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: morning Robert, On 5/1/06, Robert Guerra 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: 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: -------------- 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 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 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 Date: May 1, 2006 6:17:47 AM EDT To: Carl Malamud 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: 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: 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 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: <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 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: -------------- 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: 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 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 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 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 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: References: 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: 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: References: 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 : > 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 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: <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: References: Message-ID: I agree with Wolf. --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter To: Milton Mueller , 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 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: References: 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 > To: Milton Mueller , 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 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: 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 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 > To: Milton Mueller , 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 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: -----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 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 Reply-To: Dennis Campbell 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 _______________________________________________ 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: 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: -------------- 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: 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 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: -------------- 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 Reply-To: Dennis Campbell 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 _______________________________________________ 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: -------------- 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: Agreed - I support Avri as the coordinator going forward. Adam On 5/4/06, Jeanette Hofmann 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 Email from my Gmail account probably means I am travelling. Please reply to Thanks! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com 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: References: <200605031726.k43HQpOw053822@trout.cpsr.org> <4458E957.7030504@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: On 5/3/06, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) 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: Message-ID: 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) 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: References: <200605031726.k43HQpOw053822@trout.cpsr.org> <4458E957.7030504@wz-berlin.de> 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> <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: <4454F3E1.4020104@bertola.eu.org> <2ED52320-26A2-48E6-8D8C-4CA0118AFA1C@acm.org> <44574C7F.5040708@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: 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: References: <200605011054.k41AsD8k090513@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: 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: References: <4454F3E1.4020104@bertola.eu.org> <2ED52320-26A2-48E6-8D8C-4CA0118AFA1C@acm.org> <44574C7F.5040708@bertola.eu.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: <1146577035.4457608b660a5@heimail.unige.ch> Message-ID: <20060502142130.EBA081FD57E@quill.bollow.ch> William Drake 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 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: <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 wrote: > > William Drake 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 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: -------------- 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: 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 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 > Reply-To: Dennis Campbell > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: -------------- 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: References: 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: 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: -------------- 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: 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