grants to IGC participants and needs. a. On 10 mar 2006, at 09.52, William Drake wrote: > Hi J, > > I was confused about W's position, not about your proposal. I hadn't > suggested either that the list would have to change if the caucus > became > more structured, so we actually are on the same page regarding > vision. If > you and Izumi are more optimistic than I am at present about the > actualy > viability, that's good---something to build on. > > Cheers, > > BD > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de] >> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 3:12 PM >> To: William Drake >> Cc: Wolfgang Kleinwächter; governance at lists.cpsr.org; >> marzouki at ras.eu.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance >> caucus >> >> >> >> >> William Drake wrote: >>> Hi Wolfgang, >>> >>> I'm a little confused. What Jeanette is proposing is essentially >>> what I >>> previously described as a Status Quo Plus model---opt-in and >> identifiable >>> membership, endorse a charter, have clear decision making >> rules, enhanced >>> facilitator/chair roles, etc--- >> >> Dear Bill, don't be confused :-) >> Yes, there are lots of similarities between our proposals (and I >> intended to say that but then forgot to do so). The only difference I >> see is that I put more emphasis on the hybrid character of the new >> structure. The most visible and perhaps relevant function of the >> caucus >> so far, the open space for debate, remains as it is right now. The >> new >> chartered space concerns only those who wish to vote and regard >> themselves as members. >> >> You are right, we would need to form a core team to set this up. >> And we >> should wait for more comments /support for such a model. >> I am pleased with the positive comments so far, thank you! >> jeanette >> >> which you and others replied was probably too >>> ambitious, so let's stick with the Status Quo approach. Now >> you're saying >>> let's do it. I agree that this would be the most desirable way >> forward, I'm >>> just skeptical that enough of us would commit the volunteer >> time and effort >>> to really make it viable. Even then, it could quickly run into >> the problem >>> of disparate visions, procedural and substantive. To determine >> whether this >>> has chance of flying, at a minimum we'd need a committed core >> team to work >>> up proposals, including a charter, and a live web space, >>> preferably with >>> wiki (hi Meryem;-) to shape texts. Working on a list alone has >> proven time >>> and again to be problematic, with threads getting lost before >>> ideas are >>> fully vetted etc. and inadequate cumulation. >>> >>> It would be useful to hear from more people whether there's >> real demand to >>> try this, and whether they'd be willing to be part of said team. >>> I'd >>> certainly join something with critical mass and mo, but another >> process that >>> eats time and drifts inconclusively is not enticing. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter >>>> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >>>> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 2:27 PM >>>> To: Jeanette Hofmann; William Drake >>>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; marzouki at ras.eu.org >>>> Subject: AW: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance >>>> caucus >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear JEANETTE; >>>> >>>> no you haven´t be too long. >>>> >>>> I fully support the various elements of your proposal. Let´s go >>>> down this road - follow the IEZF example and develop new >>>> innovative forms on the move. >>>> >>>> First thing: Somebody shouls start to draft a charter. >>>> >>>> best >>>> >>>> w >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeanette >>>> Hofmann >>>> Gesendet: Do 09.03.2006 20:02 >>>> An: William Drake >>>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; marzouki at ras.eu.org >>>> Betreff: Re: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance >>>> caucus >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, I've been offline for some days and missed an interesting >>>> debate. I >>>> hope I can push it a bit further. >>>> >>>> As I said before, I think it would be a real mistake to give up >>>> on the >>>> IG caucus as civil society actor. Most government and private >>>> sector >>>> people in the WSIS context know of our existence. We form one >> of several >>>> interfaces to civil society in the broader sense and have thus >>>> become >>>> some sort of a platform and brand name. The very fact that >>>> people from >>>> ITU, ISOC or ICANN have subscribed and listen indicates the >> relevance of >>>> this space. >>>> >>>> As most of us know, it is not easy to establish such a status. >> New, more >>>> specific cs groups would have a hard time to reach the >>>> reputation we >>>> have right now. And there is another point I want to make: I really >>>> believe that it is our duty to work on structures and procedures >>>> that >>>> allow us to form common positions and develop such positions over >>>> several years. If we want civil society to be taken seriously, >> and if it >>>> is our goal to change dominant policy preferences, we have to >>>> establish >>>> ourselves as a reliable long-term organization. >>>> >>>> So, please, lets think of a caucus reform rather than reverting >>>> to a >>>> mere discussion space. >>>> >>>> To me, this list has and should also in future have two functions. >>>> First, it is indeed a space for discussing IG related issues across >>>> organizational and sectoral boundaries. Second, the caucus is a >>>> working >>>> group for civil society folks to form opinions on those issues, to >>>> prepare interventions. A potentially third role would be to select >>>> people for specific committees, working groups or whatever. >>>> >>>> In the first and second year of its existence, the caucus could >>>> fulfill >>>> those two roles on the basis of a rather lose structure. (Just >> to remind >>>> you, Adam and I insisted on being only coordinators. We didn't >>>> want any >>>> formal authority and therefore refused to become "chairs".) >>>> >>>> In the third year, I observed a growing tension between the two >>>> functions of the caucus as a discussion space and as an >>>> intervention-oriented working group. What was good for the >>>> caucus as an >>>> open discussion space, became an obstacle for the caucus as a >>>> working >>>> group. >>>> >>>> If we want to keep both functions, the working group part >> needs a better >>>> structure. My proposal would be to create an opt-in structure for >>>> those who regard themselves as active members of the caucus (as >>>> opposed >>>> to listen to its discussions) and want a voting right. >>>> >>>> An option would be to combine a voting membership with signing a >>>> charter. A charter could bind members to certain tasks and/or >> positions. >>>> Bill mentions Adam's suggestion to extract parts of former caucus >>>> statements as the basis for such a charter. This sound like a >>>> useful >>>> procedure provided people want a charter that defines limits of >>>> acceptable positions. >>>> >>>> The new chairs of such a voting membership should have more >>>> authority >>>> than the former coordinators. As things are right now, one veto >>>> can be >>>> enough to kill a draft statement, no matter how many people >>>> support it. >>>> In order to welcome and support diversity among the caucus >>>> membership >>>> but also attain again the ability to agree on positions and makes >>>> decisions, we need to develop some form of majority ruling. >>>> >>>> Personally I wouldn't want to vote on every substantial decision. I >>>> prefer the concept of rough consensus because it emphasizes >> the need for >>>> debate and convincing others. >>>> >>>> If you havn't done so, please read Avri's account of IETF's >>>> decision >>>> making rules: >>>> http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf >>>> >>>> The important message of the IETF paper is that all notions of >>>> rough >>>> consensus need somebody to determine rough consensus. This >> somebody, the >>>> chair, is accountable to the group. He/she can be recalled if >> a majority >>>> doesn't trust the chair anymore. >>>> >>>> In short, I propose to create a smaller entity amidst the caucus >>>> as it >>>> is. The place for discussion would still be the IG list. The only >>>> difference is that members of the smaller unit would elect the >> chair and >>>> agree on statements. >>>> >>>> The future chairs should be elected and given some authority to >>>> call >>>> consensus on positions or papers. >>>> >>>> Perhaps, if the rules and the role of the chairs are clearer, we >>>> are >>>> able to find candidates for this position. In the last half year >>>> or so, >>>> being coordinator was a pretty thankless job. I know from private >>>> discussions that this is one of the reasons why nobody wanted to >>>> take over. >>>> >>>> Sorry for being so long, jeanette >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> I wonder whether a "Status Quo Plus Minus" is possible: in >>>>>> which we >>>>>> give the caucus a capacity to elect/select chairs, and >>>> delegate decision >>>>>> making responsibility to them, but do not develop a common set of >>>>>> positions on >>>>>> policy issues but simply attempt to be a vehicle for the >>>>>> representations of CS >>>>>> in IGF-related activities. E.g., we elect chairs who develop >> democratic >>>>>> procedures to nominate people to serve on IGF-related program >>>> committees, >>>>>> councils, etc. >>>>> Understand your concern about the need for procedures to handle >>>> nominations >>>>> for IGF etc, and noted that this is a problem with the SQ. A >> procedural >>>>> rather than substantive focus could be viable. But for your >> solution to >>>>> work we'd need to address a number of challenges, e.g.: 1) >>>> Nobody appears to >>>>> want to want to chair; Jeanette's prior call for nominations >> met a stony >>>>> silence. And preferably we'd have multiple candidates, and >> competitive >>>>> choice, or else we're in politburo mode. They'd have to be >>>>> dedicated >>>>> procedural mavens to achieve what you ask, too (maybe they >>>> could work with >>>>> the MMWG on that). 2) Even if some folks were to step >>>> forward now, it's a >>>>> hard to have a really proper election without an identifiable >>>> electorate. >>>>> In the absence of any affirmative opting-in, who knows how many >>>> of the 300 >>>>> people on the list consider themselves to be CS and members of >>>> the caucus? >>>>> I suppose we could continue with the 'whoever bothers to speak >>>> by a certain >>>>> time' model, but it's a bit lame and open to controversy. 3) >>>> How would we >>>>> conduct it? Use a private voting site, per MMWG, or try the >>>> list? Who'd >>>>> count, decide on voter eligibility based on what criteria, etc? >>>>> >>>>> Suggestions? >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> governance mailing list >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> governance mailing list >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> governance mailing list >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From fausett at lextext.com Fri Mar 10 12:54:51 2006 From: fausett at lextext.com (Bret Fausett) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:54:51 -0800 Subject: [governance] Going forward - Role of the governance caucus In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <4411BD6B.1060501@lextext.com> Terrific conversation the last week on this thread. One issue to consider is whether civil society potentially dilutes its voice by organizing under a single umbrella organization. For example, at the recent meeting in Geneva, it was refreshing to hear many voices from civil society speak rather than have all of the input channeled into a single intervention. Bret _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Mar 16 12:45:16 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:45:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Advisory Group Message-ID: Dear list, as you can see from the IGF Website, the UN SG has decided to establish a "IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group" to assist him in preparing the IGF I. As you can see the group will have about 40 members from all stakeholders group. What I have heard so far is that governments, and in particular G 77, has agreed under the conditions that they will get 50 per cent of the seats, that is about 20. This means that we will have 10 each for PS and CS. They have to include also the technical and academic community. There is a special reference to this group in the announcement. The announcement calls for proposals from stakeholders. So somebody on this list should start an initiative to collect names and to launch a procedure for the idenfication of proposals. I think we should generate a list with about 15 names (including CS techies and academicians) to enable the SG to make the final decision taking into account geographical, gender and other diversity. Woman from the South are more than welcome.:-))) Best regards Wolfgang _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Thu Mar 16 14:55:49 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:55:49 -0500 Subject: [governance] Theme proposal: Enhanced cooperation Message-ID: 1. Enhanced cooperation for coordination and management of critical Internet resources. a. A concise formulation for the proposed theme What globally-applicable public policy principles can be developed to guide the coordination and management of critical Internet resources? b. A brief description of why it is important Important issues regarding coordination and management of critical Internet resources were raised during WSIS but left unresolved. Stakeholders still do not agree on the nature and scope of "political oversight" of ICANN, the appropriate roles of governments, market forces, business, and civil society in managing these resources, or the unilateral role of the U.S. government. Until these issues are resolved, Internet policy and institutions will be unstable. c. How it is in conformity with the Tunis Agenda We find support for this topic in paragraphs 37, 70, and 71 of the Tunis Agenda. Paragraph 70 specifically calls for the "development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources." It also asks that all "relevant international organizations" be involved and that "the organizations responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet [should] contribute to creating an environment that facilitates this development of public policy principles." Paragraph 71 requires that this process "involve all stakeholders" and asks that it "proceed as quickly as possible." d. How it fits within the mandate of the IGF as detailed in para 72; The Tunis Agenda specifically notes, in 72(f), that the Forum should discuss "issues relating to critical Internet resources." 72(a) mandates the Forum to "Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance..." e. Who the main actors in the field are, who could be encouraged to participate in the thematic session ICANN Board members, GNSO Council representatives Governments of Brazil, India, China U.S. Commerce Department & U.S. State Department European Union CNNIC Internet Systems Consortium Regional Internet Registries (ARIN, APNIC, LACNIC, AFRINIC, RIPE) VeriSign Civil society; e.g., Internet Governance Project, ALAC, International Telecommunication Union - T WIPO MINC APDIP ISOC/IETF f. Last but not least, why should this issue should be addressed in the first annual meeting of the Forum rather than in subsequent ones. Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda requires that the process of "enhanced cooperation" should "proceed as quickly as possible." Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Thu Mar 16 15:16:28 2006 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:16:28 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Advisory Group In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4419C79C.1050100@rits.org.br> Geezzzz.... strange discussions will start again... a pre-WGIG dèja vu ;) --c.a. Wolfgang Kleinwächter escreveu: > Dear list, > > as you can see from the IGF Website, the UN SG has decided to establish a "IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group" to assist him in preparing the IGF I. As you can see the group will have about 40 members from all stakeholders group. What I have heard so far is that governments, and in particular G 77, has agreed under the conditions that they will get 50 per cent of the seats, that is about 20. This means that we will have 10 each for PS and CS. They have to include also the technical and academic community. There is a special reference to this group in the announcement. > > The announcement calls for proposals from stakeholders. So somebody on this list should start an initiative to collect names and to launch a procedure for the idenfication of proposals. > > I think we should generate a list with about 15 names (including CS techies and academicians) to enable the SG to make the final decision taking into account geographical, gender and other diversity. Woman from the South are more than welcome.:-))) > > Best regards > > Wolfgang > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br ******************************************** * Sacix -- distribuição Debian CDD Linux * * orientada a projetos de inclusão digital * * com software livre e de código aberto, * * mantida pela Rits em colaboração com o * * Coletivo Digital. * * Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br * ******************************************** _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Thu Mar 16 16:38:37 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:38:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGF Advisory Group Message-ID: This is not very good news. The group is too large, and heavily weighted toward governments. The large size of the group will make it unwieldy and political in its decision making process as opposed to a smaller, more collegial group. The large size will also detract from the accountability of individual actors on the group. Deliberations that should take place publicly in the forum will be played out in the Advisory Group. >>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter 3/16/2006 12:45 PM >>> Dear list, as you can see from the IGF Website, the UN SG has decided to establish a "IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group" to assist him in preparing the IGF I. As you can see the group will have about 40 members from all stakeholders group. What I have heard so far is that governments, and in particular G 77, has agreed under the conditions that they will get 50 per cent of the seats, that is about 20. This means that we will have 10 each for PS and CS. They have to include also the technical and academic community. There is a special reference to this group in the announcement. The announcement calls for proposals from stakeholders. So somebody on this list should start an initiative to collect names and to launch a procedure for the idenfication of proposals. I think we should generate a list with about 15 names (including CS techies and academicians) to enable the SG to make the final decision taking into account geographical, gender and other diversity. Woman from the South are more than welcome.:-))) Best regards Wolfgang _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Thu Mar 16 17:43:37 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:43:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IGF Advisory Group In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060316224337.72789.qmail@web54711.mail.yahoo.com> Indeed, it looks weird that to prepare Athens/IGF-I*, one needs such an army! How many people will be on the IGF istelf then? Mawaki (*) Am I mistaken on the nature of IGF-I? is it about Athens or the first half of any life expectancy for the IGF? ...I've been off some time and may have missed something. --- Milton Mueller wrote: > > This is not very good news. The group is too large, and heavily > weighted toward governments. The large size of the group will make > it unwieldy and political in its decision making process as opposed > to a smaller, more collegial group. The large size will also > detract from the accountability of individual actors on the group. > Deliberations that should take place publicly in the forum will be > played out in the Advisory Group. > > >>> Wolfgang Kleinwï¿½chter > 3/16/2006 12:45 PM > >>> > Dear list, > > as you can see from the IGF Website, the UN SG has decided to > establish a "IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group" to assist him in > preparing the IGF I. As you can see the group will have about 40 > members from all stakeholders group. What I have heard so far is > that governments, and in particular G 77, has agreed under the > conditions that they will get 50 per cent of the seats, that is > about 20. This means that we will have 10 each for PS and CS. They > have to include also the technical and academic community. There is > a special reference to this group in the announcement. > > The announcement calls for proposals from stakeholders. So > somebody on this list should start an initiative to collect names > and to launch a procedure for the idenfication of proposals. > > I think we should generate a list with about 15 names (including CS > techies and academicians) to enable the SG to make the final > decision taking into account geographical, gender and other > diversity. Woman from the South are more than welcome.:-))) > > Best regards > > Wolfgang > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Fri Mar 17 07:44:01 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 04:44:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Theme proposal: Enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060317124401.78429.qmail@web54708.mail.yahoo.com> Milton, while the list is silent (not for long I'm sure), let me ask: do you mean this (single theme) is your number 1, 2 and 3? Do you intend to complement the list, or are you gracefully :) leaving it to others? Mawaki --- Milton Mueller wrote: > 1. Enhanced cooperation for coordination and management of critical > Internet resources. > > a. A concise formulation for the proposed theme > > What globally-applicable public policy principles can be developed > to guide the coordination and management of critical Internet > resources? > > b. A brief description of why it is important > > Important issues regarding coordination and management of critical > Internet resources were raised during WSIS but left unresolved. > Stakeholders still do not agree on the nature and scope of > "political oversight" of ICANN, the appropriate roles of > governments, market forces, business, and civil society in managing > these resources, or the unilateral role of the U.S. government. > Until these issues are resolved, Internet policy and institutions > will be unstable. > > c. How it is in conformity with the Tunis Agenda > > We find support for this topic in paragraphs 37, 70, and 71 of the > Tunis Agenda. Paragraph 70 specifically calls for the "development > of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues > associated with the coordination and management of critical > Internet resources." It also asks that all "relevant international > organizations" be involved and that "the organizations responsible > for essential tasks associated with the Internet [should] > contribute to creating an environment that facilitates this > development of public policy principles." Paragraph 71 requires > that this process "involve all stakeholders" and asks that it > "proceed as quickly as possible." > > d. How it fits within the mandate of the IGF as detailed in > para 72; > > The Tunis Agenda specifically notes, in 72(f), that the Forum > should discuss "issues relating to critical Internet resources." > 72(a) mandates the Forum to "Discuss public policy issues related > to key elements of Internet governance..." > > e. Who the main actors in the field are, who could be > encouraged to participate in the thematic session > > ICANN Board members, GNSO Council representatives > Governments of Brazil, India, China > U.S. Commerce Department & U.S. State Department > European Union > CNNIC > Internet Systems Consortium > Regional Internet Registries (ARIN, APNIC, LACNIC, AFRINIC, RIPE) > VeriSign > Civil society; e.g., Internet Governance Project, ALAC, > International Telecommunication Union - T > WIPO > MINC > APDIP > ISOC/IETF > > f. Last but not least, why should this issue should be > addressed in the first annual meeting of the Forum rather than in > subsequent ones. > > Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda requires that the process of > "enhanced cooperation" should "proceed as quickly as possible." > > > > Dr. Milton Mueller > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://www.digital-convergence.org > http://www.internetgovernance.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Mar 17 08:14:29 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:14:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Consultations Message-ID: The 2nd open IGF Consultations will take place in Geneva , Friday, May, 19, 2006. The following Monday/Tuesday (22/23) there will be the first meeting of the "IGF Advisory Group" , also in Geneva. Wolfgang _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Fri Mar 17 08:28:23 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:28:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] WSIS principles and conferences Message-ID: Hi, The presentations from the OECD Workshop on The Future of the Internet, Paris, 8 March are now online at www.oecd.org/document/5/0,2340,en_2649_34223_36169989_1_1_1_1,00.html Following my presentation there arguing for application of the WSIS Principles (most notably, transparency and inclusion) to IG mechanisms and dialogues, inter alia through analysis by an IGF working group, I spoke with four secretariat people who expressed interest in receiving from CS a proposal on the matter that could be forwarded to OECD governments etc. This parallels similar conversations that have been going on with the ITU secretariat, particularly since its February reform session (the ITU Council meets next month and could take up the issue). As transparency and inclusion are arguably the clearest and most generalizable of the WSIS Principles that should be applied to IG, and these procedural issues have been the easiest common ground for the caucus, we really should do something to push this along now that some relevant institutions have become more receptive to the message than ever before. We'd have to get our act together, not only on the relevant proposals, but also on our internal processes regarding representation. The OECD is concerned that if they establish a mechanism for CS participation, there will be a way to know that the people/orgs who might then be involved are acceptable and accountable to other CS actors, since this is the sort of corporatist model they follow with the private sector (BIAC) and unions (TUAC). Which, I guess, brings us back to the open questions of what the caucus wants to be and how it will work going forward. Hopefully we can add this to the growing list of items that need to be tackled; we've been asking for change for three years and key international organizations are now saying, tell us what you want and how it could be done. On another note, I'm organizing my schedule and have listed some upcoming meetings I am or may be participating in and it occurred to me I might as well share it with fellow travelers in case people are interested in any of these, so FYI, Bill --------- March 23-24 ITU Next Generation Network Workshop www.itu.int/osg/spu/ngn/event-march-2006.phtml April 5-10 Telefonica Foundation Madrid 19-28 ITU Council 21-23 Access to Knowledge, Yale Law School http://islandia.law.yale.edu/isp/a2kconfmain.html May 2-5 Computers, Freedom and Privacy in DC www.cfp2006.org/ 9-11 ITU/UNESCO Global Symposium on Promoting the Multilingual Internet www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/multilingual/index.html 12 UNESCO Consultation meeting on action line C8 Cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local content (Geneva) 15-16 ITU Cybersecurity workshop (probable) 17 ITU Info Soc Day 18 Commission on Science and Technology for Development/WSIS?? 19 IGF consultation 22-23 IGF Advisory Group June 15-18 Joint ICA-IAMCR Symposium on Internet Governance in Dresden www.icahdq.org/events/conference/2006/PreconferenceInfo.htm#PC2 19-23 ICA conference in Dresden www.icahdq.org/events/conference/2006/conf2006.asp ******************************************************* William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake ******************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Fri Mar 17 09:41:13 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:41:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] Theme proposal: Enhanced cooperation Message-ID: I intend to submit several others. >>> Mawaki Chango 3/17/2006 7:44 AM >>> Milton, while the list is silent (not for long I'm sure), let me ask: do you mean this (single theme) is your number 1, 2 and 3? Do you intend to complement the list, or are you gracefully :) leaving it to others? Mawaki --- Milton Mueller wrote: > 1. Enhanced cooperation for coordination and management of critical > Internet resources. > > a. A concise formulation for the proposed theme > > What globally-applicable public policy principles can be developed > to guide the coordination and management of critical Internet > resources? > > b. A brief description of why it is important > > Important issues regarding coordination and management of critical > Internet resources were raised during WSIS but left unresolved. > Stakeholders still do not agree on the nature and scope of > "political oversight" of ICANN, the appropriate roles of > governments, market forces, business, and civil society in managing > these resources, or the unilateral role of the U.S. government. > Until these issues are resolved, Internet policy and institutions > will be unstable. > > c. How it is in conformity with the Tunis Agenda > > We find support for this topic in paragraphs 37, 70, and 71 of the > Tunis Agenda. Paragraph 70 specifically calls for the "development > of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues > associated with the coordination and management of critical > Internet resources." It also asks that all "relevant international > organizations" be involved and that "the organizations responsible > for essential tasks associated with the Internet [should] > contribute to creating an environment that facilitates this > development of public policy principles." Paragraph 71 requires > that this process "involve all stakeholders" and asks that it > "proceed as quickly as possible." > > d. How it fits within the mandate of the IGF as detailed in > para 72; > > The Tunis Agenda specifically notes, in 72(f), that the Forum > should discuss "issues relating to critical Internet resources." > 72(a) mandates the Forum to "Discuss public policy issues related > to key elements of Internet governance..." > > e. Who the main actors in the field are, who could be > encouraged to participate in the thematic session > > ICANN Board members, GNSO Council representatives > Governments of Brazil, India, China > U.S. Commerce Department & U.S. State Department > European Union > CNNIC > Internet Systems Consortium > Regional Internet Registries (ARIN, APNIC, LACNIC, AFRINIC, RIPE) > VeriSign > Civil society; e.g., Internet Governance Project, ALAC, > International Telecommunication Union - T > WIPO > MINC > APDIP > ISOC/IETF > > f. Last but not least, why should this issue should be > addressed in the first annual meeting of the Forum rather than in > subsequent ones. > > Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda requires that the process of > "enhanced cooperation" should "proceed as quickly as possible." > > > > Dr. Milton Mueller > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://www.digital-convergence.org > http://www.internetgovernance.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Fri Mar 17 11:00:57 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:00:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Theme proposal: Enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, I strongly support Milton's proposal, per the discussions and interventions in Geneva during the consultation. The industrialized country governments and the private sector absolutely do not want this conversation in Greece, but are being short sighted. Enhanced cooperation will certainly come up at the ITU Plenipot the next week in Turkey anyway, and CS cannot attend that meeting. Per the other proposal we made in Geneva, I would also strongly support IGF work on the application of the WSIS principles to existing governance mechanisms, to promote reform and accountability http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/15/36274435.pdf. I don't think the subject is particularly amenable to a six hundred person discussion, but it could be addressed in a side workshop (I presume there will be these in Greece) and a working group could be constituted there to carry the discussion and analysis forward with an eye to preparing a report/recommendations at the Rio meeting in 2007. If/when I get time I can write something up for submission... Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Milton Mueller > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 8:56 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Theme proposal: Enhanced cooperation > > > 1. Enhanced cooperation for coordination and management of > critical Internet resources. > > a. A concise formulation for the proposed theme > > What globally-applicable public policy principles can be > developed to guide the coordination and management of critical > Internet resources? > > b. A brief description of why it is important > > Important issues regarding coordination and management of > critical Internet resources were raised during WSIS but left > unresolved. Stakeholders still do not agree on the nature and > scope of "political oversight" of ICANN, the appropriate roles > of governments, market forces, business, and civil society in > managing these resources, or the unilateral role of the U.S. > government. Until these issues are resolved, Internet policy and > institutions will be unstable. > > c. How it is in conformity with the Tunis Agenda > > We find support for this topic in paragraphs 37, 70, and 71 of > the Tunis Agenda. Paragraph 70 specifically calls for the > "development of globally-applicable principles on public policy > issues associated with the coordination and management of > critical Internet resources." It also asks that all "relevant > international organizations" be involved and that "the > organizations responsible for essential tasks associated with the > Internet [should] contribute to creating an environment that > facilitates this development of public policy principles." > Paragraph 71 requires that this process "involve all > stakeholders" and asks that it "proceed as quickly as possible." > > d. How it fits within the mandate of the IGF as detailed in para 72; > > The Tunis Agenda specifically notes, in 72(f), that the Forum > should discuss "issues relating to critical Internet resources." > 72(a) mandates the Forum to "Discuss public policy issues related > to key elements of Internet governance..." > > e. Who the main actors in the field are, who could be > encouraged to participate in the thematic session > > ICANN Board members, GNSO Council representatives > Governments of Brazil, India, China > U.S. Commerce Department & U.S. State Department > European Union > CNNIC > Internet Systems Consortium > Regional Internet Registries (ARIN, APNIC, LACNIC, AFRINIC, RIPE) > VeriSign > Civil society; e.g., Internet Governance Project, ALAC, > International Telecommunication Union - T > WIPO > MINC > APDIP > ISOC/IETF > > f. Last but not least, why should this issue should be > addressed in the first annual meeting of the Forum rather than > in subsequent ones. > > Paragraph 71 of the Tunis Agenda requires that the process of > "enhanced cooperation" should "proceed as quickly as possible." > > > > Dr. Milton Mueller > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://www.digital-convergence.org > http://www.internetgovernance.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Mar 17 11:26:22 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:26:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] WSIS principles and conferences Message-ID: Bill is absolutely right. After four years a "wsis/wgigism" there is an open window of opportunity. You heras this from OECD and ITU, as Bill has reported, but also from other intergovernmental organisations, from UNESCO to the new Human Rights Council. We will risk to miss the chance to make "history" if we are unable to bring our house in order. Like it or not, the IGC is recognized across different constituencies as the "biggest brand" for CS involvment in IG. It was the Caucus who first proposed to create a global Internet Discussion platform, which now is the IGF. What we need is first of all two new coordinators/facilitators who organize and structure the discussion, push the debate foreward and can function as the link to other constituencies and groups . Where are the volunteers? Or where are the proposals? Best wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: Fr 17.03.2006 14:28 An: Governance Betreff: [governance] WSIS principles and conferences Hi, The presentations from the OECD Workshop on "The Future of the Internet", Paris, 8 March are now online at www.oecd.org/document/5/0,2340,en_2649_34223_36169989_1_1_1_1,00.html Following my presentation there arguing for application of the WSIS Principles (most notably, transparency and inclusion) to IG mechanisms and dialogues, inter alia through analysis by an IGF working group, I spoke with four secretariat people who expressed interest in receiving from CS a proposal on the matter that could be forwarded to OECD governments etc. This parallels similar conversations that have been going on with the ITU secretariat, particularly since its February reform session (the ITU Council meets next month and could take up the issue). As transparency and inclusion are arguably the clearest and most generalizable of the WSIS Principles that should be applied to IG, and these procedural issues have been the easiest common ground for the caucus, we really should do something to push this along now that some relevant institutions have become more receptive to the message than ever before. We'd have to get our act together, not only on the relevant proposals! , but also on our internal processes regarding representation. The OECD is concerned that if they establish a mechanism for CS participation, there will be a way to know that the people/orgs who might then be involved are acceptable and accountable to other CS actors, since this is the sort of corporatist model they follow with the private sector (BIAC) and unions (TUAC). Which, I guess, brings us back to the open questions of what the caucus wants to be and how it will work going forward. Hopefully we can add this to the growing list of items that need to be tackled; we've been asking for change for three years and key international organizations are now saying, tell us what you want and how it could be done. On another note, I'm organizing my schedule and have listed some upcoming meetings I am or may be participating in and it occurred to me I might as well share it with fellow travelers in case people are interested in any of these, so FYI, Bill --------- March 23-24 ITU Next Generation Network Workshop www.itu.int/osg/spu/ngn/event-march-2006.phtml April 5-10 Telefonica Foundation Madrid 19-28 ITU Council 21-23 Access to Knowledge, Yale Law School http://islandia.law.yale.edu/isp/a2kconfmain.html May 2-5 Computers, Freedom and Privacy in DC www.cfp2006.org/ 9-11 ITU/UNESCO Global Symposium on Promoting the Multilingual Internet www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/multilingual/index.html 12 UNESCO Consultation meeting on action line C8 "Cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local content" (Geneva) 15-16 ITU Cybersecurity workshop (probable) 17 ITU Info Soc Day 18 Commission on Science and Technology for Development/WSIS?? 19 IGF consultation 22-23 IGF Advisory Group June 15-18 Joint ICA-IAMCR Symposium on Internet Governance in Dresden www.icahdq.org/events/conference/2006/PreconferenceInfo.htm#PC2 19-23 ICA conference in Dresden www.icahdq.org/events/conference/2006/conf2006.asp ******************************************************* William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake ******************************************************* _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Mar 17 11:53:26 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 11:53:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGF Advisory Group In-Reply-To: <4419C79C.1050100@rits.org.br> References: <4419C79C.1050100@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <748C0B5D-81DF-4F2F-AFA2-3ECD2C0D3EC8@psg.com> On 16 mar 2006, at 15.16, Carlos Afonso wrote: > Geezzzz.... strange discussions will start again... a pre-WGIG dèja > vu ;) yeah but, we have some experience to go on. 1. i think that reaching out as we did for wgig is a good idea and i suggest we dust off the old material and update it and use the same process to solicit candidates from throughout CS 2. i think that using a nominating committee is a good idea. - but i think this should be constituted before we start soliciting nominations for the IGF-MAG. - i think volunteers should be people willing to disqualify themselves from selection for the IGF-MAG - i suggest we pick a number, for example 5, as the number for the nominating committee - i suggest that the call for nominating committee members be sent out on the plenary list. - i suggest that anyone who wants to volunteer for this submit their name and that, assuming we have more then 10 people willing to be on a nominating committee and thus willing to exclude themselves from the IGF-MAG, we use a randomized process to pick the 10 volunteers from the group. this can be done in at least two ways (the extremes are list below): - a trusted person picks the names out of a hat. - we use a process, e.g. the transparent, repeatable process to be found in RFC3797 "Publicly Verifiable Nominations Committee (NomCom) Random Selection" found at: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3797.txt - i think the nominating committee should have a coordinator - who is also disqualified from serving on the MAG and who will not have a nominating committee vote in selecting the candidates Note, while i don't think that WGIG members should be disqualified from serving on the MAG, i do think we should look beyond these regulars and recommend that WGIG members consider volunteering for nominating committee selection, if we go this way. just some thoughts to get us talking about specifics. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Mar 17 12:07:45 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:07:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGF Advisory Group In-Reply-To: <748C0B5D-81DF-4F2F-AFA2-3ECD2C0D3EC8@psg.com> References: <4419C79C.1050100@rits.org.br> <748C0B5D-81DF-4F2F-AFA2-3ECD2C0D3EC8@psg.com> Message-ID: <55395AA9-03A6-4A6E-956F-CD561B6BFCDA@psg.com> ps. as the errors below show. i first thought about a 10 person committee then backed down to 5 without editing the rest of the doc. a. On 17 mar 2006, at 11.53, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 16 mar 2006, at 15.16, Carlos Afonso wrote: > >> Geezzzz.... strange discussions will start again... a pre-WGIG dèja >> vu ;) > > > yeah but, we have some experience to go on. > > 1. i think that reaching out as we did for wgig is a good idea and i > suggest we dust off the old material and update it and use the same > process to solicit candidates from throughout CS > > 2. i think that using a nominating committee is a good idea. > - but i think this should be constituted before we start > soliciting nominations for the IGF-MAG. > - i think volunteers should be people willing to disqualify > themselves from selection > for the IGF-MAG > - i suggest we pick a number, for example 5, as the number for > the nominating committee > - i suggest that the call for nominating committee members be > sent out on the plenary list. > - i suggest that anyone who wants to volunteer for this submit > their name and that, assuming we have > more then 10 people willing to be on a nominating committee and > thus willing to exclude themselves > from the IGF-MAG, we use a randomized process to pick the 10 > volunteers from the group. > this can be done in at least two ways (the extremes are list > below): > - a trusted person picks the names out of a hat. > - we use a process, e.g. the transparent, repeatable process > to be found in RFC3797 > "Publicly Verifiable Nominations Committee (NomCom) Random > Selection" > found at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3797.txt > - i think the nominating committee should have a coordinator - > who is also disqualified from serving > on the MAG and who will not have a nominating committee vote in > selecting the candidates > > Note, while i don't think that WGIG members should be disqualified > from serving on the MAG, i do think we should look beyond these > regulars and recommend that WGIG members consider volunteering for > nominating committee selection, if we go this way. > > > just some thoughts to get us talking about specifics. > > a. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Mar 17 12:12:47 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:12:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] WSIS principles and conferences In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <441AEE0F.5080102@bertola.eu.org> Wolfgang Kleinwächter ha scritto: > Where are the volunteers? Or where are the proposals? Personally, I will be happy to work on a charter for the group, with whoever else wants to join. We haven't decided what we want the group to be - procedure only or also substance related, for example - but I guess we can follow the proactivity rule: those who really care will work out the details, and others will follow as long as they make good choices. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Fri Mar 17 12:20:10 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:20:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] WSIS principles and conferences In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <441AEFCA.7040504@lists.privaterra.org> Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > What we need is first of all two new coordinators/facilitators who organize and structure the discussion, push the debate foreward and can function as the link to other constituencies and groups . > > Where are the volunteers? Or where are the proposals? > Like Vittorio, am interested as well. I am specifically interested in serving as a link, and liason with other constituencies. Regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Mar 17 12:21:17 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:21:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Advisory Group In-Reply-To: <748C0B5D-81DF-4F2F-AFA2-3ECD2C0D3EC8@psg.com> References: <4419C79C.1050100@rits.org.br> <748C0B5D-81DF-4F2F-AFA2-3ECD2C0D3EC8@psg.com> Message-ID: <441AF00D.3090609@bertola.eu.org> Avri Doria ha scritto: > 1. i think that reaching out as we did for wgig is a good idea and i > suggest we dust off the old material and update it and use the same > process to solicit candidates from throughout CS I would expect much broader interest among civil society groups than last time. In any case, I wouldn't expect this to be the only CS nomination process - we can't stop anyone from making nominations - but perhaps we can hope to make this the most credible and respected one. > 2. i think that using a nominating committee is a good idea. I am not totally sure about this, as it will as usual be challenged as a clique trying to capture the mechanism etc. - however I think that it's the only feasible thing in such a short term, so I support it. > - i suggest that anyone who wants to volunteer for this submit > their name and that, assuming we have > more then 10 people willing to be on a nominating committee and > thus willing to exclude themselves > from the IGF-MAG, we use a randomized process to pick the 10 > volunteers from the group. > this can be done in at least two ways (the extremes are list > below): > - a trusted person picks the names out of a hat. > - we use a process, e.g. the transparent, repeatable process > to be found in RFC3797 > "Publicly Verifiable Nominations Committee (NomCom) Random > Selection" > found at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3797.txt I particularly like this idea, and using RFC3797 would be a good thing, also for the symbolic value it would have. > - i think the nominating committee should have a coordinator - > who is also disqualified from serving > on the MAG and who will not have a nominating committee vote in > selecting the candidates > > Note, while i don't think that WGIG members should be disqualified > from serving on the MAG, i do think we should look beyond these > regulars and recommend that WGIG members consider volunteering for > nominating committee selection, if we go this way. I would also go the other way, e.g. encourage people from outside the usual caucus activists to apply as NomCom members - this might help to see people from different angles. In any case, all of us should engage in some outreach to find both potential NomCom members and potential IGF-AG members. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From db at dannybutt.net Fri Mar 17 19:29:41 2006 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 13:29:41 +1300 Subject: [governance] WSIS principles and conferences In-Reply-To: <441AEE0F.5080102@bertola.eu.org> References: <441AEE0F.5080102@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: Could someone clarify the likely role of the IGF advisory group? If the advisory group will be establishing a process for the forum, then our initial role in that should probably be finding CS members with process expertise to put forward. I think that WGIG members might be precisely the most useful people for that advisory process. This might be different than the kind of representation we would want for this caucus as a mechanism for CS participation in the IGF itself - where particular areas of domain expertise would be useful, and where broader outreach will be valuable. I support Avri's suggestion of a nominating committee that excludes IGF-MAG participants, and also the use of the process in RFC3797. We currently have no way of gauging consensus, but if the nomcom idea is agreed to, I am happy to volunteer for the nominating committee. I can also work on a charter for the group, but I think this is going to take a bit longer, can it can come after we get through the IGF- MAG process? But I agree with Bill that there is a good opportunity here and it should be taken. Regards, Danny On 18/03/2006, at 6:12 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > Personally, I will be happy to work on a charter for the group, with > whoever else wants to join. We haven't decided what we want the > group to > be - procedure only or also substance related, for example - but I > guess > we can follow the proactivity rule: those who really care will work > out > the details, and others will follow as long as they make good choices. -- Danny Butt db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net Suma Media Consulting | http://www.sumamedia.com Private Bag MBE P145, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand Ph: +64 21 456 379 | Fx: +64 21 291 0200 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Mar 18 05:24:36 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:54:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF theme proposal: asserting the public-ness of Internet as a guiding principle for IG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200603181021.k2IALgBM023594@trout.cpsr.org> Dear All I think IGF should also take up some substantive issues like of defining the public and egalitarian nature of Internet as the guiding principle for Internet related public policy. This is important in the context of emergent issues like network neutrality which require urgent responses. And since IGF is not WSIS, we can put up broader issues that tend more toward opening up debates, rather than reach consensual agreements. And I also agree with Karens point made a few days back that IGC should involve broader CS, at least from the WSIS plenary list, to develop suggested themes for IGF. I am therefore marking this to the wsis plenary as well. It will also be useful to take a buy-in from CS involved in IPR WIPO issues, since public domain vis-à-vis Internet is an important issue implicated here. My proposal, in the format suggested by Bertrand is submitted as below. Regards Parminder ISSUE: Defining and fostering the public-ness of the Internet issues of public interest, public domain, public infrastructure and public good in the context of the Internet. a. A concise formulation for the proposed theme In determining global public policy issues and directions for IG, it is important to first define and characterize the Internet. Its essential public and egalitarian nature must be asserted as basic principles through open discussions at the IGF. And these principles can then be interpreted in terms of specific issues that face us today - content issues (protecting and promoting the public domain, network neutrality) infrastructure issues (universal access, public infrastructure, open spectrum, Internet as public good), as well as many other issues. b. A brief description of why it is important The Internet, as understood by most of us, is what it is basically because of its egalitarian and public nature. It is important to articulate these fundamentals of the Internet strongly, and use them as the guiding principles to debate and develop global public policies on IG. WSIS was an arena that required quick resolutions for consensus positions. This imperative did not allow sufficient informed debates on developing public policy principles for IG, including characterizing the essential public and egalitarian nature of Internet as the technology that promises a better world for everyone. IGF is the right forum for initiating this process, and taking it forward in a sustained manner. Formulating these essentials of the Internet, and due exposition of their implications in various contexts, will enable better global policy responses to pressing issues including network neutrality and universal access. If these essential principles that define the Internet are not discussed and settled urgently, the Internet is likely to disintegrate, along both political and economic lines. Even if it is going to be a difficult and protracted process, discussing and resolving this is essential and the IGF is the right forum to initiate it. c. How it is in conformity with the Tunis Agenda The WSIS Declaration of Principles assert our common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life . The earlier mentioned issues of characterizing the global resource of the Internet fall within these overall ideals agreed at the WSIS. Para 31 of the Tunis Agenda declares We recognise that Internet governance, carried out according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a people-centred, inclusive, development oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society. d. How it fits within the mandate of the IGF as detailed in para 72; Discussion on the stated issue is important in order to develop guiding principles for laying down a public policy framework on IG. (72 a of Tunis Agenda: Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet Governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet;) Such discussions will lay the guiding principles for, and help clarify, possible policy responses to important emerging issues of network neutrality, public internet infrastructure, spectrum de-licensing etc. (72 g: Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;) And most importantly, it puts IG discussions in the context of the broad guiding principles adopted at Geneva, and later in Tunis. (72 i: Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes;) e. Who the main actors in the field are, who could be encouraged to participate in the thematic session All stakeholders from governments, civil society, business and multi-lateral organizations to those organizations currently involved with IG, like the ICANN, have an important role in discussing these issues. However, more stress needs to be given on inclusion of representation from (1) developing countries and (2) development community without technical background. f. Last but not least, why should this issue should be addressed in the first annual meeting of the Forum rather than in subsequent ones. The first phase of Internet development was driven purely by enterprise and innovation, and in many ways by private sector leadership, which served us well. Internet grew mostly autonomous of public policy in this phase. But now with the power of Internet firmly established, and its economic and political threat to many entrenched interests increasingly obvious, and no longer possible for them to ignore, we are into an important phase of development of the Internet where its egalitarian and public nature is increasing threatened. To stem this trend and possibility, global public policy response in the form of clearly establishing the public and egalitarian nature of the Internet, and laying out its policy consequences, needs to come in urgently. Otherwise, if Internets growth is left to its own, as many entrenched interests advocate, it may soon be too late to reclaim the promise of Internet for the purposes that the world community asserted at the WSIS. As a commentator recently said in the context of the issue of network neutrality, if urgent policy action is not taken the situation may soon become intractable, and it will then be like trying to push the genie back into the bottle. ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF - submission of issues.doc Type: application/msword Size: 39424 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Sun Mar 19 21:32:45 2006 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:32:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] Deadlines: Comments then some suggestions Message-ID: Hi, A few points on general IG issues & strategy, then suggestions on how a) IGC co-ordinators b) a nomcom c) CS IGF-AG members d) IGF I + beyond can unfold. Here we go: I agree with Wolfgang that there is a need to get organized; and also that we need organizers to get organized. I also agree with Avri that the IETF model is both practically and politically perfect as an explicit reference and template for IGF processes, though as has been noted it's a bit trickier running policy than code. (Note how I've jumped straight from IGF-MAG to IGF, since I think we should look at the IGF-MAG as the start of IGF I, from an iterative international IG self-organizng perspective. OK there is that SG picking winners & losers among nominees to IGF-MAG, but never mind the theory holds.) Here's what I see: 40 people in IGF -MAG + x# on IG-related discussion lists *> X'00s at 'IGF I: the plenary' *> X'000s on IGF discussion groups *> IGF II etc. So if we're dealing with the whole wide world it's not surprising there's a bunch of people and yeah governments involved from the start, and yes that is cumbersome. More important right now for CS is getting some discussion and then some attention to key themes from a CS perspective, offering concrete suggestions on how clear & transparent procedures can work, etc. I therefore also strongly agree with Milton & Bill that enhanced cooperation is a worthy topic and critical theme for IGF. In fact it is The main theme. Now my suggestions: 1st re IGC co-cordinators, I think I've read on the list that Robert Guerra and Vittorio volunteer for this, a while back Milton and I nominated & seconded Bill who remained silent, are there any other contenders? Avri? If others on the list are interested I suggest you speak up now or hold your peace and volunteer in a year, after we burn out the next pair. I further propose if other nominess come forward then Avri design an instant process we can follow to get a pair in place. If no other nominees come forward then I ask the 3 nominees to permit themselves to remain nominated so we at least in our internal organization are running a competitive process. And Avri figures out what to do to select a pair fast, since we need them to do some work. So, by end of March new co-ordinators are in place - or at least we know the process & schedule. If there's only 3 to pick from, all of course most worthy, then a randomized process is perfect : ) 2nd, with the push for the IGF-AG nominees & list from IGC, we keep in the self-organizing spirit and again have Avri do the work to flesh out further the process for the nomcom; 5 sounds more workable than 10 given the schedule. The lucky winners of the IGC lottery help get the the 5 nomcom members in place this week, and have a week to do their 1st thing - is that the schedule? So in say 30 days or so the IGC could have its co-ordinators, nominees, etc. 3rd, in the meantime, others follow Milton's and Parminder's lead and draft clear proposals on a theme, going beyond the name to the issues and institutions/actors involved. If some of those institutions have already been contacted and agreed to participate, all the better. Then others will think they can;t afford to miss the event since we'll all be talking about them anyway. In sum: the time seems ripe for IGC to have a substantial impact on IGF, and more generally on clear and transparent procedures for Internet governance. If the diversity of opinion makes the jobs of the co-ordinators challenging, the fact that we can't manage to organize a democratic process for institutionalizing IGC is actually a good sign. Remember the IETF analogy - it had no formal/legal structure for the longest time, and all in all it in fact helped prevent capture since there was just this amorphous group of volunteers that could not easily be controlled, or directed...gee definitely feels like deja vu - again : ) Anyway, note I have left blank the part on how we get this all started. Because I am hoping this email gets it started, and you all take it from here. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Robert Guerra