From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon May  1 00:08:51 2006
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 07:08:51 +0300
Subject: [governance] A Survey of DNS Security
In-Reply-To: <44552E84.9070006@lists.privaterra.org>
References: <44552E84.9070006@lists.privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0604302108h696fbbcdo54da00e8abb48ccb@mail.gmail.com>

morning Robert,

On 5/1/06, Robert Guerra <rguerra at lists.privaterra.org> wrote:
> A reference to this message just appeared on Dave Farber's IP list.

Yes, it has caused a bit of a splash, which is too bad, since it is
mostly handwaving.


> Thought that it would of interest to share with this list given that
> cybersecurity is being raised as a key issue for the IGF.

To paraphrase what seems to be the consensus on the DNS-OPS mailing list:

Yes, we know.  Prof. Sirer's work points out some of the far-gone consequences
 of not paying attention. We are, however pretty convinced that:

 1. The mentioned examples are extremes. Most of the namespace is
   in considerably better order.
 2. DNS has historically been a neglected part of the quality
   control most web site operators perform. It simply is so redundant
   and ubiquitous that it not is seen as a critical part.
 3. The ultimate fix for this is DNSSEC. (and BCP 38



My personal opinion is that these boys from Cornell are trying scare
tactics to push their own "solution" (CoDoNS see url below) which in
reality is more vulnerable than vanilla DNS.

http://www.cs.cornell.edu/people/egs/beehive/codons.php

It's marketing, not science.  (The conclusions don't follow from observations).

We may in fact need to replace the current DNS at some point with
something entirely new, but:

a) not now
b) not this

--
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  Mon May  1 06:59:16 2006
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 16:29:16 +0530
Subject: [governance] Transition
In-Reply-To: <AFE9AFA0-93B2-4E44-B8B4-8AF84D8F5493@acm.org>
Message-ID: <200605011054.k41AsD8k090513@trout.cpsr.org>

 

Dear All

 

I think we should set a limit - say by the end on this week - Friday the 5th
- to close the arrangement for facilitating the transition. 

 

The main issue is Avri or Avri plus one (and if so whom).

 

I am fine with either. 

 

However, I will like to know what broadly is implied in this transition
period. 

 

1. The minimum it appears is to set up an agreed process - written in a
charter - which addresses issues of choosing coordinators, their work
conditions etc. And some related or otherwise relatively minor process
issues. 

 

That would be relatively easier. 

 

2. Writing down the process of developing positions on behalf of IGC will be
much more difficult. This category broadly includes nominating
representatives of IGC (like we did recently for IGF) and such
representative processes.... We can also include here issues of structural
arrangement that IGC shd be in with the CS ecology around it.  

 

3. Writing down some broad but substantive guidelines/ positions - vision,
scope, guiding principles etc - for IGC will be even more difficult. It can
get to be a somewhat difficult and heavily contested process (rightly so,
for something which is evidently very political).

 

Jeannette and some others (me included) have been insisting that we go
through this process of writing some substantive principle/policy things
into the charter as well. 

 

So, while I consider all the above as processes that will take some amount
of pains of passage, I consider them important and crucial, and appeal to
the group that we show the political will to go through these processes to
give a new leash of life to IGC. 

 

Now if this all is agreed and the responsibility of it understood - we can
come back to the question we face immediately. Avri or Avri plus one.

 

  

I am very fine if Avri thinks she can handle this well, to carry us through
the process - and in that case I support her to do it solo. However, if
there is a feeling (and I have some half-doubts here) that two persons will
be able to deflect the pressures of this difficult period better than one,
we shd go for it. 

 

Here I only want us to do some forward thinking and judge what kind of
process will the transition entail, and take our 'number of facilitators
decision' with that in mind. But lets in any case close it in the next 4
days.

 

 

Regards

 

Parminder 

 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

91-80-26654134

www.ITforChange.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 3:51 AM
To: Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] Transition

 

 

On 30 apr 2006, at 17.13, Milton Mueller wrote:

 

> Looking forward, rather than backwards or sideways as so many seem  

> prone to do, would you please re-iterate the basic elements of your  

> proposal in a bulleted list and show how the selection of 2 rather  

> than one Avris would or would not affect the substance of the  

> proposal.

 

The proposal I made, which was contingent on consensus.

 

the basics:

 

- i become a single coordinator of the caucus with a 1 yr term

- we decide on a working charter that included a process for picking  

coordinators

   (i suggested a nomcom - but that was not well accepted, so it  

needs more discussion)

- we then picked a second coordinator for 2 year term as soon as we  

have the working charter and the process for picking

- as my 1 year term was ending, we picked a second coordinator for a  

2 year term.

 

with mentions about finding new collaborative methods for getting  

things done etc...

 

My main concerns, other then getting a charter that gets moving  

again, are for a finding a reliable and acceptable method for  

choosing coordinators given the nature of the caucus, and for that  

methodology to be a staggered method, so we are never without  

continuity of coordination.

 

so I think having 2 coordinators to start the transition means:

 

- we have a choosing at some point to replace one or both of them

- some have suggested privately that the act of being the transition  

coordinator burns the coordinators so they can't continue as  

coordinators after the transition.  i think this is possibly true.   

and was certainly expecting my one year term to be non renewable  

(though i did not explicitly include that in the description - though  

i could if we thought it was necessary). so if we have two, and the  

theory that working the transition burns the coordinator is correct,  

then we burn two instead of one.

- in that case we could follow the steps above with the variation

 

   - pick 2

   - charter with picking method

   - pick 1, burn 1 (by flipping a coin or some other selection method)

   - after a year pick 2nd, burn the 2nd transition  coordinator

 

alternatively

 

    - pick 2

    - charter with picking method

    - pick 1 for 2 year term, retain transition 2 for the rest of year

      (gives total of 3 for the balance of the year)

    - at the year mark pick a new one and burn the 2 transition  

coordinators.

 

or ...

 

a.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________________

governance mailing list

governance at lists.cpsr.org

https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060501/b8e76b42/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Mon May  1 08:11:49 2006
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 08:11:49 -0400
Subject: [governance] A Survey of DNS Security
Message-ID: <4455FB05.8040907@lists.privaterra.org>

McTim:

Thanks for the reply :)

Latest message on the IP list seems to confirm your comments. I'm
including it below as I don't know who on the governance list is also
subscribed.

regards

Robert

On 1-May-06, at 12:08 AM, McTim wrote:
morning Robert,

On 5/1/06, Robert Guerra <rguerra at lists.privaterra.org> wrote:
A reference to this message just appeared on Dave Farber's IP list.

Yes, it has caused a bit of a splash, which is too bad, since it is
mostly handwaving.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [IP] more on   Big holes in net's heart revealed
Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 07:21:50 -0400
From: David Farber <dave at farber.net>
Reply-To: dave at farber.net
To: ip at v2.listbox.com
References: <200605011017.k41AHlpK002555 at bartok.nlnetlabs.nl>



Begin forwarded message:

From: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap at NLnetLabs.nl>
Date: May 1, 2006 6:17:47 AM EDT
To: Carl Malamud <carl at media.org>
Cc: dave at farber.net
Subject: Re: [IP] Big holes in net's heart revealed

Being in the talk I might to comment that it was all more a sales talk
for a Distributed Hash Table based alternative (which has it's own
problems). There was a lot of FUD presented.

> Hi Dave -
>
> Here is their paper in case anybody wants to read the details:
>
> http://www.cs.cornell.edu/People/egs/papers/dnssurvey.pdf
>
> A simple takeaway ... upgrade your nameserver.  There is no excuse
> to be running 5-year old versions of software on a machine that
> provides critical infrastructure.
>
> Carl
>
>> Something "well known" but not advertised till now. djf

It is advertised all the time in various place. Warnings about
outdated software gets ignored all the time. Surveys have been done
showing how many broken servers are still in production, but nobody
seems to listen, especially people running those servers.

To Quote Mans Nilsson from the RIPE dns-wg mailing list:

    "Yes, we know.  Emin's work points out some of the far-gone
consequences
     of not paying attention. We are, however pretty convinced that:

     1. The mentioned examples are extremes. Most of the namespace is
        in considerably better order.
     2. DNS has historically been a neglected part of the quality
        control most web site operators perform. It simply is so
redundant
        and ubiquitous that it not is seen as a critical part.
     3. The ultimate fix for this is DNSSEC."

Emin said that DNSSEC wouldn't help.

And there are of course different styles of what is correct. The
zone farber.net has small problems depending who you ask
(http://www.zonecheck.fr/demo/ or http://dnsreport.com/). None of
these test tell you that the servers for this domain can be abused
for a dns amplification attacks (recursion enabled).

	jaap


-------------------------------------

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/







_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Mon May  1 10:23:40 2006
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 10:23:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] Forget a national ID: Homeland Security proposes
	global ID
Message-ID: <s455e1b6.066@gwia201.syr.edu>

Head of visitor tracking program wants global ID system
By Jonathan Marino
April 25, 2006

The head of the Homeland Security Department's visitor tracking program 
on Tuesday called for the creation of a "global ID management system" to 
make travel easier while enhancing security...

[Jim] Williams said he wants to join forces with several DHS agencies to 
develop a global identification system that would cut wait times, reduce 
government fees for travelers, fight illegal immigration and, perhaps 
paramount, better defend nations from terrorists.

The US VISIT chief, who already oversees identity inquiries for nearly 
every visitor who enters the United States, said a worldwide 
identification system will better link nations in the fight against 
terrorism. In his speech, he likened al Qaeda operatives and sleeper 
cells - including the ones that attacked on 9/11 - to "submarines" that 
must surface to kill.

from:
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ 
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue May  2 07:22:11 2006
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 13:22:11 +0200
Subject: [governance] Transition
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735ACE6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

My understanding from the discussion is that the majority of people who have expressed themselves on the list openly support Avri to be the only coordinator for the transition period. A second one would be good, but is not seen as a pre-condition to move foreward. If you add the silent majority of the list, Avri has a rough consensus to move forward.
 
Best regards
 
wolfgang
 
 

________________________________

From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Milton Mueller
Sent: Sun 4/30/2006 11:13 PM
To: avri at acm.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Transition



Problem with your response, Avri, is that there was as much or more support for a single coordinator than there was for 2 co-coordinators, as far as I could tell. Frankly I won't support another co-coordinator proposal, if it means that 2 coordinators are simply plucked from the air without a process and without the establishment of a charter and some formalization of the grounds for participation, as was proposed. We can't keep ducking that problem.

The virtue of your single coord. proposal was not that it was a single person, but that it was a purely transitional strategy that put a single, proven, trustworthy, accountable person in place to accomplish a transition so that we can have a real process down the road. If what you are saying is that you will do the same thing, but add another name to the "accountable person" category then I might accept it.

But I don't think the problem people had was with the single coordinator. I think there were all kinds of other little dramas being acted out, which I could not attempt to describe without getting myself and the caucus into hot water, and besides it doesn't matter.

Looking forward, rather than backwards or sideways as so many seem prone to do, would you please re-iterate the basic elements of your proposal in a bulleted list and show how the selection of 2 rather than one Avris would or would not affect the substance of the proposal.

--MM

>>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 4/30/2006 1:05 PM >>>
Hi,

First I want to indicate how grateful i am for the conversations that 
have been going on for last weeks on this list.  I especially 
appreciate the statements of support that I got from so many of you.

However, i do not feel that we have consensus on my proposal despite 
the degree of support.  The strongest issue, in email i received 
privately as well as on the list, seems to be a discomfort with the 
idea of one coordinator.  and since I believe that this can't work 
without consensus, i do not feel i can go forward as a single 
coordinator.

If, however, we are going to have 2 coordinator (we could have more, 
but 2 seems to be what people are calling for) i believe, as a member 
of the caucus, that they should represent, to some extent the 
diversity in the group as much as possible when talking about 2 
people.  There had been suggestions of Bill and I.  I was against 
that and still am.  I think Bill would make a fine coordinator, as i 
believe i might.  But we are both from the US and while he spends 
more time residing in Europe then I do, I beleive we both tend to 
view the world through the eyes of USians with Eurocentric lenses 
(however much we may sometime disagree on other things and i do hope 
he forgives me for characterizing his viewpoint).  If the IGC wants 
two coordinators and wants diversity (gender as well as developing/
developed world - or any other criteria someone may suggest)  then i 
see us as possible candidates who could not be chosen to serve together.

so again, i appreciate the consideration my suggestion got, and 
appreciate the great discussions it seemed to initiate, but i do not 
feel that i have the consensus i need to put it into effect and 
therefore suggest that we begin to figure out what it is we want to do.

anyone have a idea?

thanks
a.

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From vb at bertola.eu.org  Tue May  2 08:11:43 2006
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 14:11:43 +0200
Subject: [governance] Transition
In-Reply-To: <2ED52320-26A2-48E6-8D8C-4CA0118AFA1C@acm.org>
References: <C62F9425-75DF-495B-A953-652843F7C566@acm.org>	<4454F3E1.4020104@bertola.eu.org>
	<2ED52320-26A2-48E6-8D8C-4CA0118AFA1C@acm.org>
Message-ID: <44574C7F.5040708@bertola.eu.org>

Avri Doria ha scritto:
> Hi,
> 
> i think it might mean the loss of the IGC and its history and the  
> role it has been able to achieve.
> or what might happen, is that some people will go off and start  
> working on the new working group, while the rest of the people stay  
> on IGC and eventually figure it out.
 >
 > but of course, someone can do this anytime, it does not take a
 > decision of the IGC for someone to go off and start something new.

Sorry, possibly I didn't explain well what I meant. The new working 
group would work out a charter *for the IGC*, not for a new entity; it 
would then get back to the list to get the charter approved. The 
objecive of my proposal was just to get out of the deadlock due to the 
lack of consensus on your appointment as "single coordinator" - not to 
start anything new!
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From nne75 at yahoo.com  Tue May  2 08:41:43 2006
From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna)
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 05:41:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Transition
In-Reply-To: <44574C7F.5040708@bertola.eu.org>
Message-ID: <20060502124143.61131.qmail@web50213.mail.yahoo.com>

Dear all,
   
  I really believe that the idea of a charter is not as grandiose as some may feel.  There are two types of it:
  1.  The elaborate type that seems to cover all,
  2.  The easier version which lays down principles.
   
  These  days, the second option has proved to be more efficient.  Going by what I know, the IGC charter can/may consist of the following:
    
   Vision  
   Aim/mission  
   Objectives  
   Tasks  
   Membership  
   Coordination  
   Working methods  
   Decisions  
   Relationship of IGC to CSP  
   etc
  All for now
   
  Nnenna

Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org> wrote:
  Avri Doria ha scritto:
> Hi,
> 
> i think it might mean the loss of the IGC and its history and the 
> role it has been able to achieve.
> or what might happen, is that some people will go off and start 
> working on the new working group, while the rest of the people stay 
> on IGC and eventually figure it out.
>
> but of course, someone can do this anytime, it does not take a
> decision of the IGC for someone to go off and start something new.

Sorry, possibly I didn't explain well what I meant. The new working 
group would work out a charter *for the IGC*, not for a new entity; it 
would then get back to the list to get the charter approved. The 
objecive of my proposal was just to get out of the deadlock due to the 
lack of consensus on your appointment as "single coordinator" - not to 
start anything new!
-- 
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


		
---------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone  calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060502/3d62f50a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au  Tue May  2 08:54:42 2006
From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein)
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 22:54:42 +1000 (EST)
Subject: [governance] Transition
In-Reply-To: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735ACE6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <20060502125442.40204.qmail@web54104.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi all

As one of the "silent majority" on the list, I do
support the idea of Avri being a coordinator, at least
for the interim period.

Cheers
David

--- Wolfgang Kleinwächter
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
wrote:

> My understanding from the discussion is that the
> majority of people who have expressed themselves on
> the list openly support Avri to be the only
> coordinator for the transition period. A second one
> would be good, but is not seen as a pre-condition to
> move foreward. If you add the silent majority of the
> list, Avri has a rough consensus to move forward.
>  
> Best regards
>  
> wolfgang
>  
>  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of
> Milton Mueller
> Sent: Sun 4/30/2006 11:13 PM
> To: avri at acm.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Transition
> 
> 
> 
> Problem with your response, Avri, is that there was
> as much or more support for a single coordinator
> than there was for 2 co-coordinators, as far as I
> could tell. Frankly I won't support another
> co-coordinator proposal, if it means that 2
> coordinators are simply plucked from the air without
> a process and without the establishment of a charter
> and some formalization of the grounds for
> participation, as was proposed. We can't keep
> ducking that problem.
> 
> The virtue of your single coord. proposal was not
> that it was a single person, but that it was a
> purely transitional strategy that put a single,
> proven, trustworthy, accountable person in place to
> accomplish a transition so that we can have a real
> process down the road. If what you are saying is
> that you will do the same thing, but add another
> name to the "accountable person" category then I
> might accept it.
> 
> But I don't think the problem people had was with
> the single coordinator. I think there were all kinds
> of other little dramas being acted out, which I
> could not attempt to describe without getting myself
> and the caucus into hot water, and besides it
> doesn't matter.
> 
> Looking forward, rather than backwards or sideways
> as so many seem prone to do, would you please
> re-iterate the basic elements of your proposal in a
> bulleted list and show how the selection of 2 rather
> than one Avris would or would not affect the
> substance of the proposal.
> 
> --MM
> 
> >>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 4/30/2006 1:05 PM >>>
> Hi,
> 
> First I want to indicate how grateful i am for the
> conversations that 
> have been going on for last weeks on this list.  I
> especially 
> appreciate the statements of support that I got from
> so many of you.
> 
> However, i do not feel that we have consensus on my
> proposal despite 
> the degree of support.  The strongest issue, in
> email i received 
> privately as well as on the list, seems to be a
> discomfort with the 
> idea of one coordinator.  and since I believe that
> this can't work 
> without consensus, i do not feel i can go forward as
> a single 
> coordinator.
> 
> If, however, we are going to have 2 coordinator (we
> could have more, 
> but 2 seems to be what people are calling for) i
> believe, as a member 
> of the caucus, that they should represent, to some
> extent the 
> diversity in the group as much as possible when
> talking about 2 
> people.  There had been suggestions of Bill and I. 
> I was against 
> that and still am.  I think Bill would make a fine
> coordinator, as i 
> believe i might.  But we are both from the US and
> while he spends 
> more time residing in Europe then I do, I beleive we
> both tend to 
> view the world through the eyes of USians with
> Eurocentric lenses 
> (however much we may sometime disagree on other
> things and i do hope 
> he forgives me for characterizing his viewpoint). 
> If the IGC wants 
> two coordinators and wants diversity (gender as well
> as developing/
> developed world - or any other criteria someone may
> suggest)  then i 
> see us as possible candidates who could not be
> chosen to serve together.
> 
> so again, i appreciate the consideration my
> suggestion got, and 
> appreciate the great discussions it seemed to
> initiate, but i do not 
> feel that i have the consensus i need to put it into
> effect and 
> therefore suggest that we begin to figure out what
> it is we want to do.
> 
> anyone have a idea?
> 
> thanks
> a.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 



		
____________________________________________________ 
On Yahoo!7 
marie claire: The latest from Mercedes Australia Fashion Week 
http://www.marieclaire.com.au/fashionweek 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From dave at isoc-mu.org  Tue May  2 08:57:48 2006
From: dave at isoc-mu.org (Dave Kissoondoyal)
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 16:57:48 +0400
Subject: [governance] Transition
Message-ID: <002701c66de8$078ab950$1805050a@TLFMDOM.local>


Hi David,

I, too, join you to support the idea of Avri being the coordinator.

Best regards

Dave Kissoondoyal
ISOC Mauritius Chair

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of David Goldstein
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 4:55 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Transition

Hi all

As one of the "silent majority" on the list, I do
support the idea of Avri being a coordinator, at least
for the interim period.

Cheers
David

--- Wolfgang Kleinwächter
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
wrote:

> My understanding from the discussion is that the
> majority of people who have expressed themselves on
> the list openly support Avri to be the only
> coordinator for the transition period. A second one
> would be good, but is not seen as a pre-condition to
> move foreward. If you add the silent majority of the
> list, Avri has a rough consensus to move forward.
>  
> Best regards
>  
> wolfgang
>  
>  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of
> Milton Mueller
> Sent: Sun 4/30/2006 11:13 PM
> To: avri at acm.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Transition
> 
> 
> 
> Problem with your response, Avri, is that there was
> as much or more support for a single coordinator
> than there was for 2 co-coordinators, as far as I
> could tell. Frankly I won't support another
> co-coordinator proposal, if it means that 2
> coordinators are simply plucked from the air without
> a process and without the establishment of a charter
> and some formalization of the grounds for
> participation, as was proposed. We can't keep
> ducking that problem.
> 
> The virtue of your single coord. proposal was not
> that it was a single person, but that it was a
> purely transitional strategy that put a single,
> proven, trustworthy, accountable person in place to
> accomplish a transition so that we can have a real
> process down the road. If what you are saying is
> that you will do the same thing, but add another
> name to the "accountable person" category then I
> might accept it.
> 
> But I don't think the problem people had was with
> the single coordinator. I think there were all kinds
> of other little dramas being acted out, which I
> could not attempt to describe without getting myself
> and the caucus into hot water, and besides it
> doesn't matter.
> 
> Looking forward, rather than backwards or sideways
> as so many seem prone to do, would you please
> re-iterate the basic elements of your proposal in a
> bulleted list and show how the selection of 2 rather
> than one Avris would or would not affect the
> substance of the proposal.
> 
> --MM
> 
> >>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 4/30/2006 1:05 PM >>>
> Hi,
> 
> First I want to indicate how grateful i am for the
> conversations that 
> have been going on for last weeks on this list.  I
> especially 
> appreciate the statements of support that I got from
> so many of you.
> 
> However, i do not feel that we have consensus on my
> proposal despite 
> the degree of support.  The strongest issue, in
> email i received 
> privately as well as on the list, seems to be a
> discomfort with the 
> idea of one coordinator.  and since I believe that
> this can't work 
> without consensus, i do not feel i can go forward as
> a single 
> coordinator.
> 
> If, however, we are going to have 2 coordinator (we
> could have more, 
> but 2 seems to be what people are calling for) i
> believe, as a member 
> of the caucus, that they should represent, to some
> extent the 
> diversity in the group as much as possible when
> talking about 2 
> people.  There had been suggestions of Bill and I. 
> I was against 
> that and still am.  I think Bill would make a fine
> coordinator, as i 
> believe i might.  But we are both from the US and
> while he spends 
> more time residing in Europe then I do, I beleive we
> both tend to 
> view the world through the eyes of USians with
> Eurocentric lenses 
> (however much we may sometime disagree on other
> things and i do hope 
> he forgives me for characterizing his viewpoint). 
> If the IGC wants 
> two coordinators and wants diversity (gender as well
> as developing/
> developed world - or any other criteria someone may
> suggest)  then i 
> see us as possible candidates who could not be
> chosen to serve together.
> 
> so again, i appreciate the consideration my
> suggestion got, and 
> appreciate the great discussions it seemed to
> initiate, but i do not 
> feel that i have the consensus i need to put it into
> effect and 
> therefore suggest that we begin to figure out what
> it is we want to do.
> 
> anyone have a idea?
> 
> thanks
> a.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 



		
____________________________________________________ 
On Yahoo!7 
marie claire: The latest from Mercedes Australia Fashion Week 
http://www.marieclaire.com.au/fashionweek 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.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  Tue May  2 09:05:28 2006
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 22:05:28 +0900
Subject: [governance] Transition
In-Reply-To: <C62F9425-75DF-495B-A953-652843F7C566@acm.org>
References: <C62F9425-75DF-495B-A953-652843F7C566@acm.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20060502220302.06354b50@anr.org>

Out of my silence, I do suppport a single transition coordinator
by Avri. Prgmatically speaking, I think this is the best way.

I am happy with "rough consensus" and let's run the code
within 4 days as Parminder suggested.

izumi 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU  Tue May  2 09:32:32 2006
From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael)
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 09:32:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] Transition
Message-ID: <A0E19BF31237DE4A9B1FF1E122FAC13A187DC27B@ADMCLUSTER.njitdm.campus.njit.edu>

Vittoria, Avri and others,

I want to clarify that from my perspective the recent discussion has not
been about one coordinator or two, or about Avri as a single
coordinator, but rather to surface some of the underlying tensions and
issues concerning "Internet Governance" and its larger policy context
(including the mode of operation of this caucus), which have been
simmering in the background (and occasionally in the foreground) for
much of the life of this caucus.  

To my mind the development of a charter would go a considerable distance
to addressing a number of those issues.

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola
Sent: May 2, 2006 2:12 PM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] Transition


Avri Doria ha scritto:
> Hi,
> 
> i think it might mean the loss of the IGC and its history and the
> role it has been able to achieve.
> or what might happen, is that some people will go off and start  
> working on the new working group, while the rest of the people stay  
> on IGC and eventually figure it out.
 >
 > but of course, someone can do this anytime, it does not take a  >
decision of the IGC for someone to go off and start something new.

Sorry, possibly I didn't explain well what I meant. The new working 
group would work out a charter *for the IGC*, not for a new entity; it 
would then get back to the list to get the charter approved. The 
objecive of my proposal was just to get out of the deadlock due to the 
lack of consensus on your appointment as "single coordinator" - not to 
start anything new!
-- 
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 drake at hei.unige.ch  Tue May  2 09:37:15 2006
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 15:37:15 +0200
Subject: [governance] Transition
In-Reply-To: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735ACE6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735ACE6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <1146577035.4457608b660a5@heimail.unige.ch>

Hi,

I agree.  I'm traveling and maybe not following things closely enough, but I
didn't have the sense that there was a lack of support for Avri's proposal. 
While in princile I'd have thought it preferable to have two as before (and
again, I'm not interested in being one of them), if in practice that's a deal
breaker then fine, let's have one, which is certainly better than none.

Best,

Bill



Quoting Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>:

> My understanding from the discussion is that the majority of people who have
> expressed themselves on the list openly support Avri to be the only
> coordinator for the transition period. A second one would be good, but is not
> seen as a pre-condition to move foreward. If you add the silent majority of
> the list, Avri has a rough consensus to move forward.
>
> Best regards
>
> wolfgang
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Milton Mueller
> Sent: Sun 4/30/2006 11:13 PM
> To: avri at acm.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Transition
>
>
>
> Problem with your response, Avri, is that there was as much or more support
> for a single coordinator than there was for 2 co-coordinators, as far as I
> could tell. Frankly I won't support another co-coordinator proposal, if it
> means that 2 coordinators are simply plucked from the air without a process
> and without the establishment of a charter and some formalization of the
> grounds for participation, as was proposed. We can't keep ducking that
> problem.
>
> The virtue of your single coord. proposal was not that it was a single
> person, but that it was a purely transitional strategy that put a single,
> proven, trustworthy, accountable person in place to accomplish a transition
> so that we can have a real process down the road. If what you are saying is
> that you will do the same thing, but add another name to the "accountable
> person" category then I might accept it.
>
> But I don't think the problem people had was with the single coordinator. I
> think there were all kinds of other little dramas being acted out, which I
> could not attempt to describe without getting myself and the caucus into hot
> water, and besides it doesn't matter.
>
> Looking forward, rather than backwards or sideways as so many seem prone to
> do, would you please re-iterate the basic elements of your proposal in a
> bulleted list and show how the selection of 2 rather than one Avris would or
> would not affect the substance of the proposal.
>
> --MM
>
> >>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 4/30/2006 1:05 PM >>>
> Hi,
>
> First I want to indicate how grateful i am for the conversations that
> have been going on for last weeks on this list.  I especially
> appreciate the statements of support that I got from so many of you.
>
> However, i do not feel that we have consensus on my proposal despite
> the degree of support.  The strongest issue, in email i received
> privately as well as on the list, seems to be a discomfort with the
> idea of one coordinator.  and since I believe that this can't work
> without consensus, i do not feel i can go forward as a single
> coordinator.
>
> If, however, we are going to have 2 coordinator (we could have more,
> but 2 seems to be what people are calling for) i believe, as a member
> of the caucus, that they should represent, to some extent the
> diversity in the group as much as possible when talking about 2
> people.  There had been suggestions of Bill and I.  I was against
> that and still am.  I think Bill would make a fine coordinator, as i
> believe i might.  But we are both from the US and while he spends
> more time residing in Europe then I do, I beleive we both tend to
> view the world through the eyes of USians with Eurocentric lenses
> (however much we may sometime disagree on other things and i do hope
> he forgives me for characterizing his viewpoint).  If the IGC wants
> two coordinators and wants diversity (gender as well as developing/
> developed world - or any other criteria someone may suggest)  then i
> see us as possible candidates who could not be chosen to serve together.
>
> so again, i appreciate the consideration my suggestion got, and
> appreciate the great discussions it seemed to initiate, but i do not
> feel that i have the consensus i need to put it into effect and
> therefore suggest that we begin to figure out what it is we want to do.
>
> anyone have a idea?
>
> thanks
> a.
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>


*******************************************************
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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Tue May  2 09:59:22 2006
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 15:59:22 +0200
Subject: [governance] Transition
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20060502220302.06354b50@anr.org>
References: <C62F9425-75DF-495B-A953-652843F7C566@acm.org>
	<6.2.0.14.2.20060502220302.06354b50@anr.org>
Message-ID: <445765BA.3080902@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

I am also favour of Avri being the "burning" transition coordinator if 
this is the most feasable option.
We need to move forward, Parminder and the others are right.

Best, Ralf
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Tue May  2 11:05:19 2006
From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso)
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 12:05:19 -0300
Subject: [governance] Transition
In-Reply-To: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735ACE6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735ACE6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <WorldClient-F200605021205.AA05190026@rits.org.br>

I agree with Wolf.

--c.a.

-----Original Message-----
From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
To: Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>, avri at acm.org,
governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 13:22:11 +0200
Subject: Re: [governance] Transition

> My understanding from the discussion is that the majority of people
> who have expressed themselves on the list openly support Avri to be
> the only coordinator for the transition period. A second one would be
> good, but is not seen as a pre-condition to move foreward. If you add
> the silent majority of the list, Avri has a rough consensus to move
> forward.
>  
> Best regards
>  
> wolfgang
>  
>  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Milton Mueller
> Sent: Sun 4/30/2006 11:13 PM
> To: avri at acm.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Transition
> 
> 
> 
> Problem with your response, Avri, is that there was as much or more
> support for a single coordinator than there was for 2
> co-coordinators, as far as I could tell. Frankly I won't support
> another co-coordinator proposal, if it means that 2 coordinators are
> simply plucked from the air without a process and without the
> establishment of a charter and some formalization of the grounds for
> participation, as was proposed. We can't keep ducking that problem.
> 
> The virtue of your single coord. proposal was not that it was a
> single person, but that it was a purely transitional strategy that
> put a single, proven, trustworthy, accountable person in place to
> accomplish a transition so that we can have a real process down the
> road. If what you are saying is that you will do the same thing, but
> add another name to the "accountable person" category then I might
> accept it.
> 
> But I don't think the problem people had was with the single
> coordinator. I think there were all kinds of other little dramas
> being acted out, which I could not attempt to describe without
> getting myself and the caucus into hot water, and besides it doesn't
> matter.
> 
> Looking forward, rather than backwards or sideways as so many seem
> prone to do, would you please re-iterate the basic elements of your
> proposal in a bulleted list and show how the selection of 2 rather
> than one Avris would or would not affect the substance of the
> proposal.
> 
> --MM
> 
> >>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 4/30/2006 1:05 PM >>>
> Hi,
> 
> First I want to indicate how grateful i am for the conversations that
> have been going on for last weeks on this list.  I especially 
> appreciate the statements of support that I got from so many of you.
> 
> However, i do not feel that we have consensus on my proposal despite 
> the degree of support.  The strongest issue, in email i received 
> privately as well as on the list, seems to be a discomfort with the 
> idea of one coordinator.  and since I believe that this can't work 
> without consensus, i do not feel i can go forward as a single 
> coordinator.
> 
> If, however, we are going to have 2 coordinator (we could have more, 
> but 2 seems to be what people are calling for) i believe, as a member
> of the caucus, that they should represent, to some extent the 
> diversity in the group as much as possible when talking about 2 
> people.  There had been suggestions of Bill and I.  I was against 
> that and still am.  I think Bill would make a fine coordinator, as i 
> believe i might.  But we are both from the US and while he spends 
> more time residing in Europe then I do, I beleive we both tend to 
> view the world through the eyes of USians with Eurocentric lenses 
> (however much we may sometime disagree on other things and i do hope 
> he forgives me for characterizing his viewpoint).  If the IGC wants 
> two coordinators and wants diversity (gender as well as developing/
> developed world - or any other criteria someone may suggest)  then i 
> see us as possible candidates who could not be chosen to serve
> together.
> 
> so again, i appreciate the consideration my suggestion got, and 
> appreciate the great discussions it seemed to initiate, but i do not 
> feel that i have the consensus i need to put it into effect and 
> therefore suggest that we begin to figure out what it is we want to
> do.
> 
> anyone have a idea?
> 
> thanks
> a.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca  Tue May  2 11:05:17 2006
From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern)
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 11:05:17 -0400
Subject: [governance] Transition
In-Reply-To: <WorldClient-F200605021205.AA05190026@rits.org.br>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735ACE6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<WorldClient-F200605021205.AA05190026@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <4457752D.8070608@umontreal.ca>

I also echo the more detailed comments posted by Wolfgang.

Thanks again to Avri and to everyone for putting in the time on this.

Cheers,

Jeremy Shtern


carlos a. afonso wrote:
> I agree with Wolf.
>
> --c.a.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> To: Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>, avri at acm.org,
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 13:22:11 +0200
> Subject: Re: [governance] Transition
>
>   
>> My understanding from the discussion is that the majority of people
>> who have expressed themselves on the list openly support Avri to be
>> the only coordinator for the transition period. A second one would be
>> good, but is not seen as a pre-condition to move foreward. If you add
>> the silent majority of the list, Avri has a rough consensus to move
>> forward.
>>  
>> Best regards
>>  
>> wolfgang
>>  
>>  
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Milton Mueller
>> Sent: Sun 4/30/2006 11:13 PM
>> To: avri at acm.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Transition
>>
>>
>>
>> Problem with your response, Avri, is that there was as much or more
>> support for a single coordinator than there was for 2
>> co-coordinators, as far as I could tell. Frankly I won't support
>> another co-coordinator proposal, if it means that 2 coordinators are
>> simply plucked from the air without a process and without the
>> establishment of a charter and some formalization of the grounds for
>> participation, as was proposed. We can't keep ducking that problem.
>>
>> The virtue of your single coord. proposal was not that it was a
>> single person, but that it was a purely transitional strategy that
>> put a single, proven, trustworthy, accountable person in place to
>> accomplish a transition so that we can have a real process down the
>> road. If what you are saying is that you will do the same thing, but
>> add another name to the "accountable person" category then I might
>> accept it.
>>
>> But I don't think the problem people had was with the single
>> coordinator. I think there were all kinds of other little dramas
>> being acted out, which I could not attempt to describe without
>> getting myself and the caucus into hot water, and besides it doesn't
>> matter.
>>
>> Looking forward, rather than backwards or sideways as so many seem
>> prone to do, would you please re-iterate the basic elements of your
>> proposal in a bulleted list and show how the selection of 2 rather
>> than one Avris would or would not affect the substance of the
>> proposal.
>>
>> --MM
>>
>>     
>>>>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 4/30/2006 1:05 PM >>>
>>>>>           
>> Hi,
>>
>> First I want to indicate how grateful i am for the conversations that
>> have been going on for last weeks on this list.  I especially 
>> appreciate the statements of support that I got from so many of you.
>>
>> However, i do not feel that we have consensus on my proposal despite 
>> the degree of support.  The strongest issue, in email i received 
>> privately as well as on the list, seems to be a discomfort with the 
>> idea of one coordinator.  and since I believe that this can't work 
>> without consensus, i do not feel i can go forward as a single 
>> coordinator.
>>
>> If, however, we are going to have 2 coordinator (we could have more, 
>> but 2 seems to be what people are calling for) i believe, as a member
>> of the caucus, that they should represent, to some extent the 
>> diversity in the group as much as possible when talking about 2 
>> people.  There had been suggestions of Bill and I.  I was against 
>> that and still am.  I think Bill would make a fine coordinator, as i 
>> believe i might.  But we are both from the US and while he spends 
>> more time residing in Europe then I do, I beleive we both tend to 
>> view the world through the eyes of USians with Eurocentric lenses 
>> (however much we may sometime disagree on other things and i do hope 
>> he forgives me for characterizing his viewpoint).  If the IGC wants 
>> two coordinators and wants diversity (gender as well as developing/
>> developed world - or any other criteria someone may suggest)  then i 
>> see us as possible candidates who could not be chosen to serve
>> together.
>>
>> so again, i appreciate the consideration my suggestion got, and 
>> appreciate the great discussions it seemed to initiate, but i do not 
>> feel that i have the consensus i need to put it into effect and 
>> therefore suggest that we begin to figure out what it is we want to
>> do.
>>
>> anyone have a idea?
>>
>> thanks
>> a.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> governance mailing list
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> governance mailing list
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> governance mailing list
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>   

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From LMcKnigh at syr.edu  Tue May  2 12:41:33 2006
From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 12:41:33 -0400
Subject: [governance] Transition
Message-ID: <s457539c.025@gwia201.syr.edu>

I agree re rough consensus on Avri as sole coordinator for the interim, can we back-date her wages and say as of May 1st?  Well I said it, enough already! 

Avri please coordinate us : )

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

>>> Jeremy Shtern <jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca> 5/2/2006 11:05 AM >>>
I also echo the more detailed comments posted by Wolfgang.

Thanks again to Avri and to everyone for putting in the time on this.

Cheers,

Jeremy Shtern


carlos a. afonso wrote:
> I agree with Wolf.
>
> --c.a.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> To: Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>, avri at acm.org,
> governance at lists.cpsr.org 
> Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 13:22:11 +0200
> Subject: Re: [governance] Transition
>
>   
>> My understanding from the discussion is that the majority of people
>> who have expressed themselves on the list openly support Avri to be
>> the only coordinator for the transition period. A second one would be
>> good, but is not seen as a pre-condition to move foreward. If you add
>> the silent majority of the list, Avri has a rough consensus to move
>> forward.
>>  
>> Best regards
>>  
>> wolfgang
>>  
>>  
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Milton Mueller
>> Sent: Sun 4/30/2006 11:13 PM
>> To: avri at acm.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org 
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Transition
>>
>>
>>
>> Problem with your response, Avri, is that there was as much or more
>> support for a single coordinator than there was for 2
>> co-coordinators, as far as I could tell. Frankly I won't support
>> another co-coordinator proposal, if it means that 2 coordinators are
>> simply plucked from the air without a process and without the
>> establishment of a charter and some formalization of the grounds for
>> participation, as was proposed. We can't keep ducking that problem.
>>
>> The virtue of your single coord. proposal was not that it was a
>> single person, but that it was a purely transitional strategy that
>> put a single, proven, trustworthy, accountable person in place to
>> accomplish a transition so that we can have a real process down the
>> road. If what you are saying is that you will do the same thing, but
>> add another name to the "accountable person" category then I might
>> accept it.
>>
>> But I don't think the problem people had was with the single
>> coordinator. I think there were all kinds of other little dramas
>> being acted out, which I could not attempt to describe without
>> getting myself and the caucus into hot water, and besides it doesn't
>> matter.
>>
>> Looking forward, rather than backwards or sideways as so many seem
>> prone to do, would you please re-iterate the basic elements of your
>> proposal in a bulleted list and show how the selection of 2 rather
>> than one Avris would or would not affect the substance of the
>> proposal.
>>
>> --MM
>>
>>     
>>>>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 4/30/2006 1:05 PM >>>
>>>>>           
>> Hi,
>>
>> First I want to indicate how grateful i am for the conversations that
>> have been going on for last weeks on this list.  I especially 
>> appreciate the statements of support that I got from so many of you.
>>
>> However, i do not feel that we have consensus on my proposal despite 
>> the degree of support.  The strongest issue, in email i received 
>> privately as well as on the list, seems to be a discomfort with the 
>> idea of one coordinator.  and since I believe that this can't work 
>> without consensus, i do not feel i can go forward as a single 
>> coordinator.
>>
>> If, however, we are going to have 2 coordinator (we could have more, 
>> but 2 seems to be what people are calling for) i believe, as a member
>> of the caucus, that they should represent, to some extent the 
>> diversity in the group as much as possible when talking about 2 
>> people.  There had been suggestions of Bill and I.  I was against 
>> that and still am.  I think Bill would make a fine coordinator, as i 
>> believe i might.  But we are both from the US and while he spends 
>> more time residing in Europe then I do, I beleive we both tend to 
>> view the world through the eyes of USians with Eurocentric lenses 
>> (however much we may sometime disagree on other things and i do hope 
>> he forgives me for characterizing his viewpoint).  If the IGC wants 
>> two coordinators and wants diversity (gender as well as developing/
>> developed world - or any other criteria someone may suggest)  then i 
>> see us as possible candidates who could not be chosen to serve
>> together.
>>
>> so again, i appreciate the consideration my suggestion got, and 
>> appreciate the great discussions it seemed to initiate, but i do not 
>> feel that i have the consensus i need to put it into effect and 
>> therefore suggest that we begin to figure out what it is we want to
>> do.
>>
>> anyone have a idea?
>>
>> thanks
>> a.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> governance mailing list
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org 
>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance 
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> governance mailing list
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org 
>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance 
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> governance mailing list
>> governance at lists.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 gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU  Tue May  2 14:19:12 2006
From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael)
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 14:19:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] EU's follow actions from WSIS
Message-ID: <A0E19BF31237DE4A9B1FF1E122FAC13A187DCA8E@ADMCLUSTER.njitdm.campus.njit.edu>



-----Original Message-----
From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org
[mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org] On Behalf Of Michelle Childs
Sent: May 2, 2006 7:08 PM
To: a2k at lists.essential.org
Cc: ecommerce at lists.essential.org
Subject: [A2k] EU's follow actions from WSIS


DG Information Society has today released a list of 'actions' to follow
on from the Tunis meeting. A number have been announced before or are
simply joining existing policy forums.  But they specifically refer to
net neutrality <snip> Finally, the Commission expresses, in today's
Communication, its readiness to closely monitor attempts to call into
question the neutral character of the Internet.

Michelle

Press Release:
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/542&fo
rmat=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Reference:  IP/06/542    Date:  27/04/2006

 Brussels, 27 April 2006

Internet: Commission seeks global partnership on Internet governance,
freedom of expression and the combat against cyber-repression


To keep up the momentum of the successful World Summit on Information
Society (Tunis, 16-18 November 2005), the European Commission has set
out today its priorities for implementing the international policy
commitments made at the Summit. These priorities include safeguarding
and strengthening human rights, in particular the freedom to receive and
access information. Information and communication technologies (ICTs)
should be used to contribute to open democratic societies and to
economic and social progress worldwide. The Commission calls for
continuing international talks to improve Internet governance through
the two new processes created by the Summit: the multi-stakeholder
Internet Governance Forum and the mechanism of enhanced cooperation that
will involve all governments on an equal footing.

"The European Union must be at the forefront of an open, accessible and
undivided worldwide Information Society and of a free exchange of
information, ideas and opinions around the globe", said Viviane Reding,
Member of the European Commission responsible for the Information
Society and the Media. "At the World Summit in Tunis last year, we made
an important step towards a global consensus that the day-to-day
management of the Internet should take place without the interference of
any government. Now we must ensure that those commitments are fully
implemented. Interventions in the core architecture of the Internet can
no longer be justified if not made on the basis of globally accepted
public policy principles."

In its Communication adopted today, the Commission outlines the
follow-up actions it proposes for implementing the commitments made at
the World Summit of last November (see IP/05/1424 and IP/05/1433). The
EU has actively contributed to the success of this Summit and, by
speaking with one voice, helped to find viable compromises among
diverging positions among UN partners.

The Commission welcomes the clear and unequivocal statement of the World
Summit on the primary importance of the information society for
democracy and the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; in
particular the freedom of expression and opinion, as well as the freedom
to receive and access information. Therefore, the Commission notes with
concerns the cases of cyber-repression, which means the misuse of ICT to
help repressive regimes to restrict the free flow of information on the
Internet. The Commission encourages the companies concerned to work on a
code of conduct on this crucial issue, in close cooperation with NGOs.

On Internet governance, the Commission highlights that the
multi-stakeholder Forum on Internet governance (the first meeting of
which will take place in Athens this autumn) and the enhanced
cooperation model agreed at the Summit are a prerequisite for developing
a worldwide commitment to fight effectively against spam and malware and
to ensure the sustainability of the Internet as a global network.

On digital divide, the Commission already proposed in October 2005 a new
Partnership on Infrastructures, which will cover areas such as ICT
strategy and regulation, technology-neutral broadband networks and
development of non-commercial pan-African electronic services.

EU action should also include promoting international cooperation in ICT
R&D, which is to become a priority in the EU's new Framework Research
Programme, with the opening-up of all activities to researchers from
third countries and joint research programmes between the EU and
specific countries or regions.

Finally, the Commission expresses, in today's Communication, its
readiness to closely monitor attempts to call into question the neutral
character of the Internet.

Background:

The World Summit on the Information Society was a formal UN initiative
at the level of Heads of State and Government. It took place in two
phases: in Geneva in December 2003 and in Tunis in November 2005. The
outcome of the World Summit is a consensus on a global approach to the
Information Society that is common to all UN Member States and reflected
in the documents adopted in Tunis. The Tunis documents recognise in
particular acknowledge the need for enhanced cooperation on Internet
governance matters of a public policy nature to enable governments, on
an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities. They
also lay the foundation for a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy
dialogue, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The EU is participating
actively in the setting up of both processes.

See also MEMO/06/172
Today's Communication and the Tunis documents are available at:

http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/internationalrel/glo
bal_issues/wsis/index_en.htm



--
Michelle Childs -Head of European Affairs
Consumer Project on Technology in London
24, Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX,UK.
Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252.
Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607 http://www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA .Tel.:
+1.202.332.2670,Fax: +1.202.332.2673

Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva
1 Route des  Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727



_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
A2k at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Wed May  3 07:57:31 2006
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 13:57:31 +0200
Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Internet Law and Governance 2007]
Message-ID: <44589AAB.9070403@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Some of the North Americans (or others) here might be interested in
chatting about Internet Governance with former president Bill Clinton.
See below, especially the last two paragraphs.
Ralf

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Internet Law and Governance 2007
Date: 	Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:29:10 +0200
From: 	Dennis Campbell <cils at cils.org>
Reply-To: 	Dennis Campbell <cils at cils.org>

It is my great honor to announce that the Center for International Legal
Studies will host a conference 25 – 29 April 2007 on Internet law and
governance at the Clinton Presidential Library and the Clinton School of
Public Service at Little Rock, Arkansas.

It is anticipated that President Clinton will participate on the first
day of the conference. The first morning of the conference (Thursday)
will offer a private tour of the Presidential Library. Following a
luncheon at the Presidential Library, an afternoon working session,
focusing on public policy issues, will be held at the Library. Legal
issues will be treated during full day sessions on Friday and Saturday
at the adjacent Clinton School of Public Service.

The program is being organized in cooperation with the Clinton
Presidential Library, the Clinton School of Public Service, and the
University of Arkansas School of Law at Little Rock.

We will accord priority on the program and for delegate registration to
those who have been active in the WSIS process.

Please mark the dates on your calendar and advise me if you have
interest in serving as a speaker or panel moderator or attending as a
delegate.

Regards, Professor Dennis Campbell

Center for International Legal Studies
PO Box 19
A5033 Salzburg, Austria
Austria Fax 43 662 8353171
US Fax 1 509 3560077
Email cils at cils.org <mailto:cils at cils.org>


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From avri at acm.org  Wed May  3 12:49:26 2006
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:49:26 -0400
Subject: [governance] Transition
In-Reply-To: <20060502124143.61131.qmail@web50213.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060502124143.61131.qmail@web50213.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <07AE3CEC-CBCC-4303-8BEE-C10332E79640@acm.org>

hi,

I tend to agree, that is why I have been speaking of a working charter.

And thanks for the outline.

a.

On 2 maj 2006, at 08.41, Nnenna wrote:

> I really believe that the idea of a charter is not as grandiose as  
> some may feel.  There are two types of it:
> 1.  The elaborate type that seems to cover all,
> 2.  The easier version which lays down principles.
>
> These  days, the second option has proved to be more efficient.   
> Going by what I know, the IGC charter can/may consist of the  
> following:
> Vision
> Aim/mission
> Objectives
> Tasks
> Membership
> Coordination
> Working methods
> Decisions
> Relationship of IGC to CSP
> etc
> All for now

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From avri at psg.com  Wed May  3 12:57:14 2006
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:57:14 -0400
Subject: [governance] Transition
In-Reply-To: <200605011054.k41AsD8k090513@trout.cpsr.org>
References: <200605011054.k41AsD8k090513@trout.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <BADBEAA5-6A69-4506-8964-78CDEC29D343@psg.com>

Hi,

You probably saw where I just sent a message that indicated I was  
thinking of the less substantive charter to start with.

but I think you are right in that we need to do the more substantive  
work.  I wonder whether they can be done in two parts.

1. get the working charter that explains basic vision, who, what and  
how (your 1 and maybe part of 2)
     then select second second co-coordinator based on the how  
(unless we pick one by the 5th)
2.. start to work seriously on the substantive issue papers (the hard  
part of your 2, and 3)


a.

On 1 maj 2006, at 06.59, Parminder wrote:

>
>
> Dear All
>
>
>
> I think we should set a limit - say by the end on this week -  
> Friday the 5th - to close the arrangement for facilitating the  
> transition.
>
>
>
> The main issue is Avri or Avri plus one (and if so whom).
>
>
>
> I am fine with either.
>
>
>
> However, I will like to know what broadly is implied in this  
> transition period.
>
>
>
> 1. The minimum it appears is to set up an agreed process - written  
> in a charter - which addresses issues of choosing coordinators,  
> their work conditions etc. And some related or otherwise relatively  
> minor process issues.
>
>
>
> That would be relatively easier.
>
>
>
> 2. Writing down the process of developing positions on behalf of  
> IGC will be much more difficult. This category broadly includes  
> nominating representatives of IGC (like we did recently for IGF)  
> and such representative processes.... We can also include here  
> issues of structural arrangement that IGC shd be in with the CS  
> ecology around it.
>
>
>
> 3. Writing down some broad but substantive guidelines/ positions -  
> vision, scope, guiding principles etc - for IGC will be even more  
> difficult. It can get to be a somewhat difficult and heavily  
> contested process (rightly so, for something which is evidently  
> very political).
>
>
>
> Jeannette and some others (me included) have been insisting that we  
> go through this process of writing some substantive principle/ 
> policy things into the charter as well.
>
>
>
> So, while I consider all the above as processes that will take some  
> amount of pains of passage, I consider them important and crucial,  
> and appeal to the group that we show the political will to go  
> through these processes to give a new leash of life to IGC.
>
>
>
> Now if this all is agreed and the responsibility of it understood –  
> we can come back to the question we face immediately. Avri or Avri  
> plus one.
>
>
>
>
>
> I am very fine if Avri thinks she can handle this well, to carry us  
> through the process – and in that case I support her to do it solo.  
> However, if there is a feeling (and I have some half-doubts here)  
> that two persons will be able to deflect the pressures of this  
> difficult period better than one, we shd go for it.
>
>
>
> Here I only want us to do some forward thinking and judge what kind  
> of process will the transition entail, and take our ‘number of  
> facilitators decision’ with that in mind. But lets in any case  
> close it in the next 4 days.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________
>
> Parminder Jeet Singh
>
> IT for Change, Bangalore
>
> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
>
> 91-80-26654134
>
> www.ITforChange.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance- 
> bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 3:51 AM
> To: Internet Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] Transition
>
>
>
>
>
> On 30 apr 2006, at 17.13, Milton Mueller wrote:
>
>
>
> > Looking forward, rather than backwards or sideways as so many seem
>
> > prone to do, would you please re-iterate the basic elements of your
>
> > proposal in a bulleted list and show how the selection of 2 rather
>
> > than one Avris would or would not affect the substance of the
>
> > proposal.
>
>
>
> The proposal I made, which was contingent on consensus.
>
>
>
> the basics:
>
>
>
> - i become a single coordinator of the caucus with a 1 yr term
>
> - we decide on a working charter that included a process for picking
>
> coordinators
>
>    (i suggested a nomcom - but that was not well accepted, so it
>
> needs more discussion)
>
> - we then picked a second coordinator for 2 year term as soon as we
>
> have the working charter and the process for picking
>
> - as my 1 year term was ending, we picked a second coordinator for a
>
> 2 year term.
>
>
>
> with mentions about finding new collaborative methods for getting
>
> things done etc...
>
>
>
> My main concerns, other then getting a charter that gets moving
>
> again, are for a finding a reliable and acceptable method for
>
> choosing coordinators given the nature of the caucus, and for that
>
> methodology to be a staggered method, so we are never without
>
> continuity of coordination.
>
>
>
> so I think having 2 coordinators to start the transition means:
>
>
>
> - we have a choosing at some point to replace one or both of them
>
> - some have suggested privately that the act of being the transition
>
> coordinator burns the coordinators so they can't continue as
>
> coordinators after the transition.  i think this is possibly true.
>
> and was certainly expecting my one year term to be non renewable
>
> (though i did not explicitly include that in the description - though
>
> i could if we thought it was necessary). so if we have two, and the
>
> theory that working the transition burns the coordinator is correct,
>
> then we burn two instead of one.
>
> - in that case we could follow the steps above with the variation
>
>
>
>    - pick 2
>
>    - charter with picking method
>
>    - pick 1, burn 1 (by flipping a coin or some other selection  
> method)
>
>    - after a year pick 2nd, burn the 2nd transition  coordinator
>
>
>
> alternatively
>
>
>
>     - pick 2
>
>     - charter with picking method
>
>     - pick 1 for 2 year term, retain transition 2 for the rest of year
>
>       (gives total of 3 for the balance of the year)
>
>     - at the year mark pick a new one and burn the 2 transition
>
> coordinators.
>
>
>
> or ...
>
>
>
> a.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> governance mailing list
>
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060503/b747ff0b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed May  3 13:26:44 2006
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 22:56:44 +0530
Subject: [governance] Transition
In-Reply-To: <07AE3CEC-CBCC-4303-8BEE-C10332E79640@acm.org>
Message-ID: <200605031726.k43HQpOw053822@trout.cpsr.org>



Yes, I think what Nnenna outlines is pretty elaborate, especially with an
etc in the end :). 

Meanwhile, should we take it that we have two more days for someone to
clearly object to Avri being the single coordinator, and then - in default -
she is the single coordinator. And of course as much time to object to this
proposition itself. 
 

Parminder  

________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
91-80-26654134
www.ITforChange.net 
-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:19 PM
To: Nnenna
Cc: Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] Transition

hi,

I tend to agree, that is why I have been speaking of a working charter.

And thanks for the outline.

a.

On 2 maj 2006, at 08.41, Nnenna wrote:

> I really believe that the idea of a charter is not as grandiose as  
> some may feel.  There are two types of it:
> 1.  The elaborate type that seems to cover all,
> 2.  The easier version which lays down principles.
>
> These  days, the second option has proved to be more efficient.   
> Going by what I know, the IGC charter can/may consist of the  
> following:
> Vision
> Aim/mission
> Objectives
> Tasks
> Membership
> Coordination
> Working methods
> Decisions
> Relationship of IGC to CSP
> etc
> All for now

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.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  Wed May  3 13:31:26 2006
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 23:01:26 +0530
Subject: [governance] Transition
In-Reply-To: <BADBEAA5-6A69-4506-8964-78CDEC29D343@psg.com>
Message-ID: <200605031731.k43HVdAL053915@trout.cpsr.org>

Sure, I was only trying to clarify. But my conviction remains that an
effective advocacy group requires some agreement on basic principles, which
also allow people to leave and join (I mean this in most practical terms -
that one know what one is associated with and fighting for).

 

Parminder  

 

 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

91-80-26654134

 <http://www.itforchange.net/> www.ITforChange.net 

  _____  

From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:27 PM
To: Parminder
Cc: 'Internet Governance Caucus'
Subject: Re: [governance] Transition

 

Hi,

 

You probably saw where I just sent a message that indicated I was thinking
of the less substantive charter to start with.

 

but I think you are right in that we need to do the more substantive work.
I wonder whether they can be done in two parts.

 

1. get the working charter that explains basic vision, who, what and how
(your 1 and maybe part of 2)

    then select second second co-coordinator based on the how (unless we
pick one by the 5th)

2.. start to work seriously on the substantive issue papers (the hard part
of your 2, and 3)

 

 

a.

 

On 1 maj 2006, at 06.59, Parminder wrote:





 

Dear All

 

I think we should set a limit - say by the end on this week - Friday the 5th
- to close the arrangement for facilitating the transition. 

 

The main issue is Avri or Avri plus one (and if so whom).

 

I am fine with either. 

 

However, I will like to know what broadly is implied in this transition
period. 

 

1. The minimum it appears is to set up an agreed process - written in a
charter - which addresses issues of choosing coordinators, their work
conditions etc. And some related or otherwise relatively minor process
issues. 

 

That would be relatively easier. 

 

2. Writing down the process of developing positions on behalf of IGC will be
much more difficult. This category broadly includes nominating
representatives of IGC (like we did recently for IGF) and such
representative processes.... We can also include here issues of structural
arrangement that IGC shd be in with the CS ecology around it.  

 

3. Writing down some broad but substantive guidelines/ positions - vision,
scope, guiding principles etc - for IGC will be even more difficult. It can
get to be a somewhat difficult and heavily contested process (rightly so,
for something which is evidently very political).

 

Jeannette and some others (me included) have been insisting that we go
through this process of writing some substantive principle/policy things
into the charter as well. 

 

So, while I consider all the above as processes that will take some amount
of pains of passage, I consider them important and crucial, and appeal to
the group that we show the political will to go through these processes to
give a new leash of life to IGC. 

 

Now if this all is agreed and the responsibility of it understood - we can
come back to the question we face immediately. Avri or Avri plus one.

 

  

I am very fine if Avri thinks she can handle this well, to carry us through
the process - and in that case I support her to do it solo. However, if
there is a feeling (and I have some half-doubts here) that two persons will
be able to deflect the pressures of this difficult period better than one,
we shd go for it. 

 

Here I only want us to do some forward thinking and judge what kind of
process will the transition entail, and take our 'number of facilitators
decision' with that in mind. But lets in any case close it in the next 4
days.

 

 

Regards

 

Parminder 

 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

91-80-26654134

www.ITforChange.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 3:51 AM
To: Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] Transition

 

 

On 30 apr 2006, at 17.13, Milton Mueller wrote:

 

> Looking forward, rather than backwards or sideways as so many seem  

> prone to do, would you please re-iterate the basic elements of your  

> proposal in a bulleted list and show how the selection of 2 rather  

> than one Avris would or would not affect the substance of the  

> proposal.

 

The proposal I made, which was contingent on consensus.

 

the basics:

 

- i become a single coordinator of the caucus with a 1 yr term

- we decide on a working charter that included a process for picking  

coordinators

   (i suggested a nomcom - but that was not well accepted, so it  

needs more discussion)

- we then picked a second coordinator for 2 year term as soon as we  

have the working charter and the process for picking

- as my 1 year term was ending, we picked a second coordinator for a  

2 year term.

 

with mentions about finding new collaborative methods for getting  

things done etc...

 

My main concerns, other then getting a charter that gets moving  

again, are for a finding a reliable and acceptable method for  

choosing coordinators given the nature of the caucus, and for that  

methodology to be a staggered method, so we are never without  

continuity of coordination.

 

so I think having 2 coordinators to start the transition means:

 

- we have a choosing at some point to replace one or both of them

- some have suggested privately that the act of being the transition  

coordinator burns the coordinators so they can't continue as  

coordinators after the transition.  i think this is possibly true.   

and was certainly expecting my one year term to be non renewable  

(though i did not explicitly include that in the description - though  

i could if we thought it was necessary). so if we have two, and the  

theory that working the transition burns the coordinator is correct,  

then we burn two instead of one.

- in that case we could follow the steps above with the variation

 

   - pick 2

   - charter with picking method

   - pick 1, burn 1 (by flipping a coin or some other selection method)

   - after a year pick 2nd, burn the 2nd transition  coordinator

 

alternatively

 

    - pick 2

    - charter with picking method

    - pick 1 for 2 year term, retain transition 2 for the rest of year

      (gives total of 3 for the balance of the year)

    - at the year mark pick a new one and burn the 2 transition  

coordinators.

 

or ...

 

a.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________________

governance mailing list

governance at lists.cpsr.org

https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________

governance mailing list

governance at lists.cpsr.org

https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060503/ed71db5d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Wed May  3 13:33:11 2006
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 19:33:11 +0200
Subject: [governance] Transition
In-Reply-To: <200605031726.k43HQpOw053822@trout.cpsr.org>
References: <200605031726.k43HQpOw053822@trout.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <4458E957.7030504@wz-berlin.de>



Parminder wrote:
> 
> Yes, I think what Nnenna outlines is pretty elaborate, especially with an
> etc in the end :). 
> 
> Meanwhile, should we take it that we have two more days for someone to
> clearly object to Avri being the single coordinator, and then - in default -
> she is the single coordinator. And of course as much time to object to this
> proposition itself. 

Sounds like a feasible way to close this issue. What a relief!
jeanette
>  
> 
> Parminder  
> 
> ________________________________________________
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> IT for Change, Bangalore
> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
> 91-80-26654134
> www.ITforChange.net 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:19 PM
> To: Nnenna
> Cc: Internet Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] Transition
> 
> hi,
> 
> I tend to agree, that is why I have been speaking of a working charter.
> 
> And thanks for the outline.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 2 maj 2006, at 08.41, Nnenna wrote:
> 
>> I really believe that the idea of a charter is not as grandiose as  
>> some may feel.  There are two types of it:
>> 1.  The elaborate type that seems to cover all,
>> 2.  The easier version which lays down principles.
>>
>> These  days, the second option has proved to be more efficient.   
>> Going by what I know, the IGC charter can/may consist of the  
>> following:
>> Vision
>> Aim/mission
>> Objectives
>> Tasks
>> Membership
>> Coordination
>> Working methods
>> Decisions
>> Relationship of IGC to CSP
>> etc
>> All for now
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.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 bfausett at internet.law.pro  Wed May  3 13:37:58 2006
From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett)
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 10:37:58 -0700
Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Internet Law and Governance 2007]
In-Reply-To: <44589AAB.9070403@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <003201c66ed8$51dbabe0$0401000a@CCKLLP.local>

Wow. I'd be thrilled to participate in this. Little Rock is where I was born
and raised, and my mom is even a docent at the Clinton library. Most of my
immediate family still lives there. I've written to Professor Campbell
separately, but if anyone knows him personally, would you mind dropping him
a note and putting in a good word for me?

         -- Bret 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ralf Bendrath
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 4:58 AM
To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Internet Law and Governance 2007]

Some of the North Americans (or others) here might be interested in chatting
about Internet Governance with former president Bill Clinton.
See below, especially the last two paragraphs.
Ralf

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Internet Law and Governance 2007
Date: 	Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:29:10 +0200
From: 	Dennis Campbell <cils at cils.org>
Reply-To: 	Dennis Campbell <cils at cils.org>

It is my great honor to announce that the Center for International Legal
Studies will host a conference 25 - 29 April 2007 on Internet law and
governance at the Clinton Presidential Library and the Clinton School of
Public Service at Little Rock, Arkansas.

It is anticipated that President Clinton will participate on the first day
of the conference. The first morning of the conference (Thursday) will offer
a private tour of the Presidential Library. Following a luncheon at the
Presidential Library, an afternoon working session, focusing on public
policy issues, will be held at the Library. Legal issues will be treated
during full day sessions on Friday and Saturday at the adjacent Clinton
School of Public Service.

The program is being organized in cooperation with the Clinton Presidential
Library, the Clinton School of Public Service, and the University of
Arkansas School of Law at Little Rock.

We will accord priority on the program and for delegate registration to
those who have been active in the WSIS process.

Please mark the dates on your calendar and advise me if you have interest in
serving as a speaker or panel moderator or attending as a delegate.

Regards, Professor Dennis Campbell

Center for International Legal Studies
PO Box 19
A5033 Salzburg, Austria
Austria Fax 43 662 8353171
US Fax 1 509 3560077
Email cils at cils.org <mailto:cils at cils.org>


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4057 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060503/264b7056/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From apeake at gmail.com  Wed May  3 13:40:00 2006
From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp))
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 02:40:00 +0900
Subject: [governance] Transition
In-Reply-To: <4458E957.7030504@wz-berlin.de>
References: <200605031726.k43HQpOw053822@trout.cpsr.org>
	<4458E957.7030504@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <f31ae3560605031040q72b8fb9cp5ff7bc356a6ebb14@mail.gmail.com>

Agreed - I support Avri as the coordinator going forward.

Adam


On 5/4/06, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> Parminder wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I think what Nnenna outlines is pretty elaborate, especially with
> an
> > etc in the end :).
> >
> > Meanwhile, should we take it that we have two more days for someone to
> > clearly object to Avri being the single coordinator, and then - in
> default -
> > she is the single coordinator. And of course as much time to object to
> this
> > proposition itself.
>
> Sounds like a feasible way to close this issue. What a relief!
> jeanette
> >
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> > ________________________________________________
> > Parminder Jeet Singh
> > IT for Change, Bangalore
> > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> > 91-80-26654134
> > www.ITforChange.net
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:19 PM
> > To: Nnenna
> > Cc: Internet Governance Caucus
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Transition
> >
> > hi,
> >
> > I tend to agree, that is why I have been speaking of a working charter.
> >
> > And thanks for the outline.
> >
> > a.
> >
> > On 2 maj 2006, at 08.41, Nnenna wrote:
> >
> >> I really believe that the idea of a charter is not as grandiose as
> >> some may feel.  There are two types of it:
> >> 1.  The elaborate type that seems to cover all,
> >> 2.  The easier version which lays down principles.
> >>
> >> These  days, the second option has proved to be more efficient.
> >> Going by what I know, the IGC charter can/may consist of the
> >> following:
> >> Vision
> >> Aim/mission
> >> Objectives
> >> Tasks
> >> Membership
> >> Coordination
> >> Working methods
> >> Decisions
> >> Relationship of IGC to CSP
> >> etc
> >> All for now
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > governance mailing list
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > governance mailing list
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>



--
Email from Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Email from my Gmail account probably means I am travelling.  Please reply
to  <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> Thanks!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060504/f268d6d1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed May  3 13:44:17 2006
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 20:44:17 +0300
Subject: [governance] Transition
In-Reply-To: <f31ae3560605031040q72b8fb9cp5ff7bc356a6ebb14@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200605031726.k43HQpOw053822@trout.cpsr.org>
	<4458E957.7030504@wz-berlin.de>
	<f31ae3560605031040q72b8fb9cp5ff7bc356a6ebb14@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0605031044m4bb0101cvb7c286090893ac75@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/3/06, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) <apeake at gmail.com> wrote:
> Agreed - I support Avri as the coordinator going forward.

FULL ACK

--
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From klohento at panos-ao.org  Wed May  3 14:37:14 2006
From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento)
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 18:37:14 -0000
Subject: [governance] Transition
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0605031044m4bb0101cvb7c286090893ac75@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <NPEIKAHFADBKFFPHPNKMEEGNECAA.klohento@panos-ao.org>

Agreed.

KL

-----Message d'origine-----
De : governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]De la part de McTim
Envoye : mercredi 3 mai 2006 17:44
A : ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Cc : Internet Governance Caucus
Objet : Re: [governance] Transition

On 5/3/06, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) <apeake at gmail.com> wrote:
> Agreed - I support Avri as the coordinator going forward.

FULL ACK

--
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.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  Wed May  3 14:39:51 2006
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 14:39:51 -0400
Subject: [governance] Transition
In-Reply-To: <f31ae3560605031040q72b8fb9cp5ff7bc356a6ebb14@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <200605031726.k43HQpOw053822@trout.cpsr.org>
	<4458E957.7030504@wz-berlin.de>
	<f31ae3560605031040q72b8fb9cp5ff7bc356a6ebb14@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060503143945.03f9d000@veni.com>

At 02:40 AM 04.5.2006 '?.'ЪЪ┬Ж  +0900, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote:
>Agreed - I support Avri as the coordinator going forward.

same here.

veni 


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org  Wed May  3 14:48:37 2006
From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 21:48:37 +0300
Subject: [governance] Transition
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060503143945.03f9d000@veni.com>
References: <200605031726.k43HQpOw053822@trout.cpsr.org>
	<4458E957.7030504@wz-berlin.de>
	<f31ae3560605031040q72b8fb9cp5ff7bc356a6ebb14@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20060503143945.03f9d000@veni.com>
Message-ID: <20060503184837.GB28730@kannel.kauko.org>

On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 02:39:51PM -0400, Veni Markovski (veni at veni.com) wrote:
> At 02:40 AM 04.5.2006 '?.'????  +0900, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote:
> >Agreed - I support Avri as the coordinator going forward.
> 
> same here.

Ditto. I think Avri is a very good choice.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From avri at acm.org  Wed May  3 16:56:09 2006
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 16:56:09 -0400
Subject: [governance] Transition
In-Reply-To: <44574C7F.5040708@bertola.eu.org>
References: <C62F9425-75DF-495B-A953-652843F7C566@acm.org>	<4454F3E1.4020104@bertola.eu.org>
	<2ED52320-26A2-48E6-8D8C-4CA0118AFA1C@acm.org>
	<44574C7F.5040708@bertola.eu.org>
Message-ID: <A84E0216-BF53-4DF6-8F0E-0F483ACFEB1E@acm.org>

Hi,

Sorry I had not understood.  I think it is an idea that can be used  
if the caucus wishes.

I think that at least a small group to get together within the caucus  
to come up with the first draft.  one that we can put on this wiki,  
or other collaborative environment, we will have (I am looking about  
for a place to host one now - any ideas?) and then the entire caucus  
can work on it and discuss it and come to rough consensus on it.

Perhaps a way to start (and forgive me for already moving to the  
future before the end of the week - i do seem to part of the equation  
we are accepting) is that we find a volunteer or 2 for each item in  
Nnenna's outline, except perhaps etc which we can save for later.

what do you all think?  give each volunteer 1-2 weeks to come up with  
an basic draft - does not need to be polished, just something for  
people to throw ideas at - could even be more questions then answers  
if that is all there is at this point. these editors could then be  
the caretakers of that text as we moved forward if they wished,  
though the decision control would belong to the caucus.

thanks
a.

On 2 maj 2006, at 08.11, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> Avri Doria ha scritto:
>> Hi,
>> i think it might mean the loss of the IGC and its history and the   
>> role it has been able to achieve.
>> or what might happen, is that some people will go off and start   
>> working on the new working group, while the rest of the people  
>> stay  on IGC and eventually figure it out.
> >
> > but of course, someone can do this anytime, it does not take a
> > decision of the IGC for someone to go off and start something new.
>
> Sorry, possibly I didn't explain well what I meant. The new working  
> group would work out a charter *for the IGC*, not for a new entity;  
> it would then get back to the list to get the charter approved. The  
> objecive of my proposal was just to get out of the deadlock due to  
> the lack of consensus on your appointment as "single coordinator" -  
> not to start anything new!
> -- 
> 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  Wed May  3 18:38:45 2006
From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt)
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 08:38:45 +1000
Subject: [governance] Transition
In-Reply-To: <BADBEAA5-6A69-4506-8964-78CDEC29D343@psg.com>
References: <200605011054.k41AsD8k090513@trout.cpsr.org>
	<BADBEAA5-6A69-4506-8964-78CDEC29D343@psg.com>
Message-ID: <E1B86FEA-57AC-4022-9131-BCE891EE1956@dannybutt.net>

I agree with this process and that some sequencing of the work is  
useful here.

Danny


On 04/05/2006, at 2:57 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> but I think you are right in that we need to do the more  
> substantive work.  I wonder whether they can be done in two parts.
>
> 1. get the working charter that explains basic vision, who, what  
> and how (your 1 and maybe part of 2)
>     then select second second co-coordinator based on the how  
> (unless we pick one by the 5th)
> 2.. start to work seriously on the substantive issue papers (the  
> hard part of your 2, and 3)

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca  Wed May  3 18:44:10 2006
From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern)
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 18:44:10 -0400
Subject: [governance] In response to avri's volunteer proposal
In-Reply-To: <A84E0216-BF53-4DF6-8F0E-0F483ACFEB1E@acm.org>
References: <C62F9425-75DF-495B-A953-652843F7C566@acm.org>
	<4454F3E1.4020104@bertola.eu.org>
	<2ED52320-26A2-48E6-8D8C-4CA0118AFA1C@acm.org>
	<44574C7F.5040708@bertola.eu.org>
	<A84E0216-BF53-4DF6-8F0E-0F483ACFEB1E@acm.org>
Message-ID: <4459323A.4060707@umontreal.ca>

Hi Avri and everyone,

I think what you have outlined below (the proposal for volunteers doing 
a first draft of principles for each of the list topics) strikes a nice 
balance between formal group drafting and rough, discussion based consensus.

Looking at the list however, I personally don't see how some of these 
topics can be approached independently and simultaneously.

This is not to criticise the list and it might do nothing other than 
prove I would be a bad volunteer; but it seems to me that some of these 
categories need to be dealt with in a iterative drafting process; that 
is to say for example that I find it hard to  imagine how we can tackle 
the issue "decisions" (which presumably means decision making) without 
first setting the parameters of "membership". I would raise similar 
questions about pairs such as "objectives" and "tasks" or "objectives", 
"vision" and "mission" and "relationship of IGC to CSP" etc.

Others however, I think can be tackled on a stand alone basis such as 
"coordination", "working methods" etc.

Here are some suggestions of possible ways to accomplish this:

1.) If their are volunteers who think that there are specific topics 
that they can personally do a first-draft of right now without any need 
for prior clarification of other elements- independent variable topics 
we could call them-  they should be encouraged to and thanked for so doing.

2.) With the remaining topics- the dependant variable topics- we could 
then institute an iterative drafting process. This could be more or less 
collective. One idea might be to invite volunteers to do something over 
a shorter period (say 3 days) one after the other. In other words, for 
example,  we would take a volunteer today to do "aim/mission" and then, 
in 3 days discuss it on the list. At the conclusion of that discussion 
we could take a volunteer to do "objectives". That way we would work 
through the list (excluding the topics we define as 'independent 
variable topics')  in not much more than Avri's 2 week period proposed, 
but would examine each topic within the context of the somewhat 
necessary context of the previous topics. When we have worked through 
the list of dependant variable topics, we would then combine the first 
drafts on these with the first drafts on the independent variable topic 
and would have a 'full set' of first drafts.

3.) Another, less complicated possibility is to just group the similar 
topics. That is to say that rather have 1 volunteer working 
independently on "aim/mission" and another working independently on 
"objectives"- and, as such running the risk that the two volunteers are 
going to come back with entirely incompatible  perspectives on two 
topics that really do need to be reflect each other, we could simply ask 
for volunteers to do:

1. Vision; Aim/mission; Objectives; Relationship of IGC to CSP
2. Tasks; working methods
3. Membership; decisions (decision making)
4. Cordination

(Or some other alternative/better thematic grouping of the task on the 
list) and then report back in 1-2 weeks as Avri suggests.

Discussion of these suggestions is of course contingent upon others 
sharing the perspective that an iterative drafting process is required 
to address our very useful list of topics in the way that Avri suggests. 
That may well not be the case.

Kind regards from Montréal,

Jeremy Shtern
(Université de Montréal)


Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry I had not understood.  I think it is an idea that can be used  
> if the caucus wishes.
>
> I think that at least a small group to get together within the caucus  
> to come up with the first draft.  one that we can put on this wiki,  
> or other collaborative environment, we will have (I am looking about  
> for a place to host one now - any ideas?) and then the entire caucus  
> can work on it and discuss it and come to rough consensus on it.
>
> Perhaps a way to start (and forgive me for already moving to the  
> future before the end of the week - i do seem to part of the equation  
> we are accepting) is that we find a volunteer or 2 for each item in  
> Nnenna's outline, except perhaps etc which we can save for later.
>
> what do you all think?  give each volunteer 1-2 weeks to come up with  
> an basic draft - does not need to be polished, just something for  
> people to throw ideas at - could even be more questions then answers  
> if that is all there is at this point. these editors could then be  
> the caretakers of that text as we moved forward if they wished,  
> though the decision control would belong to the caucus.
>
> thanks
> a.
>
> On 2 maj 2006, at 08.11, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
>   
>> Avri Doria ha scritto:
>>     
>>> Hi,
>>> i think it might mean the loss of the IGC and its history and the   
>>> role it has been able to achieve.
>>> or what might happen, is that some people will go off and start   
>>> working on the new working group, while the rest of the people  
>>> stay  on IGC and eventually figure it out.
>>>
>>> but of course, someone can do this anytime, it does not take a
>>> decision of the IGC for someone to go off and start something new.
>>>       
>> Sorry, possibly I didn't explain well what I meant. The new working  
>> group would work out a charter *for the IGC*, not for a new entity;  
>> it would then get back to the list to get the charter approved. The  
>> objecive of my proposal was just to get out of the deadlock due to  
>> the lack of consensus on your appointment as "single coordinator" -  
>> not to start anything new!
>> -- 
>> 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 nb at bollow.ch  Tue May  2 10:21:30 2006
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue,  2 May 2006 16:21:30 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Transition
In-Reply-To: <1146577035.4457608b660a5@heimail.unige.ch> (message from William
	Drake on Tue, 02 May 2006 15:37:15 +0200)
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735ACE6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<1146577035.4457608b660a5@heimail.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <20060502142130.EBA081FD57E@quill.bollow.ch>

William Drake <drake at hei.unige.ch> wrote:

> I didn't have the sense that there was a lack of support for Avri's
> proposal. 

I agree.  My impression was that there was rough consensus in
support of Avri's proposal.  In fact I feel that it is totally
unrealistic to expect any kind of non-totalitarian group to be
able to generate stronger support for any non-trivial proposal.


Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

> We need to move forward

Yes exactly.  If another vote is needed, I'll throw in my vote
in support of Avri's proposal.


Greetings,
Norbert.

-- 
Norbert Bollow
IGF representative of SIUG, the Swiss Internet User Group
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Thu May  4 05:07:55 2006
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 11:07:55 +0200
Subject: [governance] Transition
In-Reply-To: <20060502142130.EBA081FD57E@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3735ACE6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<1146577035.4457608b660a5@heimail.unige.ch>
	<20060502142130.EBA081FD57E@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <954259bd0605040207t63591dcan29e482b016d55273@mail.gmail.com>

Fully support Avri as coordinator and drafting of a charter.

Bertrand



On 5/2/06, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
> William Drake <drake at hei.unige.ch> wrote:
>
> > I didn't have the sense that there was a lack of support for Avri's
> > proposal.
>
> I agree.  My impression was that there was rough consensus in
> support of Avri's proposal.  In fact I feel that it is totally
> unrealistic to expect any kind of non-totalitarian group to be
> able to generate stronger support for any non-trivial proposal.
>
>
> Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
> > We need to move forward
>
> Yes exactly.  If another vote is needed, I'll throw in my vote
> in support of Avri's proposal.
>
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert.
>
> --
> Norbert Bollow
> IGF representative of SIUG, the Swiss Internet User Group
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060504/dedf1199/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From nyangkweagien at gmail.com  Thu May  4 05:16:38 2006
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 11:16:38 +0200
Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Internet Law and Governance 2007]
In-Reply-To: <003201c66ed8$51dbabe0$0401000a@CCKLLP.local>
References: <44589AAB.9070403@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	<003201c66ed8$51dbabe0$0401000a@CCKLLP.local>
Message-ID: <a6bc8cb30605040216g7b084403v2fa52778e3765e41@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All

I cannot open Bret Faussett's doc. Internet Law on my machine. has some one
done so? Let the person come to my rescue and direct me to the file. I have
written to Bret and it seems, Bret is too busy to drop a word.
Warmest regards
Aaron


On 5/3/06, Bret Fausett <bfausett at internet.law.pro> wrote:
>
> Wow. I'd be thrilled to participate in this. Little Rock is where I was
> born
> and raised, and my mom is even a docent at the Clinton library. Most of my
> immediate family still lives there. I've written to Professor Campbell
> separately, but if anyone knows him personally, would you mind dropping
> him
> a note and putting in a good word for me?
>
>         -- Bret
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ralf Bendrath
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 4:58 AM
> To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
> Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Internet Law and Governance 2007]
>
> Some of the North Americans (or others) here might be interested in
> chatting
> about Internet Governance with former president Bill Clinton.
> See below, especially the last two paragraphs.
> Ralf
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:        Internet Law and Governance 2007
> Date:   Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:29:10 +0200
> From:   Dennis Campbell <cils at cils.org>
> Reply-To:       Dennis Campbell <cils at cils.org>
>
> It is my great honor to announce that the Center for International Legal
> Studies will host a conference 25 - 29 April 2007 on Internet law and
> governance at the Clinton Presidential Library and the Clinton School of
> Public Service at Little Rock, Arkansas.
>
> It is anticipated that President Clinton will participate on the first day
> of the conference. The first morning of the conference (Thursday) will
> offer
> a private tour of the Presidential Library. Following a luncheon at the
> Presidential Library, an afternoon working session, focusing on public
> policy issues, will be held at the Library. Legal issues will be treated
> during full day sessions on Friday and Saturday at the adjacent Clinton
> School of Public Service.
>
> The program is being organized in cooperation with the Clinton
> Presidential
> Library, the Clinton School of Public Service, and the University of
> Arkansas School of Law at Little Rock.
>
> We will accord priority on the program and for delegate registration to
> those who have been active in the WSIS process.
>
> Please mark the dates on your calendar and advise me if you have interest
> in
> serving as a speaker or panel moderator or attending as a delegate.
>
> Regards, Professor Dennis Campbell
>
> Center for International Legal Studies
> PO Box 19
> A5033 Salzburg, Austria
> Austria Fax 43 662 8353171
> US Fax 1 509 3560077
> Email cils at cils.org <mailto:cils at cils.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
>
>
>
>


--
Aaron Agien Nyangkwe
Journalist/Outcome Mapper
Special Assistant To The President
ASAFE
Tel. 237 337 50 22
Fax. 237 342 29 70
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060504/d174afc6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Thu May  4 07:38:32 2006
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 07:38:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] New IGF Paper Online
In-Reply-To: <C62F9425-75DF-495B-A953-652843F7C566@acm.org>
References: <C62F9425-75DF-495B-A953-652843F7C566@acm.org>
Message-ID: <4459E7B8.9080700@lists.privaterra.org>

(Full text is below)

A paper with a summary of the discussions and contributions with some
preliminary conclusions and questions is now available on this Web site.

http://www.intgovforum.org/Summary%20of%20discussions.htm

The substantive agenda of the first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum

Summary of the discussions and contributions

The preparatory process for the Convening of the Internet Governance
Forum (IGF) started a broad-based discussion on the substantive agenda.
This paper aims to produce a short synthesis of the discussion as well
as the contributions posted on the IGF website
(http://www.intgovforum.org). It is an attempt to give a cumulative
overview of all statements and contributions made with the aim of
facilitating the discussion at the next round of open consultations,
scheduled to be held in Geneva on 19 May 2006.
First round of consultations

At the first round of consultations, held in Geneva on 16-17 February
2006, participants were invited to list the top three policy issues they
would like the first meeting of the IGF to address.

After the consultations, a short synthesis of the public policy issues
discussed during the meeting and also reflecting responses to a
questionnaire was released by the IGF Secretariat
(http://www.intgovforum.org/brief.htm).
This synthesis included:

    * A recognition of an emerging consensus that the activities of the
IGF should have an overall development orientation.
    * A recognition of an emerging consensus that capacity building to
enable meaningful participation in global Internet policy development
should be an overarching priority.
    * A recognition that meaningful participation included both
assistance to attend meetings and training in the subject matter of
Internet governance.
    * A listing of the ten most frequently mentioned public policy
issues in the consultations:
    * Spam
    * Multilingualism
    * Cybercrime
    * Cybersecurity
    * Privacy and data protection
    * Freedom of expression and human rights
    * International interconnection costs
    * Bridging the digital divide: access and policies
    * Bridging the digital divide: financing
    * Rules for e-commerce, e-business and consumer protection.

Contributions submitted in March and April

Based on the call for comment, a total of 43 contributions were
submitted by governments, private sector, civil society, the academic
and technical community as well as intergovernmental organizations. The
contributions addressed a wide variety of public policy issues.  Many of
them included not only a description of a public policy issue, but also
included an expanded discussion on the importance of the issue, the
actors involved in the issue and an explanation of reasons why the issue
should be included in the agenda of the first IGF meeting.

The emerging consensus, originally reported after the February
consultations, that the IGF needed to maintain an overall development
orientation was reinforced by many of the contributions. One proposal –
by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) - recommended
that the major issues be combined within a framework of a development
agenda on Internet governance.

Capacity building was the most frequently addressed issue.  It was
presented not only in terms of the growing consensus for its priority in
enabling meaningful participation but also as a specific policy issue.
When looking at capacity building it was pointed out that access to
education, culture and knowledge was a recognized human right.  Other
authors pointed out the necessity of fostering the ability of all
stakeholders from all countries to participate in the process of
Internet governance.  The discussion of capacity building also extended
to consideration of technical standards and the need that they be
developed in such a way as to not hinder capacity building.  One
contribution offered concrete programs that could be explored to foster
open educational resources that could be made available over the
network. The Coordinating Committee of Business Interlocutors (CCBI) and
the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in their contribution
suggest focusing on capacity building as the basis for progress on all
other issues in the IGF and as an essential element to effective
Internet governance.

The next four issues had similar levels of support and were the next
most frequently discussed in the contributions:

    * Privacy and data protection with its relation to human rights and
digital identity
    * The security related issue of spam viruses and phishing
    * Issues of freedom of expression and human rights
    * The concern for equitable and transparent management of critical
Internet resources.

On the issue of privacy and data protection several contributions
discussed the evolving concept of digital identity.  It is predicted
that these new technologies will allow a greater degree of public trust
once policy deliberation has clarified the benefits and risks of on-line
life.  Another issue discussed under this category concerned protection
of the privacy rights of Internet users and website owners. Several of
the contributions brought out the linkage between privacy and data
protection and governance and human rights.

The next issue concerned spam.  Frequently the discussion of spam was
combined with discussions of other network problems such as viruses and
phishing, as spam is the major vehicle by which such security risks are
delivered to Internet users.  Because of this linkage, the issue was
closely allied with the issue of cybersecurity by many of the
contributions. The importance of finding a solution for these problems
focused on the need for a safe and reliable Internet.  It was also
mentioned that if the Internet is not secure, or if a large percent of
email consists of spam, viruses and phishing attacks then users will not
trust the Internet, which in turn will decrease the usefulness of the
network.

Issues involved in freedom of expression and human rights were also a
major focus of the statements received.  Some of the issues that were
brought up include content policies and filtering as well as the
relationship between intellectual property rights and access to knowledge.

Another frequently discussed issue involved the transparent and
equitable management of critical Internet resources.

To a lesser but still substantial extent, there were other issues that
were proposed for the first meeting of the IGF in Athens.

    * Cybercrime was also linked to cybersecurity and the need for a
safe and reliable Internet to ensure access and reliable use.
    * Access, policies and financing to bridge the digital divide.  This
is an important issue to the developing countries.
    * Multilingualism and local content in the Internet.
    * Rules for e-commerce, e-business and consumer protection. Those
who recommended this topic pointed to the Internet's role as a key
public infrastructure for economic activity.  In this category there was
also discussion of consumer rights and a suggestion that the IGF define
the consumer rights involved in on-line purchases and in commerce in
digital goods.
    * International connection costs and their effect on access, in
particular in developing countries.  This topic was also related to
financing efforts for bridging the digital divide.

Two contributions recalled the Open Regional Dialogue on Internet
Governance (ORDIG), which had carried out a survey of stakeholder views
on Internet governance priorities throughout the Asia-Pacific region.
This project of the United Nations Development Programme’s Asia-Pacific
Development Information Programme (UNDP-APDIP) was conducted in 12 major
regional languages. The survey, the largest to date on Internet
governance, received over 1,200 responses from 37 countries and
representatives of all major stakeholder groups. The contributions
recall that the following issues emerged as top priorities in the
Asia-Pacific region: connectivity and access, multilingualism, spam and
viruses, and cybercrime,


A number of issues were mentioned by a small number of contributors.
These issues included:

    * The promotion of open standards and non proprietary development
methods
    * Emerging issues in technology and their governance.  Some of the
issues explored included network neutrality, Voice over IP (VOIP) and
peer-to-peer technologies.
    * A suggestion that the IGF discuss the rights and duties of users
of the Internet
    * A recommendation on the use of effective methods for Internet
governance
    * A suggestion for sharing best practices in current Internet

governance arrangements and for encouraging the adoption of methods and
mechanisms that reflect the spirit of the WSIS principles.

Several contributions made reference to the public nature of the
Internet and of the need to explore issues of public interest, the
public domain, public infrastructure and the public good in the context
of the Internet.
Preliminary Conclusions and Questions

A cumulative listing of priority issues since the beginning of the
preparatory process would appear to confirm the top issues listed in the
first synthesis paper. Capacity building, spam, cybercrime, privacy and
data protection and multilingualism appear to be the most frequently
mentioned items. It should also be noted that the Group of 77 and China
in their submission put a great emphasis on issues related to the access
to the Internet, such as international interconnection costs and the
affordability and availability of the Internet, as well as issues
related to bridging the digital divide.

There are a few open questions however that the meeting on 19 May 2006
may wish to address.

    - There will be a need to establish some division of labour between
the IGF and the general WSIS follow-up. Some access issues, such as
international interconnection costs, would appear to fall under the
remit of the IGF, while other “digital divide issues” might better be
dealt with in the WSIS follow-up and implementation framework.

    - There appear to be two different approaches to the agenda: one
approach favours a focus on one or at the most a small number of issues
to be dealt with in depth, while another approach favours a broad
discussion on any issue that is considered to be important. As it might
prove difficult to reach a common understanding on any one of these
possible approaches, there might be some merit in combining the two.
There could be a vertical axis with workshops that would deal in depth
with two or three priority issues and a horizontal axis allowing for a
broad policy debate. Such a debate could include an “open microphone”
session.

    - The undisputed priority given to the issue of capacity building
raises the question of how this should be dealt with. Should it be dealt
with as a horizontal issue, that is should all priority issues have a
capacity building aspect? Or should it be dealt with as a separate
issue, maybe identifying the various areas where capacity building is
most urgent and necessary?


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU  Thu May  4 08:03:00 2006
From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael)
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 08:03:00 -0400
Subject: [governance] Transition
Message-ID: <A0E19BF31237DE4A9B1FF1E122FAC13A1891A99A@ADMCLUSTER.njitdm.campus.njit.edu>

I agree with everyone concerning the role of Avri as coordinator and
look forward to agreements on structures and then to moving beyond form
and towards substance in the very near future.

MG

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From kwgr at gmx.de  Fri May  5 02:34:39 2006
From: kwgr at gmx.de (klaus grewlich)
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 08:34:39 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [governance] Governance & International Rule of Law
Message-ID: <16293.1146810879@www085.gmx.net>

Here a submission for distribution
Greetings
Klaus W. Grewlich

-- 
Ambassador Prof. Dr. Klaus W. Grewlich
Diplomatic Advisor to the President of Romania/Consilier al Presedintelui
Cotroceni Palace
RO-060116
Bucuresti
Tel: (+40) 021 3193139
kwgr at gmx.de
(kgrewlich at presidency.ro)

GMX Produkte empfehlen und ganz einfach Geld verdienen!
Satte Provisionen f�r GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PublIDATEfin.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 65536 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060505/de2df1d7/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Fri May  5 13:06:08 2006
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 13:06:08 -0400
Subject: [governance] papers
In-Reply-To: <16293.1146810879@www085.gmx.net>
References: <16293.1146810879@www085.gmx.net>
Message-ID: <a0623090ec08134ff622e@[192.168.0.105]>

Since my old friend Klaus Grewlich has sent us a paper, here is a 
link to another recent paper on the subject.  (For those who have 
looked at earlier renditions, there will be some deja vu ... though 
this is the full paper treatment and hopefully useful for it.)

http://davidallen.org/papers/Internet_Governance-the_paper-A4.pdf

David
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance