From robin at ipjustice.org Tue Oct 31 19:00:14 2006 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:00:14 -0800 Subject: [governance] Internet Coalition to Promote Access to Knowledge and Online Free Speech Message-ID: <4547E38E.4040606@ipjustice.org> IP Justice Media Release 31 October 2006 Media Contacts: Robin Gross, IP Justice Executive Director Greek telephone: (+30) 697 9851074 Email: robin at ipjustice.org James Love, CPTech Director Greek telephone: (+30) 697 9605013 Email: james.love at cptech.org Internet Coalition to Promote Access to Knowledge and Online Free Speech Press Conference on Wednesday 1 November at 11:00 am to Announce Project (Athens) A broad range of companies, civil society organizations, and governments have joined together to form a “dynamic coalition” to promote online freedom of expression and access to knowledge at the inaugural meeting of the United Nations Internet Governance Forum IGF) in Athens. One of the main “deliverables” of the IGF meeting is the creation of dynamic coalitions, or multi-stakeholder groups working together over a multi-year process to provide recommendations for “best practices” on particular issues that deal with online activity. On Wednesday, November 1st at 11:00 am (in Athens), a number of the organizers of the IGF workshop on freedom of expression and access to knowledge will hold a press conference to announce the creation of a dynamic coalition. The coalition will work towards promoting the Internet as a tool of development, education and freedom, and will focus on the proper balance for intellectual property rights in a digital world. Among others, founding members of the IGF dynamic coalition include IP Justice, Google, Council of Europe, CPTech, Sun Microsystems, Yale Law School Information Society Project, Free Software Foundation Europe, Franklin Pierce Law School, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the IP Academy of Singapore. The coalition will report back at the 2007 IGF in Rio de Janeiro on its progress. The press conference will be held in the IGF Media Room at 11:00 am on Wednesday, and the related workshop will take place on Thursday at 1:30pm at IGF in the Aphrodite Room. Details on the workshop and press conference speakers are below. IGF Workshop on Free Expression and A2k: “Harnessing the Power of the Internet to Provide Access to Knowledge & Free Flow of Information”: A workshop to explore significant opportunities and barriers to harnessing the power of the Internet to provide access to knowledge and encourage freedom of expression and the free flow of information. In particular, the workshop will focus on the appropriate balance for intellectual property rights on the Internet and their impact on free speech and access to knowledge. Workshop Speakers: * Susan Struble from IT Standardization and Strategy at Sun Microsystems will address challenges to technical interoperability and the free flow of information on the Internet from software patents. * Dr. Magdy Nagi from Egypt’s Library of Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandrina) will discuss the needs of online libraries to provide access to information and encourage development. * Dirk Voorhoof from the Council of Europe will discuss international human rights conventions and their relationship to intellectual property law, access to knowledge, and freedom of expression. * Mary Wong, a Professor of Law at Franklin Pierce Law Center and the IP Academy of Singapore will address special online challenges to freedom of expression and access to knowledge from “digital locks”. * Cristiano Berbert from the government of Brazil will discuss efforts in the developing countries to provide access to knowledge and promote free expression. * Andrew McLaughlin, Head of Global Public Policy at Google will address the barriers Google faces in providing access to knowledge from unbalanced copyright law. * Robin Gross, Executive Director of IP Justice will Chair the session. Webpage for workshop: http://ipjustice.org/wp/campaigns/internet-governance/igf/382/ Workshop Sponsors: Association for Progressive Computing (APC) Egypt’s Library of Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandrina) Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility - Peru Consumer Project on Technology (CPTech) Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Electronic Information for Libraries (eIFL) Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) Google International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) IP Justice (IPJ) South Centre Innovation, Access to Knowledge and Intellectual Property Programme (IAIPP) Sun Microsystems Third World Network (TWN) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Oct 1 04:36:48 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 10:36:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] UN Global Alliance References: Message-ID: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F30437F6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/dev2593.doc.htm wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Oct 1 11:54:41 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 11:54:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN DOC Message-ID: You can read the Internet Governance Project statement to the new ICANN JPG here: http://www.internetgovernance.org/news.html#ICANNoldwine_093006 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Sun Oct 1 21:01:55 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:01:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] last day for voting for charter Message-ID: <477C3F5B-C60B-41D8-B35B-42810DD40A6F@acm.org> Hi, We are in the last day - 2 October has long since started in NZ, but still has a ways to go yet before in ends in the Pacific. And we are still 1 vote short of quorum. Then again, from conversations I have had, i know that there are several people who wanted to vote on the charter who have not yet done so. This is your last day to do so. Thanks to all those who voted, and thanks to all those who encouraged others to do so. a. - Reminder on how to vote: This a 4 part ballot open until the end of day 2 Oct 2006 To vote: - send plain text email to: igc-voters at igcaucus.org - with the correct subject (shown below) - with the proper command (shown below) 1. Base charter Subject: IGC Charter vote --->if you support the charter then your message body should look like: eVote yes -->if you do not support the charter then your message body should look like: eVote no --------------------------- 2. Is voting open or closed Subject: igc voting style --> if you support that all voting be by secret vote then your message body should look like: eVote 1. y --> if you support open voting with the option of a closed vote then your message body should look like: eVote 2. y --------------------------------------- 3. How is the IGC Appeals team selected Subject: IGC Appeals Team vote --> if you support using a nominating committee process to select the appeals team then your message body should look like: eVote 1. y --> if you support using a voting process to select the appeals team then your message body should look like: eVote 2. y ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------- 4. How does the IGC pick its nominees for other bodies, e.g. the IGF advisory group Subject: IGC Nominations vote --> if you support using a nominating committee process to select the slates of nominees then your message body should look like: eVote 1. y --> if you support using a voting process to select the nominees then your message body should look like: eVote 2. y --------------------------------------------- Note it is important that the message body be - plain text - eVote is the first word in the first line with no characters, not even spaces, proceeding it - for those cases [2-4] where there is a second line of the message -- the number must be the first character in the second line -- there must be a space between the period and the y Also note, that you can check on the status of the vote with: eVote info and that you can change your vote any time until the vote closes by voting again For the adventurous: there are more things you do, to find out what send a message: eVote help --------------------------------- --------------------------------- --------------------------------- Examples of the messages one sends A participant in the caucus wrote and asked for a more explicit 'dummies guide to voting in the IGC'. Since I created one for that purpose, I figure I might as well append it for anyone interested in explicit directions. You send 4 different plain text messages. The message must start on the first line, i.e. no spaces or carriage returns at the top of the message In the following examples, lines that start with -- are not part of the message you send, they are dividers or instructions. Note the line with end is not absolutely necessary, but if it is there, then you will be safe if your email application inserts junk at the end of the message, e.g those lengthy IP statement some companies have or those ads that some web email appends. -- -- email 1. -- -- if you approve of the charter: To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org Subject: IGC Charter vote eVote yes end -- if you don't approve of the charter To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org Subject: IGC Charter vote eVote no end -- -- email 2: -- -- If you think that all voting should be secret To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org Subject: igc voting style eVote 1. y end -- If you think that all voting should be open with the possibility of a closed vote To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org Subject: igc voting style eVote 2. y end -- -- email 3. -- -- If you think that the appeals team should be selected by a nomcom To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org Subject: IGC Appeals Team vote eVote 1. y end -- If you think that the appeals teams should be selected by voting To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org Subject: IGC Appeals Team vote eVote 2. y end -- -- email 4. -- -- If you think nominees to other bodies, such as IGF AG should be done by a Nomcom To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org Subject: IGC Nominations vote eVote 1. y end -- If you think that nominees to other bodfies, such as IGF AG should be done by voting To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org Subject: IGC Nominations vote eVote 2. y end -- -- end of examples -- As always please let me know about any difficulties you may experience. thanks a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Oct 2 00:06:24 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 13:06:24 +0900 Subject: [governance] last day for voting for charter In-Reply-To: <477C3F5B-C60B-41D8-B35B-42810DD40A6F@acm.org> References: <477C3F5B-C60B-41D8-B35B-42810DD40A6F@acm.org> Message-ID: Are you keeping/including a tally of spoiled votes? (assuming the person doesn't re-send a valid vote.) Adam At 9:01 PM -0400 10/1/06, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, > >We are in the last day - 2 October has long since started in NZ, but >still has a ways to go yet before in ends in the Pacific. > >And we are still 1 vote short of quorum. > >Then again, from conversations I have had, i know that there are >several people who wanted to vote on the charter who have not yet >done so. >This is your last day to do so. > >Thanks to all those who voted, and thanks to all those who >encouraged others to do so. > >a. > >- > >Reminder on how to vote: > >This a 4 part ballot open until the end of day 2 Oct 2006 > >To vote: >- send plain text email to: igc-voters at igcaucus.org >- with the correct subject (shown below) >- with the proper command (shown below) > >1. Base charter > >Subject: IGC Charter vote > >--->if you support the charter then your message body should look like: >eVote yes > >-->if you do not support the charter then your message body should look like: >eVote no > >--------------------------- >2. Is voting open or closed > >Subject: igc voting style > >--> if you support that all voting be by secret vote then your >message body should look like: >eVote >1. y > >--> if you support open voting with the option of a closed vote then >your message body should look like: >eVote >2. y > >--------------------------------------- > >3. How is the IGC Appeals team selected > >Subject: IGC Appeals Team vote > >--> if you support using a nominating committee process to select >the appeals team then your message body should look like: >eVote >1. y > >--> if you support using a voting process to select the appeals team >then your message body should look like: >eVote >2. y > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >4. How does the IGC pick its nominees for other bodies, e.g. the IGF >advisory group > >Subject: IGC Nominations vote > >--> if you support using a nominating committee process to select >the slates of nominees then your message body should look like: >eVote >1. y > >--> if you support using a voting process to select the nominees >then your message body should look like: >eVote >2. y > >--------------------------------------------- > >Note it is important that the message body be >- plain text >- eVote is the first word in the first line with no characters, not >even spaces, proceeding it >- for those cases [2-4] where there is a second line of the message >-- the number must be the first character in the second line >-- there must be a space between the period and the y > >Also note, that you can check on the status of the vote with: eVote info >and that you can change your vote any time until the vote closes by >voting again > >For the adventurous: there are more things you do, to find out what >send a message: >eVote help > > >--------------------------------- >--------------------------------- >--------------------------------- >Examples of the messages one sends > >A participant in the caucus wrote and asked for a more explicit >'dummies guide to voting in the IGC'. Since I created one for that >purpose, I figure I might as well append it for anyone interested in >explicit directions. > > >You send 4 different plain text messages. >The message must start on the first line, i.e. no spaces or carriage >returns at the top of the message > >In the following examples, lines that start with -- are not part of >the message you send, they are dividers or instructions. > >Note the line with end is not absolutely necessary, but if it is >there, then you will be safe if your email application inserts junk >at the end of the message, e.g those lengthy IP statement some >companies have or those ads that some web email appends. > >-- >-- email 1. >-- > >-- if you approve of the charter: > >To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org >Subject: IGC Charter vote >eVote yes >end > >-- if you don't approve of the charter > >To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org >Subject: IGC Charter vote >eVote no >end > >-- >-- email 2: >-- > >-- If you think that all voting should be secret > >To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org >Subject: igc voting style >eVote >1. y >end > >-- If you think that all voting should be open with the possibility >of a closed vote > >To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org >Subject: igc voting style >eVote >2. y >end > >-- >-- email 3. >-- > >-- If you think that the appeals team should be selected by a nomcom > >To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org >Subject: IGC Appeals Team vote >eVote >1. y >end > >-- If you think that the appeals teams should be selected by voting > >To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org >Subject: IGC Appeals Team vote >eVote >2. y >end > >-- >-- email 4. >-- > >-- If you think nominees to other bodies, such as IGF AG should be >done by a Nomcom > >To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org >Subject: IGC Nominations vote >eVote >1. y >end > >-- If you think that nominees to other bodfies, such as IGF AG >should be done by voting > >To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org >Subject: IGC Nominations vote >eVote >2. y >end > >-- >-- end of examples >-- > >As always please let me know about any difficulties you may experience. > >thanks >a. > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mazzone at ebu.ch Mon Oct 2 02:00:30 2006 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 08:00:30 +0200 Subject: R: Re: [governance] last day for voting for charter Message-ID: <9BB211A65FCBFD43B95F67BA2485759D0835AF19@gnvasmail1a.gva.ebu.ch> eVote yes 2. y 2. y -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Avri Doria Sent: Mon Oct 02 06:06:24 2006 Subject: Re: [governance] last day for voting for charter Are you keeping/including a tally of spoiled votes? (assuming the person doesn't re-send a valid vote.) Adam At 9:01 PM -0400 10/1/06, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, > >We are in the last day - 2 October has long since started in NZ, but >still has a ways to go yet before in ends in the Pacific. > >And we are still 1 vote short of quorum. > >Then again, from conversations I have had, i know that there are >several people who wanted to vote on the charter who have not yet >done so. >This is your last day to do so. > >Thanks to all those who voted, and thanks to all those who >encouraged others to do so. > >a. > >- > >Reminder on how to vote: > >This a 4 part ballot open until the end of day 2 Oct 2006 > >To vote: >- send plain text email to: igc-voters at igcaucus.org >- with the correct subject (shown below) >- with the proper command (shown below) > >1. Base charter > >Subject: IGC Charter vote > >--->if you support the charter then your message body should look like: >eVote yes > >-->if you do not support the charter then your message body should look like: >eVote no > >--------------------------- >2. Is voting open or closed > >Subject: igc voting style > >--> if you support that all voting be by secret vote then your >message body should look like: >eVote >1. y > >--> if you support open voting with the option of a closed vote then >your message body should look like: >eVote >2. y > >--------------------------------------- > >3. How is the IGC Appeals team selected > >Subject: IGC Appeals Team vote > >--> if you support using a nominating committee process to select >the appeals team then your message body should look like: >eVote >1. y > >--> if you support using a voting process to select the appeals team >then your message body should look like: >eVote >2. y > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- > >4. How does the IGC pick its nominees for other bodies, e.g. the IGF >advisory group > >Subject: IGC Nominations vote > >--> if you support using a nominating committee process to select >the slates of nominees then your message body should look like: >eVote >1. y > >--> if you support using a voting process to select the nominees >then your message body should look like: >eVote >2. y > >--------------------------------------------- > >Note it is important that the message body be >- plain text >- eVote is the first word in the first line with no characters, not >even spaces, proceeding it >- for those cases [2-4] where there is a second line of the message >-- the number must be the first character in the second line >-- there must be a space between the period and the y > >Also note, that you can check on the status of the vote with: eVote info >and that you can change your vote any time until the vote closes by >voting again > >For the adventurous: there are more things you do, to find out what >send a message: >eVote help > > >--------------------------------- >--------------------------------- >--------------------------------- >Examples of the messages one sends > >A participant in the caucus wrote and asked for a more explicit >'dummies guide to voting in the IGC'. Since I created one for that >purpose, I figure I might as well append it for anyone interested in >explicit directions. > > >You send 4 different plain text messages. >The message must start on the first line, i.e. no spaces or carriage >returns at the top of the message > >In the following examples, lines that start with -- are not part of >the message you send, they are dividers or instructions. > >Note the line with end is not absolutely necessary, but if it is >there, then you will be safe if your email application inserts junk >at the end of the message, e.g those lengthy IP statement some >companies have or those ads that some web email appends. > >-- >-- email 1. >-- > >-- if you approve of the charter: > >To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org >Subject: IGC Charter vote >eVote yes >end > >-- if you don't approve of the charter > >To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org >Subject: IGC Charter vote >eVote no >end > >-- >-- email 2: >-- > >-- If you think that all voting should be secret > >To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org >Subject: igc voting style >eVote >1. y >end > >-- If you think that all voting should be open with the possibility >of a closed vote > >To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org >Subject: igc voting style >eVote >2. y >end > >-- >-- email 3. >-- > >-- If you think that the appeals team should be selected by a nomcom > >To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org >Subject: IGC Appeals Team vote >eVote >1. y >end > >-- If you think that the appeals teams should be selected by voting > >To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org >Subject: IGC Appeals Team vote >eVote >2. y >end > >-- >-- email 4. >-- > >-- If you think nominees to other bodies, such as IGF AG should be >done by a Nomcom > >To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org >Subject: IGC Nominations vote >eVote >1. y >end > >-- If you think that nominees to other bodfies, such as IGF AG >should be done by voting > >To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org >Subject: IGC Nominations vote >eVote >2. y >end > >-- >-- end of examples >-- > >As always please let me know about any difficulties you may experience. > >thanks >a. > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ----------------------------------------- ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Oct 2 03:23:17 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 16:23:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] ICANN DOC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Can't access the IGP website. Not serving up any pages. About the agreement. I'd been wondering how it might affect IGF -- if there'd been a "bombshell" like last year's U.S. Principles on the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System then I think we could forget all the sessions and workshops -- we'd be discussing "enhanced cooperation". But the agreement's not bad. It reaffirms privatization and separation (OK, one day. But I think it's reasonable to spin it as ICANN on a path to independence.) Some governments will pick on the Whois part as proof that the US is taking more control not less. On the other hand the annual reporting requirement is a nice fit with para 71 of the Tunis Agenda requesting annual performance reports from organizations relevant to enhanced cooperation. Probably not a response to WSIS, but all the same not bad as a bone to throw at those govt. Think this is a problem: "In furtherance of the objective of this Agreement, and to support the completion of the transition of DNS management to the private sector, the Department will hold regular meetings with ICANN senior management and leadership to assess progress." I hope the ICANN board will take tight control over what ICANN management say in these private meetings with NTIA. Not very transparent (less so even than the annual progress reports and milestones they replace.) Be nice if some reporting requirements from those meetings were required, perhaps define "leadership" as representatives of stakeholder groups to be present at each of these meetings (e.g. the ICANN community place a business, other govt, civil society/user representative in each meeting as observers.) In the paragraph about the multi-stakeholder model the annex says "ICANN will strive to increase engagement with the Private Sector" (capitalized? only in that sentence). Private sector singled out and no mention of the user community and floundering at large anywhere. Adam At 11:54 AM -0400 10/1/06, Milton Mueller wrote: >You can read the Internet Governance Project statement to the new ICANN >JPG here: > >http://www.internetgovernance.org/news.html#ICANNoldwine_093006 > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Oct 2 04:11:39 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:11:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN DOC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4520C9BB.4060401@bertola.eu.org> Adam Peake ha scritto: > In the paragraph about the multi-stakeholder model the annex says "ICANN > will strive to increase engagement with the Private Sector" > (capitalized? only in that sentence). Private sector singled out and no > mention of the user community and floundering at large anywhere. Well, not really floundering. Swimming decently in a sea of sharks, I'd say :-P In any case, I support your observations, but I have a question: in the end, will there be any (formal, informal, sideways...) timeslot for discussing ICANN structure and enhanced cooperation at the IGF? Sure, this may not be a bombshell, but still is a piece of news worth examining. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Oct 2 04:11:49 2006 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 18:11:49 +1000 Subject: [governance] ICANN DOC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00a301c6e5fa$6c068870$4a02a8c0@IAN> My quick summary (as reported elsewhere) I was disappointed. I would have liked to see at least a clear indication of the need to involve other nations equally in an appropriate role in Internet governance and an indication of a transition to such an arrangement. Continuance of the US Government role is helping neither the Internet nor ICANN. I do not accept the argument that the continued role of USG is ensuring and protecting ICANN’s independence. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: 02 October 2006 17:23 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN DOC Can't access the IGP website. Not serving up any pages. About the agreement. I'd been wondering how it might affect IGF -- if there'd been a "bombshell" like last year's U.S. Principles on the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System then I think we could forget all the sessions and workshops -- we'd be discussing "enhanced cooperation". But the agreement's not bad. It reaffirms privatization and separation (OK, one day. But I think it's reasonable to spin it as ICANN on a path to independence.) Some governments will pick on the Whois part as proof that the US is taking more control not less. On the other hand the annual reporting requirement is a nice fit with para 71 of the Tunis Agenda requesting annual performance reports from organizations relevant to enhanced cooperation. Probably not a response to WSIS, but all the same not bad as a bone to throw at those govt. Think this is a problem: "In furtherance of the objective of this Agreement, and to support the completion of the transition of DNS management to the private sector, the Department will hold regular meetings with ICANN senior management and leadership to assess progress." I hope the ICANN board will take tight control over what ICANN management say in these private meetings with NTIA. Not very transparent (less so even than the annual progress reports and milestones they replace.) Be nice if some reporting requirements from those meetings were required, perhaps define "leadership" as representatives of stakeholder groups to be present at each of these meetings (e.g. the ICANN community place a business, other govt, civil society/user representative in each meeting as observers.) In the paragraph about the multi-stakeholder model the annex says "ICANN will strive to increase engagement with the Private Sector" (capitalized? only in that sentence). Private sector singled out and no mention of the user community and floundering at large anywhere. Adam At 11:54 AM -0400 10/1/06, Milton Mueller wrote: >You can read the Internet Governance Project statement to the new ICANN >JPG here: > >http://www.internetgovernance.org/news.html#ICANNoldwine_093006 > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.11/460 - Release Date: 01/10/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.11/460 - Release Date: 01/10/2006 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Oct 2 04:39:47 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:39:47 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN DOC References: Message-ID: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F30437FD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Would it be legally possible that ICANN enters into a similar "Joint Project Agreement" with the European Union? Or the government of Brazil? Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Oct 2 04:41:46 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 17:41:46 +0900 Subject: [governance] ICANN DOC In-Reply-To: <4520C9BB.4060401@bertola.eu.org> References: <4520C9BB.4060401@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: At 10:11 AM +0200 10/2/06, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Adam Peake ha scritto: >>In the paragraph about the multi-stakeholder model the annex says >>"ICANN will strive to increase engagement with the Private Sector" >>(capitalized? only in that sentence). Private sector singled out >>and no mention of the user community and floundering at large >>anywhere. > >Well, not really floundering. Swimming decently in a sea of sharks, >I'd say :-P >In any case, I support your observations, but I have a question: in >the end, will there be any (formal, informal, sideways...) timeslot >for discussing ICANN structure and enhanced cooperation at the IGF? >Sure, this may not be a bombshell, but still is a piece of news >worth examining. To the best of my knowledge no. "enhanced cooperation" is considered a separate from IGF. However, had someone proposed a workshop on the issue it would probably have been accepted. There are no free slots for new topics. We always knew the MoU was coming to and end shortly before Athens. Had the new agreement been as controversial as the NTIA statement of last summer then I think enough governments etc would have been annoyed enough to have made it an issue in Athens. But I don't think the agreement we've just seen will anger too many too much. Adam >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Oct 2 04:43:20 2006 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 18:43:20 +1000 Subject: [governance] ICANN DOC In-Reply-To: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F30437FD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <00a701c6e5fe$d37bfd10$4a02a8c0@IAN> Good thought - just as ICANN is attempting to establish MOUs with RIRs and ccTLDs it could seek relationships with other governments to parallel the USG arrangement ;-) Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: 02 October 2006 18:40 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN DOC Would it be legally possible that ICANN enters into a similar "Joint Project Agreement" with the European Union? Or the government of Brazil? Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.11/460 - Release Date: 01/10/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.11/460 - Release Date: 01/10/2006 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Oct 2 04:58:09 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:58:09 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN DOC References: <4520C9BB.4060401@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043803@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Adam, we discussed this already in June during the Rathen meeting and planned the GIGANet symposium in Athens accordingly. The issue will be covered partly on Sunday in the first afternoon session. My understanding is also that the IGP/Milton will cover this in a special workshop on Tuesday. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Gesendet: Mo 02.10.2006 10:41 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN DOC At 10:11 AM +0200 10/2/06, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Adam Peake ha scritto: >>In the paragraph about the multi-stakeholder model the annex says >>"ICANN will strive to increase engagement with the Private Sector" >>(capitalized? only in that sentence). Private sector singled out >>and no mention of the user community and floundering at large >>anywhere. > >Well, not really floundering. Swimming decently in a sea of sharks, >I'd say :-P >In any case, I support your observations, but I have a question: in >the end, will there be any (formal, informal, sideways...) timeslot >for discussing ICANN structure and enhanced cooperation at the IGF? >Sure, this may not be a bombshell, but still is a piece of news >worth examining. To the best of my knowledge no. "enhanced cooperation" is considered a separate from IGF. However, had someone proposed a workshop on the issue it would probably have been accepted. There are no free slots for new topics. We always knew the MoU was coming to and end shortly before Athens. Had the new agreement been as controversial as the NTIA statement of last summer then I think enough governments etc would have been annoyed enough to have made it an issue in Athens. But I don't think the agreement we've just seen will anger too many too much. Adam >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lluis.miret at ubuntu.upc.edu Mon Oct 2 05:25:20 2006 From: lluis.miret at ubuntu.upc.edu (Lluis Miret) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:25:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] 20 and 21 november at ILO: Participate at the International Conference for the Reform of International Institutions Message-ID: <000201c6e604$ae72bad0$5ccb5393@ubuntu4> Josep Xercavins i Valls Coordinator of the Conference Committee (and of the UBUNTU Forum Secretariat and the World Campaign) PS: To participate in the International Conference you must complete the Registration Form. josep.xercavins at ubuntu.upc.edu Tel. +34 934137773 Fax. +34 934137777 Foro UBUNTU C/ Jordi Girona 29 Edificio Nexus II 08034 Barcelona SPAIN * Comittee of the Conference: - Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) - Centro Internacional para una Cultura Democrática (CICD) - Conference of NGOs in consultative relationship with the UN (CONGO) - Coopération Internationale pour le Développement et la Solidarité (CIDSE) - Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN) - Fundación Cultura de Paz (FCP) - Global Movement for Children (GMC) - International Catholic Movement for Intellectual & Cultural Affairs (Pax Romana) - International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) - Inter Press Service (IPS) - The African Women\'s Development and Communication Network (FEMNET) - The North-South Institute (NSI) - Women\'s Environment and Development Organisation (WEDO) - World Alliance for Citizen Participation (CIVICUS) - World Confederation of Labour (WCL) - World Federalist Movement (WFM) - World Forum of Civil Society Networks (UBUNTU) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: firma xerca.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 11076 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: geneva_2006_eng.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 349436 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From lluis.miret at ubuntu.upc.edu Mon Oct 2 05:26:02 2006 From: lluis.miret at ubuntu.upc.edu (Lluis Miret) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:26:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] 20 y 21 de noviembre en la OIT: Participa en la Conferencia Internacional para la Reforma de las Instituciones Internacionalesfi Message-ID: <000901c6e604$c7660f10$5ccb5393@ubuntu4> Josep Xercavins i Valls Coordinador del Comité de la Conferencia (y del Secretariado del Foro UBUNTU y de la Campaña Mundial). PD: Para participar en la Conferencia Internacional debe cumplimentar la Ficha de Inscripción. josep.xercavins at ubuntu.upc.edu Tel. +34 934137773 Fax. +34 934137777 Foro UBUNTU C/ Jordi Girona 29 Edificio Nexus II 08034 Barcelona ESPAÑA * Comité de la Conferencia: - Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) - Centro Internacional para una Cultura Democrática (CICD) - Conference of NGOs in consultative relationship with the UN (CONGO) - Coopération Internationale pour le Développement et la Solidarité (CIDSE) - Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN) - Foro Mundial de Redes de la Sociedad Civil (UBUNTU) - Fundación Cultura de Paz (FCP) - Global Movement for Children (GMC) - International Catholic Movement for Intellectual & Cultural Affairs (Pax Romana) - International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) - Inter Press Service (IPS) - The African Women\'s Development and Communication Network (FEMNET) - The North-South Institute (NSI) - Women\'s Environment and Development Organisation (WEDO) - World Alliance for Citizen Participation (CIVICUS) - World Confederation of Labour (WCL) - World Federalist Movement (WFM) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: firma xerca.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 11076 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: geneva_2006_esp.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 372681 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Mon Oct 2 17:11:01 2006 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:11:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN DOC: The EU commission's perspective In-Reply-To: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043803@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4520C9BB.4060401@bertola.eu.org> <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043803@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <45218065.8070607@zedat.fu-berlin.de> So the "enhanced cooperation" that the EU had long fought for now only translates into "full privatization"? Or is there a known difference between the commission and the member states' governments? Ralf Internet Governance: Commission welcomes move towards full private-sector management by 2009 Reference: IP/06/1297 Date: 02/10/2006 Internet Governance: Commission welcomes move towards full private-sector management by 2009 The United States government's decision to give more autonomy to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was welcomed by the European Commission today. On 30 September, a highly prescriptive Memorandum of Understanding between the US Department of Commerce and ICANN expired. It has now been replaced by lighter arrangements intended to end definitely by 2009. The European Commission has been working for several years on a system of internet governance entrusted fully to the private sector without government interference in the internet's day-to-day management. The Commission cooperated in 1998 with the US in setting up ICANN and hosted, until 2006, the Secretariat of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to ICANN. Completing the transition of internet governance to the private sector also had been the explicit request by the EU and its partners at the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis in November 2005 (see IP/05/1424 and IP/05/1433). “I welcome the US government's declared intention to grant more autonomy to ICANN and to end its governmental oversight of the day-to-day management of the internet over the next three years,” said Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media. “This is a very important step towards full private-sector management of the internet, on which the EU has been working with various US administrations since 1998. We in Europe trust ICANN’s expertise and the unique multi-stakeholder model of consultation it represents. We consider ICANN to be best placed to ensure that the internet's international dimension is taken into account in organising the internet’s root directory. The European Commission will follow closely ICANN's transition to full independence in the next three years. With our advice, we will contribute to this transition to ensure that it takes place transparently, reflecting the interests of industry and civil society alike.” Last Friday, a Memorandum of Understanding between the US Department of Commerce and ICANN, in force since 1998 and last renewed in 2003, ended. The EU had repeatedly questioned whether these arrangements, which allowed the US government to unilaterally oversee ICANN’s decisions, could still be reconciled with the internet's global role today. At the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis in November 2005, the EU strongly supported the privatisation of the technical management of the worldwide domain name system in the hands of ICANN and had favoured an approach to internet governance that further removes government control from ICANN (see MEMO/05/428). In the personal article “Privatise Internet Governance” in the Wall Street Journal of 16 November 2005, Commissioner Reding had stressed that “governments should not have a say in the day-to-day management of the Net.” Commissioner Reding herself later criticised interventions by the present US administration in ICANN decisions related to the recognition of new generic Top Level Domain names (such as .xxx). Following a broad consultation of stakeholders, new arrangements have now been agreed between ICANN and the US Department of Commerce in the form of a “Joint Project Agreement” that took effect on 1 October. These new arrangements recognise the internationally-organised, non-profit corporation ICANN as being responsible, on an ongoing basis, for the management of the internet’s system of unique identifiers. With increased autonomy, as compared to the previous Memorandum of Understanding, ICANN will: * no longer have its work prescribed for it. How it works and what it works on is up to ICANN and its community to devise. * not be required to report every six months to the US Department of Commerce. It will now provide an annual report for the whole internet community. The new “Joint Project Agreement” will expire in 2009, and it is the declared intention of the US administration that it will not be prolonged. For the Commission, ICANN's increased autonomy builds on the international consensus on internet governance that arose at the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis and from bilateral contacts with the US administration and ICANN since then. “We welcome the continued commitment of the US government to the stability and security of the internet with regard to the domain name system,” said Commissioner Reding. “We will continue our talks with the US and other interested parties on these important issues and will also use the process of enhanced cooperation between governments, as agreed at Tunis. Personally, I would welcome a reformed Governmental Advisory Committee to ICANN playing an increasingly important role.” The Commission is currently preparing for the first meeting of the newly created Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that will be convened, as agreed at the Tunis summit, by the UN Secretary-General from 30 October to 3 November in Athens. It aims to transparently discuss with civil society, industry and other non-government stakeholders broader internet governance topics – in particular development-related issues. “The Commission will continue to fight for the openness of the internet, for freedom of expression and for the freedom to receive and access information,” said Commissioner Reding, who will represent the European Commission at Athens. “Cyber-repression, whether required by governments or supported by commercial companies, is incompatible with Europe’s fundamental rights and Europe’s open and pluralist model of society.” (On this, see the European Commission's Communication “Towards a Global Partnership in the Information Society” adopted in April 2006; IP/06/542). Further information: European Commission website on internet governance issues: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/internationalrel/global_issues/wsis/index_en.htm ICANN’s statement on the new arrangements in force until 2009: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-29sep06.htm ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Oct 2 17:32:52 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:32:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN DOC: The EU commission's perspective Message-ID: It is an interesting statement. I think they are either misinformed, or wish to encourage the US to move into the right direction by praising them, even though there is no evidence or guarantee that the current agreement does move in that direction. In particular, the Commission's response completely overlooks the highly prescriptive approach to Whois policy that was put into the new agreement (see IGP analysis http://www.internetgovernance.org/news.html#ICANNoldwine_093006) However, by taking this approach the Commission is able to claim that the US is moving in the direction that the Tunis Agenda and its calls for "enhanced cooperation" said it would move. That makes it appear as if its call for "enhanced cooperation" in WSIS was not a complete failure. In my opinion, it will be a complete failure unless the EC strongly confronts the US on Whois. Another point, which is not ambiguous or debatable: the current JPA does _not_ introduce any guarantee that the relationship will end in 2009. I don't know why the EU asserts that it does, unless they are trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. >>> bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de 10/2/2006 5:11:01 PM >>> So the "enhanced cooperation" that the EU had long fought for now only translates into "full privatization"? Or is there a known difference between the commission and the member states' governments? Ralf Internet Governance: Commission welcomes move towards full private-sector management by 2009 Reference: IP/06/1297 Date: 02/10/2006 Internet Governance: Commission welcomes move towards full private-sector management by 2009 The United States government's decision to give more autonomy to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was welcomed by the European Commission today. On 30 September, a highly prescriptive Memorandum of Understanding between the US Department of Commerce and ICANN expired. It has now been replaced by lighter arrangements intended to end definitely by 2009. The European Commission has been working for several years on a system of internet governance entrusted fully to the private sector without government interference in the internet's day-to-day management. The Commission cooperated in 1998 with the US in setting up ICANN and hosted, until 2006, the Secretariat of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to ICANN. Completing the transition of internet governance to the private sector also had been the explicit request by the EU and its partners at the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis in November 2005 (see IP/05/1424 and IP/05/1433). "I welcome the US government's declared intention to grant more autonomy to ICANN and to end its governmental oversight of the day-to-day management of the internet over the next three years," said Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media. "This is a very important step towards full private-sector management of the internet, on which the EU has been working with various US administrations since 1998. We in Europe trust ICANN's expertise and the unique multi-stakeholder model of consultation it represents. We consider ICANN to be best placed to ensure that the internet's international dimension is taken into account in organising the internet's root directory. The European Commission will follow closely ICANN's transition to full independence in the next three years. With our advice, we will contribute to this transition to ensure that it takes place transparently, reflecting the interests of industry and civil society alike." Last Friday, a Memorandum of Understanding between the US Department of Commerce and ICANN, in force since 1998 and last renewed in 2003, ended. The EU had repeatedly questioned whether these arrangements, which allowed the US government to unilaterally oversee ICANN's decisions, could still be reconciled with the internet's global role today. At the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis in November 2005, the EU strongly supported the privatisation of the technical management of the worldwide domain name system in the hands of ICANN and had favoured an approach to internet governance that further removes government control from ICANN (see MEMO/05/428). In the personal article "Privatise Internet Governance" in the Wall Street Journal of 16 November 2005, Commissioner Reding had stressed that "governments should not have a say in the day-to-day management of the Net." Commissioner Reding herself later criticised interventions by the present US administration in ICANN decisions related to the recognition of new generic Top Level Domain names (such as .xxx). Following a broad consultation of stakeholders, new arrangements have now been agreed between ICANN and the US Department of Commerce in the form of a "Joint Project Agreement" that took effect on 1 October. These new arrangements recognise the internationally-organised, non-profit corporation ICANN as being responsible, on an ongoing basis, for the management of the internet's system of unique identifiers. With increased autonomy, as compared to the previous Memorandum of Understanding, ICANN will: * no longer have its work prescribed for it. How it works and what it works on is up to ICANN and its community to devise. * not be required to report every six months to the US Department of Commerce. It will now provide an annual report for the whole internet community. The new "Joint Project Agreement" will expire in 2009, and it is the declared intention of the US administration that it will not be prolonged. For the Commission, ICANN's increased autonomy builds on the international consensus on internet governance that arose at the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis and from bilateral contacts with the US administration and ICANN since then. "We welcome the continued commitment of the US government to the stability and security of the internet with regard to the domain name system," said Commissioner Reding. "We will continue our talks with the US and other interested parties on these important issues and will also use the process of enhanced cooperation between governments, as agreed at Tunis. Personally, I would welcome a reformed Governmental Advisory Committee to ICANN playing an increasingly important role." The Commission is currently preparing for the first meeting of the newly created Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that will be convened, as agreed at the Tunis summit, by the UN Secretary-General from 30 October to 3 November in Athens. It aims to transparently discuss with civil society, industry and other non-government stakeholders broader internet governance topics * in particular development-related issues. "The Commission will continue to fight for the openness of the internet, for freedom of expression and for the freedom to receive and access information," said Commissioner Reding, who will represent the European Commission at Athens. "Cyber-repression, whether required by governments or supported by commercial companies, is incompatible with Europe's fundamental rights and Europe's open and pluralist model of society." (On this, see the European Commission's Communication "Towards a Global Partnership in the Information Society" adopted in April 2006; IP/06/542). Further information: European Commission website on internet governance issues: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/internationalrel/global_issues/wsis/index_en.htm ICANN's statement on the new arrangements in force until 2009: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-29sep06.htm ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Oct 2 17:38:57 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:38:57 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN DOC Message-ID: >>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 10/2/2006 4:58:09 AM >>> >My understanding is also that the IGP/Milton will cover this in a special >workshop on Tuesday. The workshop will discuss USG-ICANN arrangements mainly as they affect root zone file management. And it is not IGP/Milton it is IGP, Govt of Brazil and Third World Network who are all co-sponsors. 5 or 6 panelists from the technical, law/policy world will be there. In general, Adam's question is a good one: why given the centrality of this issue (ICANN/USG relations) is the IGF distancing itself from it? But if one grasps the politics, the question answers itself. Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Oct 2 17:49:58 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:49:58 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN DOC Message-ID: >>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 10/2/2006 4:39:47 AM >>> >Would it be legally possible that ICANN enters into a similar "Joint >Project Agreement" with the European Union? Or the government >of Brazil? How to answer this without using sexist metaphors? Oh what the heck, let's put it this way. ICANN is a "kept" man/woman. If a kept person starts contracting themselves out to a bunch of other people, one name for their new status is "the world's oldest profession." More seriously, one does not increase one's autonomy by adding masters, and there's a good chance that the different masters' needs will compete or conflict, not good for "security and stability." And why on earth would we want it to enter into a bunch of new JPAs/MoUs with other governments, anyway? Let's see, the US gets to veto Whois policy, the Europeans get their own TLD, Brazil gets to veto the TLD of their choice (um, say .xxx), South Africa gets to dictate who registers southafrica.com. What do China and Iran get? Sure, step right up, come one, come all....we'll sell ourselves to any government that comes along.... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Mon Oct 2 18:07:18 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 18:07:18 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN DOC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2C9C937C-06FC-4D39-A24A-9E9FB1C0FECB@psg.com> On 2 okt 2006, at 17.49, Milton Mueller wrote: > What do China and Iran get? control of IDNs in the scripts of their choice? or maybe their names in every possible language and script. including any possible misspellings of their names or possible variants? or maybe the ability to keep the pariah of choice out of the club? a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Tue Oct 3 02:37:01 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:37:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN DOC: The EU commission's perspective In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061003023412.05cf7da8@veni.com> Milton, why do you have to be so unhappy when people are saying that the end of the MoU is good for the Internet? What if the IGP analysis you quote might have misinterpreted the wording of the JPA? I guess there's a problem here because you already have an opinion, and you consider it the only right opinion. If you have had questions, then we could have a discussion. But when people enter a discussion with formed opinions, the discussion can't happen. best, veni At 05:32 PM 02.10.2006 '?.'Ъ┬Ж -0400, Milton Mueller wrote: >It is an interesting statement. I think they are >either misinformed, or wish to encourage the US >to move into the right direction by praising >them, even though there is no evidence or >guarantee that the current agreement does move in that direction. > >In particular, the Commission's response >completely overlooks the highly prescriptive >approach to Whois policy that was put into the >new agreement (see IGP analysis >http://www.internetgovernance.org/news.html#ICANNoldwine_093006) >However, by taking this approach the Commission >is able to claim that the US is moving in the >direction that the Tunis Agenda and its calls >for "enhanced cooperation" said it would move. >That makes it appear as if its call for >"enhanced cooperation" in WSIS was not a >complete failure. In my opinion, it will be a >complete failure unless the EC strongly confronts the US on Whois. > >Another point, which is not ambiguous or >debatable: the current JPA does _not_ introduce >any guarantee that the relationship will end in >2009. I don't know why the EU asserts that it >does, unless they are trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. > Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Oct 3 04:25:45 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 17:25:45 +0900 Subject: [governance] ICANN DOC: The EU commission's perspective In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061003023412.05cf7da8@veni.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061003023412.05cf7da8@veni.com> Message-ID: I think Milton's right: At 5:32 PM -0400 10/2/06, Milton Mueller wrote: > I don't know why the EU asserts that it does, >unless they are trying to create a >self-fulfilling prophecy. And also that the IGP interpretation swings to the other extreme. An overly negative interpretation may be equally self-fulfilling. Suspect the "truth" may be somewhere in between. Veni, as a board member I think you're expected to look carefully at all sides. For sure you should be very concerned about the Whois issue IGP raises (issues your colleague Susan Crawford also mentions). I hope you would also be concerned about senior management and leadership discussions with NTIA and want to ensure there's transparency and community input to these discussions. At the risk of sounding like a bit of a conspiracy theorist ... in an email to the GNSO chair, Paul Twomey wrote "There is no requirement to report regularly to the DOC. The DOC will simply meet with senior ICANN staff from time to time." . The "leadership" part (that's you by the way) overlooked already, or just Paul's email short hand. Hope you will make sure it's the latter. You should be careful not to dismiss what IGPs saying just because it's negative (perhaps overly negative). There's a lot of sense in there and if you aren't at least considering all aspects of the agreement then you're screwing up. Thanks, Adam >Milton, >why do you have to be so unhappy when people are >saying that the end of the MoU is good for the >Internet? >What if the IGP analysis you quote might have >misinterpreted the wording of the JPA? I guess >there's a problem here because you already have >an opinion, and you consider it the only right >opinion. If you have had questions, then we >could have a discussion. But when people enter a >discussion with formed opinions, the discussion >can't happen. > >best, >veni > > > >At 05:32 PM 02.10.2006 '?.'öÑ¶Ü -0400, Milton Mueller wrote: >>It is an interesting statement. I think they >>are either misinformed, or wish to encourage >>the US to move into the right direction by >>praising them, even though there is no evidence >>or guarantee that the current agreement does >>move in that direction. >> >>In particular, the Commission's response >>completely overlooks the highly prescriptive >>approach to Whois policy that was put into the >>new agreement (see IGP analysis >>http://www.internetgovernance.org/news.html#ICANNoldwine_093006) >>However, by taking this approach the Commission >>is able to claim that the US is moving in the >>direction that the Tunis Agenda and its calls >>for "enhanced cooperation" said it would move. >>That makes it appear as if its call for >>"enhanced cooperation" in WSIS was not a >>complete failure. In my opinion, it will be a >>complete failure unless the EC strongly >>confronts the US on Whois. >> >>Another point, which is not ambiguous or >>debatable: the current JPA does _not_ introduce >>any guarantee that the relationship will end in >>2009. I don't know why the EU asserts that it >>does, unless they are trying to create a >>self-fulfilling prophecy. >> > > >Sincerely, >Veni Markovski >http://www.veni.com > >check also my blog: >http://blog.veni.com > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From aizu at anr.org Tue Oct 3 05:38:27 2006 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:38:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re:ICANN DOC: The EU commission's perspective In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061003023412.05cf7da8@veni.com> Message-ID: I echo with most of what Adam wrote below. And, I think anyone is biased by their own opinions, thus that should not be used as the basis to deny their credibility. I have mine, and I think Veni, you also have one, right? I am puzzled by reading the EU statement. Where exactly is the so-called "enhanced cooperation" exit? Is it purely governmental? By reading the Tunis below, it says "involving all stakeholders", but where is it now? I also notice that EU statement does not touch the "IANA contract" where US government still has strong role to approve any change of the root zone file. This is the heart of the matter, right? As far as the "day-to-day operation" is concerned, it is not so important anyway, and USG has not exercised much at all until now. So EU's welcoming statement is just sort of endorsing something already there, yet it gives a wrong impression that there is big progress made, as well as expectation to see "privatization by 2009" - a similar expectation given by Clinton administration/Magaziner, but not quite by the current Bush administration. Still the new Join Program looks somewhat better than the old MoU. Not that all negative, perhaps, the truth is somewhere in between, or somewhere not in the document, but in the real politics behind the scenes. izumi Tunis Agenda: 71. The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN Secretary-General, involving all relevant organisations by the end of the first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their respective roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal process, and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organisations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same relevant organisations shall be requested to provide annual performance reports. 2006/10/3, Adam Peake : > > > I think Milton's right: > > At 5:32 PM -0400 10/2/06, Milton Mueller wrote: > > I don't know why the EU asserts that it does, > >unless they are trying to create a > >self-fulfilling prophecy. > > > And also that the IGP interpretation swings to > the other extreme. An overly negative > interpretation may be equally self-fulfilling. > Suspect the "truth" may be somewhere in between. > > Veni, as a board member I think you're expected > to look carefully at all sides. For sure you > should be very concerned about the Whois issue > IGP raises (issues your colleague Susan Crawford > also mentions). > > I hope you would also be concerned about senior > management and leadership discussions with NTIA > and want to ensure there's transparency and > community input to these discussions. At the > risk of sounding like a bit of a conspiracy > theorist ... in an email to the GNSO chair, Paul > Twomey wrote "There is no requirement to report > regularly to the DOC. The DOC will simply meet > with senior ICANN staff from time to time." > . > The "leadership" part (that's you by the way) > overlooked already, or just Paul's email short > hand. Hope you will make sure it's the latter. > > You should be careful not to dismiss what IGPs > saying just because it's negative (perhaps overly > negative). There's a lot of sense in there and if > you aren't at least considering all aspects of > the agreement then you're screwing up. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > >Milton, > >why do you have to be so unhappy when people are > >saying that the end of the MoU is good for the > >Internet? > >What if the IGP analysis you quote might have > >misinterpreted the wording of the JPA? I guess > >there's a problem here because you already have > >an opinion, and you consider it the only right > >opinion. If you have had questions, then we > >could have a discussion. But when people enter a > >discussion with formed opinions, the discussion > >can't happen. > > > >best, > >veni > > > > > > > >At 05:32 PM 02.10.2006 '?.'öÑ¶Ü -0400, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>It is an interesting statement. I think they > >>are either misinformed, or wish to encourage > >>the US to move into the right direction by > >>praising them, even though there is no evidence > >>or guarantee that the current agreement does > >>move in that direction. > >> > >>In particular, the Commission's response > >>completely overlooks the highly prescriptive > >>approach to Whois policy that was put into the > >>new agreement (see IGP analysis > >>http://www.internetgovernance.org/news.html#ICANNoldwine_093006) > >>However, by taking this approach the Commission > >>is able to claim that the US is moving in the > >>direction that the Tunis Agenda and its calls > >>for "enhanced cooperation" said it would move. > >>That makes it appear as if its call for > >>"enhanced cooperation" in WSIS was not a > >>complete failure. In my opinion, it will be a > >>complete failure unless the EC strongly > >>confronts the US on Whois. > >> > >>Another point, which is not ambiguous or > >>debatable: the current JPA does _not_ introduce > >>any guarantee that the relationship will end in > >>2009. I don't know why the EU asserts that it > >>does, unless they are trying to create a > >>self-fulfilling prophecy. > >> > > > > > >Sincerely, > >Veni Markovski > >http://www.veni.com > > > >check also my blog: > >http://blog.veni.com > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, University of Tama * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, University of Tama * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Tue Oct 3 05:37:15 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:37:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN DOC: The EU commission's perspective In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061003023412.05cf7da8@veni.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061003053257.076db9b0@veni.com> At 05:25 PM 03.10.2006 '?.' +0900, Adam Peake wrote: >Veni, as a board member I think you're expected to look carefully at >all sides. For sure you should be very concerned about the Whois >issue IGP raises (issues your colleague Susan Crawford also mentions). Before being a board member, I am a citizen. And as such I have been involved in issues, related to IG for quite a while. >I hope you would also be concerned about senior management and >leadership discussions with NTIA and want to ensure there's >transparency and community input to these discussions. At the risk of I am sure that the future Board (I step down in two months) will be wise enough to put more checks and balances in the general picture. I just don't accept the negativism. >You should be careful not to dismiss what IGPs saying just because >it's negative (perhaps overly negative). There's a lot of sense in >there and if you aren't at least considering all aspects of the >agreement then you're screwing up. I am not dismissing what the IGP says. I am just asking that they "might have misinterpreted the wording of the JPA". As for the opinions - when anyone enters a discussion with pre-defined opinion, there's no way to reach consensus. We can only work in that direction (reaching agreement) if we are asking questions. veni Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From veni at veni.com Tue Oct 3 05:42:03 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:42:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN DOC: The EU commission's perspective In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061003023412.05cf7da8@veni.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061003054005.02ba5148@veni.com> At 06:25 PM 03.10.2006 '?.' +0900, Izumi AIZU wrote: >I am puzzled by reading the EU statement. Where exactly is >the so-called "enhanced cooperation" exit? Is it purely governmental? >By reading the Tunis below, it says "involving all stakeholders", but >where is it now? Actually, by reading the Tunis para 71 below, I see that it says it involves "all relevant organizations". The question is which are these organizations, that will start the process. Only then they will involve the stakeholders. That's how I read this. >Tunis Agenda: > >71. The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN >Secretary-General, involving all relevant organisations by the end of >the first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their >respective roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with >legal process, and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant >organisations should commence a process towards enhanced cooperation >involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly as possible and >responsive to innovation. The same relevant organisations shall be >requested to provide annual performance reports. > Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Tue Oct 3 06:11:56 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 12:11:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re:ICANN DOC: The EU commission's perspective In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061003023412.05cf7da8@veni.com> Message-ID: <4522376C.8070709@wz-berlin.de> > I am puzzled by reading the EU statement. Where exactly is > the so-called "enhanced cooperation" exit? Is it purely governmental? > By reading the Tunis below, it says "involving all stakeholders", but > where is it now? > > I also notice that EU statement does not touch the "IANA contract" > where US government still has strong role to approve any change of > the root zone file. This is the heart of the matter, right? My guess is the European Commission is simply not interested in this matter. They are probably offering support to the US as a tradeoff for something that really matters to the EU. So, let's hope its worth it... jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Tue Oct 3 12:11:37 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 12:11:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Results from the charter ballot Message-ID: Hi, I have now closed the ballot and am tentatively announcing the results. The reason it is tentative is that I want to give people on this list who may have voted but who don't feel their vote was accounted for a chance to raise a protest. In this email I will: a. list the results. b. list the names of those who account for the quorum c. list some of the problems that were with the software that cause a discrepancy between the sum of votes reflected in (a) and the quorum list in (b). d. list of next steps. a. Quorum for the vote was met with 62 votes - The charter was accepted with a vote of 56 votes for 3 votes against - Voting style was determined as being open with the opportunity for the coordinators to close a vote, subject to appeal 19 for Secret ballots 30 for Open ballots - regarding the method of selecting the Appeals Team 35 in favor of using a Nomcom 9 in favor of voting - regarding the method of selecting nominees to other bodies 34 in favor of using a nomcom 10 in favor of voting Note: results can be verified by sending eVote stats to the appropriate list (same subject as was used to vote) ------------------------------- b. the Quorum was made up of the following people: Those for whom a vote is recorded A Michael Froomkin Adam Peake Anita Gurumurthy Annette Muehlberg Anriette Esterhuysen, avri doria Bertrand de La Chapelle Brenden Kuerbis Carlos Alfonso Chung Eung Hwi Danny Butt Dave Kissoondoyal David Allen David Goldstein Derrick L Cogburn Garth Graham German Valdez Giacomo Mazzone Gurumurthy K Ian Peter Izumi Aizu Jacqueline Morris Jeanette Hofmann Jeremy Shtern John Mathiason Joseph SARR Karen Banks Ken Lohento Louis Pouzin Maja Andjelkovic Mawaki Chango Max Senges McTim Meryem Marzouki Milton Mueller Mridula Swamy Nnenna Nwakanma Norbert Bollow Norbert Klein Nyangkwe Agien Aaron Parminder Jeet Singh Patrick Vande Walle Piyoo Kochar Qusai Al-Shatti Rainer Kuhlen Ralf Bendrath Renate Bloem Robert Guerra Shoba Viswanathan Siavash Shahshah Susan Crawford Sylvia Caras Tapani Tarvainen Valeria Betancourt William J Drake Willie Currie Vittorio Bertola Vivek Vaidyanathan Those for whom a vote is not recorded. Bret Fausett Hans Klein Michael Gurstein Sudhir Krishnaswamy --------------------- c. Discrepancy. The four whose participation is recorded in the quorum but not the results are for the following set of reasons. i. 2 votes were not sent successfully to eVote because of excess characters in the message (i.e. not plain text) ii. 1 vote was sent to the wrong list. iii. 1 vote was dropped through some still undiagnosed combination of operator error (i.e. me) and a software fault. I have not listed them in the result tallies, even though for 3 out of the 4 cases their vote was inadvertently made public due to the error/list the vote was sent on, because it cannot be verified using the voting tool. This bothers me, because I do not feel good about ignoring someone's vote in any case. If the votes would materially have changed the results then I would appeal to this group (not having an appeals team yet) for an acceptable solution. Since they would not change the results, I am suggesting that they be included in the quorum and hence list of people voting, but not be included in the results. ---------- d. next steps 1. anyone who believes they are misrepresented as having voted when they didn't should let me know. 2. anyone who believes they did vote but are not listed as having voted should let me know. If possible please forward me the receipt you were sent when you voted. 3. anyone who objects to the results or to the way i am handling them should discuss this on the list. 4. i will meantime edit the proposed charter to remove the choice-not- taken regarding voting styles and methods for selecting the appeals team and to fix a few a few spelling/grammatical errors that were pointed out to me during the vote. 5. by Friday, i will publish the edited version of the charter which i believe constitutes the agreed upon text. I will also specifically list any changes i made in spelling/grammar. if anyone believes that these change the meaning in _any_ way, i will revert to the language of the proposed text wether it is grammatically correct or not. 6. At that point, barring any obvious consensus against doing so, the charter will be the charter of the IGC. At that point I will propose specifics for electing the proper coordinators and for setting up the nomcom to select the appeals team. One question to be resolved is whether the election of coordinators will be open or closed - i will start a thread on this shortly. People should also start to consider candidates for the coordinator and appeals team roles. 7. I will continue to work with the evote developer and the volunteer who is working on the interface to understand the various bugs, to fix them and to improve the tool, especially the user interface. Finally I want to thank all those who voted and all those who encouraged others to vote. thanks a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca Tue Oct 3 12:18:18 2006 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 12:18:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] Results from the charter ballot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45228D4A.2010003@umontreal.ca> Avri, eVote thanks. Congratulations on seeing all of this work come to something and thanks again so much for everything you have put into this- you give honest brookers everywhere a good name. Thanks also to everyone who took the time to consider this and then to vote, Cheers, Jeremy Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I have now closed the ballot and am tentatively announcing the > results. The reason it is tentative is that I want to give people on > this list who may have voted but who don't feel their vote was > accounted for a chance to raise a protest. In this email I will: > > a. list the results. > b. list the names of those who account for the quorum > c. list some of the problems that were with the software that cause a > discrepancy between the sum of votes reflected in (a) and the quorum > list in (b). > d. list of next steps. > > a. Quorum for the vote was met with 62 votes > > - The charter was accepted with a vote of > 56 votes for > 3 votes against > > - Voting style was determined as being open with the opportunity for > the coordinators to close a vote, subject to appeal > 19 for Secret ballots > 30 for Open ballots > > - regarding the method of selecting the Appeals Team > 35 in favor of using a Nomcom > 9 in favor of voting > > - regarding the method of selecting nominees to other bodies > 34 in favor of using a nomcom > 10 in favor of voting > > Note: results can be verified by sending > eVote stats > to the appropriate list (same subject as was used to vote) > > ------------------------------- > > b. the Quorum was made up of the following people: > > Those for whom a vote is recorded > > A Michael Froomkin > Adam Peake > Anita Gurumurthy > Annette Muehlberg > Anriette Esterhuysen, > avri doria > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Brenden Kuerbis > Carlos Alfonso > Chung Eung Hwi > Danny Butt > Dave Kissoondoyal > David Allen > David Goldstein > Derrick L Cogburn > Garth Graham > German Valdez > Giacomo Mazzone > Gurumurthy K > Ian Peter > Izumi Aizu > Jacqueline Morris > Jeanette Hofmann > Jeremy Shtern > John Mathiason > Joseph SARR > Karen Banks > Ken Lohento > Louis Pouzin > Maja Andjelkovic > Mawaki Chango > Max Senges > McTim > Meryem Marzouki > Milton Mueller > Mridula Swamy > Nnenna Nwakanma > Norbert Bollow > Norbert Klein > Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > Parminder Jeet Singh > Patrick Vande Walle > Piyoo Kochar > Qusai Al-Shatti > Rainer Kuhlen > Ralf Bendrath > Renate Bloem > Robert Guerra > Shoba Viswanathan > Siavash Shahshah > Susan Crawford > Sylvia Caras > Tapani Tarvainen > Valeria Betancourt > William J Drake > Willie Currie > Vittorio Bertola > Vivek Vaidyanathan > > Those for whom a vote is not recorded. > > Bret Fausett > Hans Klein > Michael Gurstein > Sudhir Krishnaswamy > > --------------------- > > c. Discrepancy. > > The four whose participation is recorded in the quorum but not the > results are for the following set of reasons. > > i. 2 votes were not sent successfully to eVote because of excess > characters in the message > (i.e. not plain text) > > ii. 1 vote was sent to the wrong list. > > iii. 1 vote was dropped through some still undiagnosed combination of > operator error (i.e. me) and a software fault. > > I have not listed them in the result tallies, even though for 3 out of > the 4 cases their vote was inadvertently made public due to the > error/list the vote was sent on, because it cannot be verified using > the voting tool. > > This bothers me, because I do not feel good about ignoring someone's > vote in any case. If the votes would materially have changed the > results then I would appeal to this group (not having an appeals team > yet) for an acceptable solution. Since they would not change the > results, I am suggesting that they be included in the quorum and hence > list of people voting, but not be included in the results. > > ---------- > > d. next steps > > 1. anyone who believes they are misrepresented as having voted when > they didn't should let me know. > > 2. anyone who believes they did vote but are not listed as having > voted should let me know. If possible please forward me the receipt > you were sent when you voted. > > 3. anyone who objects to the results or to the way i am handling them > should discuss this on the list. > > 4. i will meantime edit the proposed charter to remove the > choice-not-taken regarding voting styles and methods for selecting the > appeals team and to fix a few a few spelling/grammatical errors that > were pointed out to me during the vote. > > 5. by Friday, i will publish the edited version of the charter which i > believe constitutes the agreed upon text. I will also specifically > list any changes i made in spelling/grammar. if anyone believes that > these change the meaning in _any_ way, i will revert to the language > of the proposed text wether it is grammatically correct or not. > > 6. At that point, barring any obvious consensus against doing so, the > charter will be the charter of the IGC. At that point I will propose > specifics for electing the proper coordinators and for setting up the > nomcom to select the appeals team. One question to be resolved is > whether the election of coordinators will be open or closed - i will > start a thread on this shortly. People should also start to consider > candidates for the coordinator and appeals team roles. > > 7. I will continue to work with the evote developer and the volunteer > who is working on the interface to understand the various bugs, to fix > them and to improve the tool, especially the user interface. > > Finally I want to thank all those who voted and all those who > encouraged others to vote. > > thanks > a. > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Tue Oct 3 12:26:56 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:26:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN DOC: The EU commission's perspective In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061003023412.05cf7da8@veni.com> Message-ID: <45228F50.9020409@bertola.eu.org> Adam Peake ha scritto: > Veni, as a board member I think you're expected to look carefully at all > sides. For sure you should be very concerned about the Whois issue IGP > raises (issues your colleague Susan Crawford also mentions). For the records, as a European citizen I am outraged by that, and more outraged by the fact that the European Commissioner commends such an agreement without even noting the issue. Now, I am co-organizing the Italian government consultation pre-IGF, which, ironically, is being hosted by our Privacy Authority. I hope that the Privacy Commissioner attends at least the part where I am going to introduce the matter... -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dave at isoc-mu.org Tue Oct 3 12:42:52 2006 From: dave at isoc-mu.org (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 20:42:52 +0400 Subject: [governance] Results from the charter ballot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003a01c6e70a$f80dc8e0$0a01a8c0@TLFMDOM.local> Thank-you Avri for all your dedication and efforts in the whole process. It is highly appreciated Best regards Dave Kissoondoyal President ISOC Mauritius PIR .ORG Advisory Council Member IT Director - Teleforma Mauritius Ltd -----Original Message----- From: governance-owner+dave=isoc-mu.org at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-owner+dave=isoc-mu.org at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:12 PM To: Governance Caucus Subject: [governance] Results from the charter ballot Hi, I have now closed the ballot and am tentatively announcing the results. The reason it is tentative is that I want to give people on this list who may have voted but who don't feel their vote was accounted for a chance to raise a protest. In this email I will: a. list the results. b. list the names of those who account for the quorum c. list some of the problems that were with the software that cause a discrepancy between the sum of votes reflected in (a) and the quorum list in (b). d. list of next steps. a. Quorum for the vote was met with 62 votes - The charter was accepted with a vote of 56 votes for 3 votes against - Voting style was determined as being open with the opportunity for the coordinators to close a vote, subject to appeal 19 for Secret ballots 30 for Open ballots - regarding the method of selecting the Appeals Team 35 in favor of using a Nomcom 9 in favor of voting - regarding the method of selecting nominees to other bodies 34 in favor of using a nomcom 10 in favor of voting Note: results can be verified by sending eVote stats to the appropriate list (same subject as was used to vote) ------------------------------- b. the Quorum was made up of the following people: Those for whom a vote is recorded A Michael Froomkin Adam Peake Anita Gurumurthy Annette Muehlberg Anriette Esterhuysen, avri doria Bertrand de La Chapelle Brenden Kuerbis Carlos Alfonso Chung Eung Hwi Danny Butt Dave Kissoondoyal David Allen David Goldstein Derrick L Cogburn Garth Graham German Valdez Giacomo Mazzone Gurumurthy K Ian Peter Izumi Aizu Jacqueline Morris Jeanette Hofmann Jeremy Shtern John Mathiason Joseph SARR Karen Banks Ken Lohento Louis Pouzin Maja Andjelkovic Mawaki Chango Max Senges McTim Meryem Marzouki Milton Mueller Mridula Swamy Nnenna Nwakanma Norbert Bollow Norbert Klein Nyangkwe Agien Aaron Parminder Jeet Singh Patrick Vande Walle Piyoo Kochar Qusai Al-Shatti Rainer Kuhlen Ralf Bendrath Renate Bloem Robert Guerra Shoba Viswanathan Siavash Shahshah Susan Crawford Sylvia Caras Tapani Tarvainen Valeria Betancourt William J Drake Willie Currie Vittorio Bertola Vivek Vaidyanathan Those for whom a vote is not recorded. Bret Fausett Hans Klein Michael Gurstein Sudhir Krishnaswamy --------------------- c. Discrepancy. The four whose participation is recorded in the quorum but not the results are for the following set of reasons. i. 2 votes were not sent successfully to eVote because of excess characters in the message (i.e. not plain text) ii. 1 vote was sent to the wrong list. iii. 1 vote was dropped through some still undiagnosed combination of operator error (i.e. me) and a software fault. I have not listed them in the result tallies, even though for 3 out of the 4 cases their vote was inadvertently made public due to the error/list the vote was sent on, because it cannot be verified using the voting tool. This bothers me, because I do not feel good about ignoring someone's vote in any case. If the votes would materially have changed the results then I would appeal to this group (not having an appeals team yet) for an acceptable solution. Since they would not change the results, I am suggesting that they be included in the quorum and hence list of people voting, but not be included in the results. ---------- d. next steps 1. anyone who believes they are misrepresented as having voted when they didn't should let me know. 2. anyone who believes they did vote but are not listed as having voted should let me know. If possible please forward me the receipt you were sent when you voted. 3. anyone who objects to the results or to the way i am handling them should discuss this on the list. 4. i will meantime edit the proposed charter to remove the choice-not- taken regarding voting styles and methods for selecting the appeals team and to fix a few a few spelling/grammatical errors that were pointed out to me during the vote. 5. by Friday, i will publish the edited version of the charter which i believe constitutes the agreed upon text. I will also specifically list any changes i made in spelling/grammar. if anyone believes that these change the meaning in _any_ way, i will revert to the language of the proposed text wether it is grammatically correct or not. 6. At that point, barring any obvious consensus against doing so, the charter will be the charter of the IGC. At that point I will propose specifics for electing the proper coordinators and for setting up the nomcom to select the appeals team. One question to be resolved is whether the election of coordinators will be open or closed - i will start a thread on this shortly. People should also start to consider candidates for the coordinator and appeals team roles. 7. I will continue to work with the evote developer and the volunteer who is working on the interface to understand the various bugs, to fix them and to improve the tool, especially the user interface. Finally I want to thank all those who voted and all those who encouraged others to vote. thanks a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jonathanrobin at messagerie.net Tue Oct 3 16:25:30 2006 From: jonathanrobin at messagerie.net (Jonathan Robin) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:25:30 +0200 Subject: Re(2): [governance] Results from the charter ballot In-Reply-To: <45228D4A.2010003@umontreal.ca> References: <45228D4A.2010003@umontreal.ca> Message-ID: Dear Avri, all, I would like to add my congratulations for the transparent and appropriate and successful process adopted for this vote As a "concerned" and formerly active contributor and currently pessimistic lurker it is heartwarming to witness the sustained commitment by many names I recognize on the voting list. It is also disturbing to note that quality is not reflected in quantity despite the networks that may be alerted in which this lists actors often play a decisive part. Perhaps we may see a light at the end of the tunnel after the U.S. elections providing there is no corresponding growth in overconcentration of political power in the hands of the European Commission However the issues facing us are both complicated and linked to spin off of emerging technology convergence whose evolution and whose implications are difficult to foresee and more difficult to alert as much is filtered or distorted as it percolates through the system. Wishing you all luck Best regards Jonathan profile: http://www.icdri.org/JR.htm governance at lists.cpsr.org,Internet a écrit: >Avri, > >eVote thanks. > >Congratulations on seeing all of this work come to something and thanks >again so much for everything you have put into this- you give honest >brookers everywhere a good name. > >Thanks also to everyone who took the time to consider this and then to >vote, > >Cheers, > >Jeremy > > >Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have now closed the ballot and am tentatively announcing the >> results. The reason it is tentative is that I want to give people on >> this list who may have voted but who don't feel their vote was >> accounted for a chance to raise a protest. In this email I will: >> >> a. list the results. >> b. list the names of those who account for the quorum >> c. list some of the problems that were with the software that cause a >> discrepancy between the sum of votes reflected in (a) and the quorum >> list in (b). >> d. list of next steps. >> >> a. Quorum for the vote was met with 62 votes >> >> - The charter was accepted with a vote of >> 56 votes for >> 3 votes against >> >> - Voting style was determined as being open with the opportunity for >> the coordinators to close a vote, subject to appeal >> 19 for Secret ballots >> 30 for Open ballots >> >> - regarding the method of selecting the Appeals Team >> 35 in favor of using a Nomcom >> 9 in favor of voting >> >> - regarding the method of selecting nominees to other bodies >> 34 in favor of using a nomcom >> 10 in favor of voting >> >> Note: results can be verified by sending >> eVote stats >> to the appropriate list (same subject as was used to vote) >> >> ------------------------------- >> >> b. the Quorum was made up of the following people: >> >> Those for whom a vote is recorded >> >> A Michael Froomkin >> Adam Peake >> Anita Gurumurthy >> Annette Muehlberg >> Anriette Esterhuysen, >> avri doria >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Brenden Kuerbis >> Carlos Alfonso >> Chung Eung Hwi >> Danny Butt >> Dave Kissoondoyal >> David Allen >> David Goldstein >> Derrick L Cogburn >> Garth Graham >> German Valdez >> Giacomo Mazzone >> Gurumurthy K >> Ian Peter >> Izumi Aizu >> Jacqueline Morris >> Jeanette Hofmann >> Jeremy Shtern >> John Mathiason >> Joseph SARR >> Karen Banks >> Ken Lohento >> Louis Pouzin >> Maja Andjelkovic >> Mawaki Chango >> Max Senges >> McTim >> Meryem Marzouki >> Milton Mueller >> Mridula Swamy >> Nnenna Nwakanma >> Norbert Bollow >> Norbert Klein >> Nyangkwe Agien Aaron >> Parminder Jeet Singh >> Patrick Vande Walle >> Piyoo Kochar >> Qusai Al-Shatti >> Rainer Kuhlen >> Ralf Bendrath >> Renate Bloem >> Robert Guerra >> Shoba Viswanathan >> Siavash Shahshah >> Susan Crawford >> Sylvia Caras >> Tapani Tarvainen >> Valeria Betancourt >> William J Drake >> Willie Currie >> Vittorio Bertola >> Vivek Vaidyanathan >> >> Those for whom a vote is not recorded. >> >> Bret Fausett >> Hans Klein >> Michael Gurstein >> Sudhir Krishnaswamy >> >> --------------------- >> >> c. Discrepancy. >> >> The four whose participation is recorded in the quorum but not the >> results are for the following set of reasons. >> >> i. 2 votes were not sent successfully to eVote because of excess >> characters in the message >> (i.e. not plain text) >> >> ii. 1 vote was sent to the wrong list. >> >> iii. 1 vote was dropped through some still undiagnosed combination of >> operator error (i.e. me) and a software fault. >> >> I have not listed them in the result tallies, even though for 3 out of >> the 4 cases their vote was inadvertently made public due to the >> error/list the vote was sent on, because it cannot be verified using >> the voting tool. >> >> This bothers me, because I do not feel good about ignoring someone's >> vote in any case. If the votes would materially have changed the >> results then I would appeal to this group (not having an appeals team >> yet) for an acceptable solution. Since they would not change the >> results, I am suggesting that they be included in the quorum and hence >> list of people voting, but not be included in the results. >> >> ---------- >> >> d. next steps >> >> 1. anyone who believes they are misrepresented as having voted when >> they didn't should let me know. >> >> 2. anyone who believes they did vote but are not listed as having >> voted should let me know. If possible please forward me the receipt >> you were sent when you voted. >> >> 3. anyone who objects to the results or to the way i am handling them >> should discuss this on the list. >> >> 4. i will meantime edit the proposed charter to remove the >> choice-not-taken regarding voting styles and methods for selecting the >> appeals team and to fix a few a few spelling/grammatical errors that >> were pointed out to me during the vote. >> >> 5. by Friday, i will publish the edited version of the charter which i >> believe constitutes the agreed upon text. I will also specifically >> list any changes i made in spelling/grammar. if anyone believes that >> these change the meaning in _any_ way, i will revert to the language >> of the proposed text wether it is grammatically correct or not. >> >> 6. At that point, barring any obvious consensus against doing so, the >> charter will be the charter of the IGC. At that point I will propose >> specifics for electing the proper coordinators and for setting up the >> nomcom to select the appeals team. One question to be resolved is >> whether the election of coordinators will be open or closed - i will >> start a thread on this shortly. People should also start to consider >> candidates for the coordinator and appeals team roles. >> >> 7. I will continue to work with the evote developer and the volunteer >> who is working on the interface to understand the various bugs, to fix >> them and to improve the tool, especially the user interface. >> >> Finally I want to thank all those who voted and all those who >> encouraged others to vote. >> >> thanks >> a. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From aizu at anr.org Tue Oct 3 16:14:55 2006 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 05:14:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Results from the charter ballot In-Reply-To: References: <003a01c6e70a$f80dc8e0$0a01a8c0@TLFMDOM.local> Message-ID: I also like to share my thanks to Avri, for your dedication and time- and energy-consuming works. Now that even it is tentative, I think your and our efforts met with the result. Well, we will go a long way, but though small it is a great first step. Thank you so much, izumi 2006/10/4, Dave Kissoondoyal : > Thank-you Avri for all your dedication and efforts in the whole process. > > It is highly appreciated > > Best regards > > Dave Kissoondoyal > President > ISOC Mauritius > PIR .ORG Advisory Council Member > IT Director - Teleforma Mauritius Ltd > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-owner+dave=isoc-mu.org at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-owner+dave=isoc-mu.org at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri > Doria > Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:12 PM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: [governance] Results from the charter ballot > > Hi, > > I have now closed the ballot and am tentatively announcing the > results. The reason it is tentative is that I want to give people on > this list who may have voted but who don't feel their vote was > accounted for a chance to raise a protest. In this email I will: > > a. list the results. > b. list the names of those who account for the quorum > c. list some of the problems that were with the software that cause a > discrepancy between the sum of votes reflected in (a) and the quorum > list in (b). > d. list of next steps. > > a. Quorum for the vote was met with 62 votes > > - The charter was accepted with a vote of > 56 votes for > 3 votes against > > - Voting style was determined as being open with the opportunity > for > the coordinators to close a vote, subject to appeal > 19 for Secret ballots > 30 for Open ballots > > - regarding the method of selecting the Appeals Team > 35 in favor of using a Nomcom > 9 in favor of voting > > - regarding the method of selecting nominees to other bodies > 34 in favor of using a nomcom > 10 in favor of voting > > Note: results can be verified by sending > eVote stats > to the appropriate list (same subject as was used to vote) > > ------------------------------- > > b. the Quorum was made up of the following people: > > Those for whom a vote is recorded > > A Michael Froomkin > Adam Peake > Anita Gurumurthy > Annette Muehlberg > Anriette Esterhuysen, > avri doria > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Brenden Kuerbis > Carlos Alfonso > Chung Eung Hwi > Danny Butt > Dave Kissoondoyal > David Allen > David Goldstein > Derrick L Cogburn > Garth Graham > German Valdez > Giacomo Mazzone > Gurumurthy K > Ian Peter > Izumi Aizu > Jacqueline Morris > Jeanette Hofmann > Jeremy Shtern > John Mathiason > Joseph SARR > Karen Banks > Ken Lohento > Louis Pouzin > Maja Andjelkovic > Mawaki Chango > Max Senges > McTim > Meryem Marzouki > Milton Mueller > Mridula Swamy > Nnenna Nwakanma > Norbert Bollow > Norbert Klein > Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > Parminder Jeet Singh > Patrick Vande Walle > Piyoo Kochar > Qusai Al-Shatti > Rainer Kuhlen > Ralf Bendrath > Renate Bloem > Robert Guerra > Shoba Viswanathan > Siavash Shahshah > Susan Crawford > Sylvia Caras > Tapani Tarvainen > Valeria Betancourt > William J Drake > Willie Currie > Vittorio Bertola > Vivek Vaidyanathan > > Those for whom a vote is not recorded. > > Bret Fausett > Hans Klein > Michael Gurstein > Sudhir Krishnaswamy > > --------------------- > > c. Discrepancy. > > The four whose participation is recorded in the quorum but not the > results are for the following set of reasons. > > i. 2 votes were not sent successfully to eVote because of excess > characters in the message > (i.e. not plain text) > > ii. 1 vote was sent to the wrong list. > > iii. 1 vote was dropped through some still undiagnosed combination of > operator error (i.e. me) and a software fault. > > I have not listed them in the result tallies, even though for 3 out > of the 4 cases their vote was inadvertently made public due to the > error/list the vote was sent on, because it cannot be verified using > the voting tool. > > This bothers me, because I do not feel good about ignoring someone's > vote in any case. If the votes would materially have changed the > results then I would appeal to this group (not having an appeals team > yet) for an acceptable solution. Since they would not change the > results, I am suggesting that they be included in the quorum and > hence list of people voting, but not be included in the results. > > ---------- > > d. next steps > > 1. anyone who believes they are misrepresented as having voted when > they didn't should let me know. > > 2. anyone who believes they did vote but are not listed as having > voted should let me know. If possible please forward me the receipt > you were sent when you voted. > > 3. anyone who objects to the results or to the way i am handling them > should discuss this on the list. > > 4. i will meantime edit the proposed charter to remove the choice-not- > taken regarding voting styles and methods for selecting the appeals > team and to fix a few a few spelling/grammatical errors that were > pointed out to me during the vote. > > 5. by Friday, i will publish the edited version of the charter which > i believe constitutes the agreed upon text. I will also specifically > list any changes i made in spelling/grammar. if anyone believes that > these change the meaning in _any_ way, i will revert to the language > of the proposed text wether it is grammatically correct or not. > > 6. At that point, barring any obvious consensus against doing so, the > charter will be the charter of the IGC. At that point I will > propose specifics for electing the proper coordinators and for > setting up the nomcom to select the appeals team. One question to be > resolved is whether the election of coordinators will be open or > closed - i will start a thread on this shortly. People should also > start to consider candidates for the coordinator and appeals team roles. > > 7. I will continue to work with the evote developer and the volunteer > who is working on the interface to understand the various bugs, to > fix them and to improve the tool, especially the user interface. > > Finally I want to thank all those who voted and all those who > encouraged others to vote. > > thanks > a. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, University of Tama * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, University of Tama * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Tue Oct 3 16:39:12 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:39:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN DOC: The EU commission's perspective Message-ID: >>> veni at veni.com 10/3/2006 2:37 AM >>> >why do you have to be so unhappy I am, in fact, quite happy at the moment. Life is good generally. Are you unhappy? > when people are >saying that the end of the MoU is good for the Internet? Veni, I have been saying the end of the MoU would be good for the internet for longer than you have been involved. The problem is that I dont' see how the JPA ends the MoU. Some other people have pointed out to me that the EC may have a private, informal agreement with the U.S. It's possible, but unlikely in my opinion because the 2009 date takes us into the time of a new U.S. government, the Bush admin. will be gone. >What if the IGP analysis you quote might have >misinterpreted the wording of the JPA? I'd be happy to see you identify any wording that conflicts with my interpretation. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Wed Oct 4 01:19:35 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:19:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN DOC: The EU commission's perspective In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061004005045.02b8ecf0@veni.com> At 04:39 PM 03.10.2006 '?.' -0400, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>> veni at veni.com 10/3/2006 2:37 AM >>> > >why do you have to be so unhappy > >I am, in fact, quite happy at the moment. Life is good generally. Well, then look at the positive things, such as the EUC statement. That makes life generally better. >Are you unhappy? Milton, this is a mailing list. No one is interested in personal questions. If someone is, we surely stay in touch by private e-mails on such topics. > > when people are > >saying that the end of the MoU is good for the Internet? > >Veni, I have been saying the end of the MoU would be good for the >internet for longer than you have been involved. There it is again. Why always trying to stress on the fact how long you have been involved? I don't remember questioning the quantity of time you've spent on IG issues. >The problem is that I dont' see how the JPA ends the MoU. Well, that's what you see. I see it differently. Commissioner Reding sees it differently. Other people see it differently. Differences of opinions. But I also asked questions, to which you didn't respond. You just search for conflicts. >Some other people have pointed out >to me that the EC may have a private, informal agreement with the U.S. >It's possible, but unlikely in my opinion because the 2009 date takes >us into the time of a new U.S. government, the Bush admin. will be gone. Relating the way the Internet is being governed to the administration in the US is an opinion. Somehow I doubt that it depends on the administration. One thing I noticed in the USA is, that the system keeps on working regardless of who is the President. This is good for the US, as in other countries the administration defines if the system works. > >What if the IGP analysis you quote might have > >misinterpreted the wording of the JPA? > >I'd be happy to see you identify any wording that conflicts with my >interpretation. This is what I was telling you above. You look for conflicts, always. I don't. I just asked if the IGP analysis might be misinterpreting the wording. At least now I know it's not an IGP analysis, but yours ('my interpretation' means it's yours, right?). Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From jsarr at refer.sn Wed Oct 4 11:18:21 2006 From: jsarr at refer.sn (jsarr at refer.sn) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:18:21 +0000 Subject: [governance] Results from the charter ballot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1159975101.4523d0bd4d5af@courrier.refer.sn> Félicitations à Avri pour tout le travail abattu. Salutations cordiales. Joseph --------------------------------------------------------------------- Selon Avri Doria : > Hi, > > I have now closed the ballot and am tentatively announcing the > results. The reason it is tentative is that I want to give people on > this list who may have voted but who don't feel their vote was > accounted for a chance to raise a protest. In this email I will: > > a. list the results. > b. list the names of those who account for the quorum > c. list some of the problems that were with the software that cause a > discrepancy between the sum of votes reflected in (a) and the quorum > list in (b). > d. list of next steps. > > a. Quorum for the vote was met with 62 votes > > - The charter was accepted with a vote of > 56 votes for > 3 votes against > > - Voting style was determined as being open with the opportunity > for > the coordinators to close a vote, subject to appeal > 19 for Secret ballots > 30 for Open ballots > > - regarding the method of selecting the Appeals Team > 35 in favor of using a Nomcom > 9 in favor of voting > > - regarding the method of selecting nominees to other bodies > 34 in favor of using a nomcom > 10 in favor of voting > > Note: results can be verified by sending > eVote stats > to the appropriate list (same subject as was used to vote) > > ------------------------------- > > b. the Quorum was made up of the following people: > > Those for whom a vote is recorded > > A Michael Froomkin > Adam Peake > Anita Gurumurthy > Annette Muehlberg > Anriette Esterhuysen, > avri doria > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Brenden Kuerbis > Carlos Alfonso > Chung Eung Hwi > Danny Butt > Dave Kissoondoyal > David Allen > David Goldstein > Derrick L Cogburn > Garth Graham > German Valdez > Giacomo Mazzone > Gurumurthy K > Ian Peter > Izumi Aizu > Jacqueline Morris > Jeanette Hofmann > Jeremy Shtern > John Mathiason > Joseph SARR > Karen Banks > Ken Lohento > Louis Pouzin > Maja Andjelkovic > Mawaki Chango > Max Senges > McTim > Meryem Marzouki > Milton Mueller > Mridula Swamy > Nnenna Nwakanma > Norbert Bollow > Norbert Klein > Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > Parminder Jeet Singh > Patrick Vande Walle > Piyoo Kochar > Qusai Al-Shatti > Rainer Kuhlen > Ralf Bendrath > Renate Bloem > Robert Guerra > Shoba Viswanathan > Siavash Shahshah > Susan Crawford > Sylvia Caras > Tapani Tarvainen > Valeria Betancourt > William J Drake > Willie Currie > Vittorio Bertola > Vivek Vaidyanathan > > Those for whom a vote is not recorded. > > Bret Fausett > Hans Klein > Michael Gurstein > Sudhir Krishnaswamy > > --------------------- > > c. Discrepancy. > > The four whose participation is recorded in the quorum but not the > results are for the following set of reasons. > > i. 2 votes were not sent successfully to eVote because of excess > characters in the message > (i.e. not plain text) > > ii. 1 vote was sent to the wrong list. > > iii. 1 vote was dropped through some still undiagnosed combination of > operator error (i.e. me) and a software fault. > > I have not listed them in the result tallies, even though for 3 out > of the 4 cases their vote was inadvertently made public due to the > error/list the vote was sent on, because it cannot be verified using > the voting tool. > > This bothers me, because I do not feel good about ignoring someone's > vote in any case. If the votes would materially have changed the > results then I would appeal to this group (not having an appeals team > yet) for an acceptable solution. Since they would not change the > results, I am suggesting that they be included in the quorum and > hence list of people voting, but not be included in the results. > > ---------- > > d. next steps > > 1. anyone who believes they are misrepresented as having voted when > they didn't should let me know. > > 2. anyone who believes they did vote but are not listed as having > voted should let me know. If possible please forward me the receipt > you were sent when you voted. > > 3. anyone who objects to the results or to the way i am handling them > should discuss this on the list. > > 4. i will meantime edit the proposed charter to remove the choice-not- > taken regarding voting styles and methods for selecting the appeals > team and to fix a few a few spelling/grammatical errors that were > pointed out to me during the vote. > > 5. by Friday, i will publish the edited version of the charter which > i believe constitutes the agreed upon text. I will also specifically > list any changes i made in spelling/grammar. if anyone believes that > these change the meaning in _any_ way, i will revert to the language > of the proposed text wether it is grammatically correct or not. > > 6. At that point, barring any obvious consensus against doing so, the > charter will be the charter of the IGC. At that point I will > propose specifics for electing the proper coordinators and for > setting up the nomcom to select the appeals team. One question to be > resolved is whether the election of coordinators will be open or > closed - i will start a thread on this shortly. People should also > start to consider candidates for the coordinator and appeals team roles. > > 7. I will continue to work with the evote developer and the volunteer > who is working on the interface to understand the various bugs, to > fix them and to improve the tool, especially the user interface. > > Finally I want to thank all those who voted and all those who > encouraged others to vote. > > thanks > a. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Wed Oct 4 16:25:10 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:25:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Re Message-ID: Twomey distances himself and ICANN from the new JPA. Good. ================== Mr Bruce Tonkin Chair Generic Names Supporting Organisation Dear Bruce It would appear that speculation continues among some members of the community as to the meaning of the WHOIS clause in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Resolution passed by the Board last week. I thought it would be useful for me to write to you to make clear my understanding, and my understanding of the Board, on this. There is nothing in the WHOIS clause in the Resolution which prohibits any proper and complete development of new policy in accordance with ICANN's bylaws. The text in the Affirmation of Responsibilities is a statement of policy as it presently stands - not a statement of what is immutable or what we can't do. This clause in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Resolution is not, and cannot be, counter to the ICANN bylaws, including those which outline ICANN's policy development procedures. But if, and until, there is any change to the WHOIS policy according to these procedures, ICANN will continue to enforce the existing WHOIS policy like we would do any other policy. Indeed resources are earmarked in this year's operational plan for such compliance work. On the topic of the ongoing work on WHOIS, I would note that as part of a broader WHOIS PDP process other Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees will have the opportunity to comment on any policy work if and when it is passed on by the Council. But this is like any other policy considered by the Board. I understand that the general thrust of what I have written above has already been communicated to the Council by Denise Michel. I hope this will give some clarity to members of the Council and the GNSO constituencies. I would appreciate it if you were to share this communication with the Council members, the public WHOIS list, and constituencies you consider relevant. Kind regards, Paul _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Dr Paul Twomey President and CEO ICANN ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Oct 4 16:42:40 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:42:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Re In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/4/06, Milton Mueller wrote: > Twomey distances himself and ICANN from the new JPA. how do you reckon that from the below? /McTim > > ================== > Mr Bruce Tonkin > Chair > Generic Names Supporting Organisation > > Dear Bruce > > It would appear that speculation continues among some members of the > community as to the meaning of the WHOIS clause in the Affirmation of > Responsibilities Resolution passed by the Board last week. > > I thought it would be useful for me to write to you to make clear my > understanding, and my understanding of the Board, on this. > > There is nothing in the WHOIS clause in the Resolution which prohibits > any proper and complete development of new policy in accordance with > ICANN's bylaws. The text in the Affirmation of Responsibilities is a > statement of policy as it presently stands - not a statement of what is > immutable or what we can't do. > > This clause in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Resolution is not, > and cannot be, counter to the ICANN bylaws, including those which > outline ICANN's policy development procedures. > > But if, and until, there is any change to the WHOIS policy according to > these procedures, ICANN will continue to enforce the existing WHOIS > policy like we would do any other policy. Indeed resources are > earmarked in this year's operational plan for such compliance work. > > On the topic of the ongoing work on WHOIS, I would note that as part of > a broader WHOIS PDP process other Supporting Organisations and Advisory > Committees will have the opportunity to comment on any policy work if > and when it is passed on by the Council. But this is like any other > policy considered by the Board. > > I understand that the general thrust of what I have written above has > already been communicated to the Council by Denise Michel. > > I hope this will give some clarity to members of the Council and the > GNSO constituencies. > > I would appreciate it if you were to share this communication with the > Council members, the public WHOIS list, and constituencies you consider > relevant. > > Kind regards, > > Paul > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > > Dr Paul Twomey > President and CEO > ICANN > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From aizu at anr.org Wed Oct 4 16:44:43 2006 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 05:44:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: On DoC/ICANN JPA, whois In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I came to Brussels last night and went to European Commission today for a research on network security. I also met with Mr. Michael Niebel of EC, DG information society & media, and talked about the JPA between DOC and ICANN. He said, on the record, that the European Commission had no prior information about the JPA, its content, nor ICANN Board resolution, including, inter alia, the whois section and was very surprised to know the content. My interpretation is, unlike the general welcoming tone of the EC Commissioner Reading, the reaction by the Commission is not quite positive. With her statement, there are much more explicit mention of the civil society than the JPA which also indicates thier policy. My another impression of the email from Paul Twomey to GNSO/Bruce is though ICANN/Paul pretends that they sort or respect the bottom up process etc, the whois emphasis and reaffirmation of the Borad resolution is still strange and am not convinced fully with Paul's email. Just FYI. izumi -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, University of Tama * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 5 04:17:06 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 13:47:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Highlights of GAID Steering Committee Message-ID: <20061005081708.540FBDA8BE@smtp3.electricembers.net> Dear All Going through the discussions summary, the following comes as a surprise, and alarms me a lot.. At the Chairman's proposal, it was agreed that members of the Strategy Council and Steering Committee be requested to support the Global Alliance through annual contributions (in cash or in kind), according to an indicative scale, taking into account the financial constraints of some members, in particular civil society organizations and developing countries. (quote ends) This will then, sooner or later, make the reverse logic operational as well - the steering committee and strategic committee membership will begin to include an implicit or explicit criterion of 'capacity to contribute funds'. And this logic is dangerous in public policy spaces.. There already is a growing tendency of public policy meetings and conferences sponsored heavily by interested parties which of course casts a shadow on the deliberations and outcomes, but to have a UN anchored public policy body have its governance positions linked to the criterion of 'capacity to pay' is going quite a few steps beyond. I find any such move very dangerous to the very fiber and structure of our public life. GAID needs to decide for itself whether it is a global public policy body, with important policy influence on ICTD policies globally, nationally and locally, or it is a non-profit which wants to challenge energies, goodwill and funds into ICTD activity. And if it is both, what is it primarily. Because in the latter mandate, it is fine to look around for funds in this manner, even offering governance positions for the purpose (though still, discretion is required to see that social responsibility funds are not used for narrow interests - commercial or otherwise, which in the long run harms the interests of the targeted group more than they benefit them immediately). And if its mandate is the former - that is mainly policy advice and influence related - GAID needs to be extra careful that its governance as well as other structures are free from narrow commercial (or other) interests. And the positions in its governance structure etc go strictly by the criterions like capacity to contribute and representative-ness of different stakeholders - more of those who could with some legitimacy be seen as representing the poor and marginalized sections (as the UN Secretary General advised during the deliberation, and I quote form the enclosed document - "the Alliance must keep the interest of the poor and marginalized foremost in mind". Going by the statement of GAID's mission given out by the press statement from the UN Secretary General's office that announced the launch of GAID, it seems to be oriented more as a platform for ICTD policy dialogue and advocacy. To quote the press statement - "The mission of the Global Alliance for ICT and Development will be to facilitate and promote such integration by providing a platform for an open, inclusive, multi-stakeholder cross-sectoral policy dialogue on the role of information and communication technology in development". Of course funds are needed, and contributions are welcome. But these can not be tied to positions in the governance structures. We all need to take a clear position on this issue. There is a great danger in requesting the members of governance bodies to contribute - this links the membership to contributions, even if implicitly, and in the long term. The call for contributions should instead be open - to all those who agree with the stated purpose and polices of GAID to contribute. I will request CS members in these deliberations to report in more detail on such issues, and their implications, though I understand the insider-outsider dilemma of participation in such high level bodies. And we also need to have a general CS view on these issues, and keep up a broader engagement with post-WSIS bodies through these elists, and other associations. This is specifically so because this group was asked to, and it did, contribute to the process of selection of the governance structures. regards Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of Renate Bloem Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 12:51 AM To: CS Plenary Cc: bureau wsis; governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Highlights of GAID Steering Committee Dear all, Please see attached a brief outline from the Secretariat of the GAID Steering Committee discussion held 27-28 September in New York. You will see that the essence for GAID is to provide a distinguished but broad platform to promote, scale up and accelerate action on initiatives provided by communities of expertise and some Flagship Partnership Initiatives. A summary of the meeting is being drafted by the Secretariat and will be published shortly. The statements by Secretary-General Kofi Annan and President of ECOSOC Amb Ali Hachani are available at http://www.un-gaid.org/steering/annan_27sept06.html and http://www.un-gaid.org/steering/hachani_27sept06.html respectively. Best, Renate Bloem President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: rbloem at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SteeC 2nd mtg highlights 29Sep2006 (2).doc Type: application/msword Size: 45568 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Oct 5 06:56:30 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 12:56:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] VS: [igf_members] Nominet holds IGF event on 9 October References: Message-ID: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F304381C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Just FYI wolfgang ________________________________ Fra: igf_members-bounces at intgovforum.org på vegne af emily.taylor at nominet.org.uk Sendt: to 05-10-2006 12:11 Til: igf_members at intgovforum.org Emne: [igf_members] Nominet holds IGF event on 9 October Hi everyone Nominet will be hosting a pre-IGF event on Monday, 9 October. Here is the agenda: http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/9336_The_Road_to_Athens_agenda.pdf. I'm delighted to say that Nitin Desai will be chairing, and we have excellent panellists assembled to debate three of the issues from the Athens agenda, namely openness, security and emerging issues. Sarah Montague, the BBC HardTalk journalist, will be anchoring. Please do attend if you can. More likely, you may be interested in tuning in to the web-cast at http://www.rawcoms.com/content/corporate/nominet/061009/index.html. We will also be experimenting with some online tools. Kieren McCarthy is blogging, and we hope to make use of an online questioning tool developed by Harvard University. Please contribute to the debate. It would be great to have your input. Best wishes Emily Taylor _______________________________________________ igf_members mailing list igf_members at intgovforum.org http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igf_members_intgovforum.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Oct 5 06:59:19 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 19:59:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] Nominet holds IGF event on 9 October Message-ID: Nominet's doing a great job organizing IGF related meetings in the UK. For this meeting on October 9th they have arranged remote access and invite people will participate. Thanks, Adam > >Hi everyone > >Nominet will be hosting a pre-IGF event on Monday, 9 October. Here is the >agenda: >http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/9336_The_Road_to_Athens_agenda.pdf. > I'm delighted to say that Nitin Desai will be chairing, and we have >excellent panellists assembled to debate three of the issues from the >Athens agenda, namely openness, security and emerging issues. Sarah >Montague, the BBC HardTalk journalist, will be anchoring. > >Please do attend if you can. More likely, you may be interested in tuning >in to the web-cast at >http://www.rawcoms.com/content/corporate/nominet/061009/index.html. We >will also be experimenting with some online tools. Kieren McCarthy is >blogging, and we hope to make use of an online questioning tool developed >by Harvard University. > >Please contribute to the debate. It would be great to have your input. > >Best wishes > >Emily Taylor > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Oct 5 08:05:02 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 08:05:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Re In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005080014.02bdfcd8@veni.com> At 04:25 PM 04.10.2006 '?.'Ъ┬Ж -0400, Milton Mueller wrote: >Twomey distances himself and ICANN from the new JPA. Good. Milton, I guess that doesn't change your opinion, right? Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Thu Oct 5 08:13:18 2006 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 05:13:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] A domain by any other name - Jonathan Zittrain in The Guardian Message-ID: <20061005121318.34423.qmail@web54112.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all An interesting take on the role of ICANN by Jonathan Zittrain in The Guardian this week is below. Plus a plug for my new website, well upadated and with a new domain name. See http://technewsreview.com.au/ I've also got a free mailing list with a comprehensive coverage of domain name issues, governance, censorship, crime, internet use and more available. See http://aeternus.hellohost.com/mailman/listinfo/internetnews_internews.tv to subscribe. It's more comprehensive than the website. Cheers David A domain by any other name Jonathan Zittrain October 4, 2006 11:16 AM The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has a budget of $30m a year, dozens of staff and few friends. It manages some aspects of the domain name system, which maps locations such as www.guardian.co.uk to the more basic (yet more difficult to remember) numbers that identify whose computer is where on the internet. What Icann does is seen as important by many in the "internet governance" community, including diplomats and some academics. They're wrong. Control over domain names is too casually taken to mean control over the internet itself, and Icann doesn't even exercise much control over domain names. So why do people even bother to dislike or fear it? See http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_zittrain/2006/10/jonathan_zittrain.html for the rest of the article. Cheers David --------- David Goldstein address: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home) "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery ____________________________________________________ On Yahoo!7 Messenger: Plug-in the fun with handy plug-ins http://au.messenger.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Thu Oct 5 08:27:28 2006 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 14:27:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Results from the charter ballot In-Reply-To: <1159975101.4523d0bd4d5af@courrier.refer.sn> References: <1159975101.4523d0bd4d5af@courrier.refer.sn> Message-ID: Avri It is wonderful how you can swim out of the bee hive and come out with all this. Kudos Aaron On 10/4/06, jsarr at refer.sn wrote: > Félicitations à Avri pour tout le travail abattu. > Salutations cordiales. > > Joseph > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Selon Avri Doria : > > > Hi, > > > > I have now closed the ballot and am tentatively announcing the > > results. The reason it is tentative is that I want to give people on > > this list who may have voted but who don't feel their vote was > > accounted for a chance to raise a protest. In this email I will: > > > > a. list the results. > > b. list the names of those who account for the quorum > > c. list some of the problems that were with the software that cause a > > discrepancy between the sum of votes reflected in (a) and the quorum > > list in (b). > > d. list of next steps. > > > > a. Quorum for the vote was met with 62 votes > > > > - The charter was accepted with a vote of > > 56 votes for > > 3 votes against > > > > - Voting style was determined as being open with the opportunity > > for > > the coordinators to close a vote, subject to appeal > > 19 for Secret ballots > > 30 for Open ballots > > > > - regarding the method of selecting the Appeals Team > > 35 in favor of using a Nomcom > > 9 in favor of voting > > > > - regarding the method of selecting nominees to other bodies > > 34 in favor of using a nomcom > > 10 in favor of voting > > > > Note: results can be verified by sending > > eVote stats > > to the appropriate list (same subject as was used to vote) > > > > ------------------------------- > > > > b. the Quorum was made up of the following people: > > > > Those for whom a vote is recorded > > > > A Michael Froomkin > > Adam Peake > > Anita Gurumurthy > > Annette Muehlberg > > Anriette Esterhuysen, > > avri doria > > Bertrand de La Chapelle > > Brenden Kuerbis > > Carlos Alfonso > > Chung Eung Hwi > > Danny Butt > > Dave Kissoondoyal > > David Allen > > David Goldstein > > Derrick L Cogburn > > Garth Graham > > German Valdez > > Giacomo Mazzone > > Gurumurthy K > > Ian Peter > > Izumi Aizu > > Jacqueline Morris > > Jeanette Hofmann > > Jeremy Shtern > > John Mathiason > > Joseph SARR > > Karen Banks > > Ken Lohento > > Louis Pouzin > > Maja Andjelkovic > > Mawaki Chango > > Max Senges > > McTim > > Meryem Marzouki > > Milton Mueller > > Mridula Swamy > > Nnenna Nwakanma > > Norbert Bollow > > Norbert Klein > > Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > Patrick Vande Walle > > Piyoo Kochar > > Qusai Al-Shatti > > Rainer Kuhlen > > Ralf Bendrath > > Renate Bloem > > Robert Guerra > > Shoba Viswanathan > > Siavash Shahshah > > Susan Crawford > > Sylvia Caras > > Tapani Tarvainen > > Valeria Betancourt > > William J Drake > > Willie Currie > > Vittorio Bertola > > Vivek Vaidyanathan > > > > Those for whom a vote is not recorded. > > > > Bret Fausett > > Hans Klein > > Michael Gurstein > > Sudhir Krishnaswamy > > > > --------------------- > > > > c. Discrepancy. > > > > The four whose participation is recorded in the quorum but not the > > results are for the following set of reasons. > > > > i. 2 votes were not sent successfully to eVote because of excess > > characters in the message > > (i.e. not plain text) > > > > ii. 1 vote was sent to the wrong list. > > > > iii. 1 vote was dropped through some still undiagnosed combination of > > operator error (i.e. me) and a software fault. > > > > I have not listed them in the result tallies, even though for 3 out > > of the 4 cases their vote was inadvertently made public due to the > > error/list the vote was sent on, because it cannot be verified using > > the voting tool. > > > > This bothers me, because I do not feel good about ignoring someone's > > vote in any case. If the votes would materially have changed the > > results then I would appeal to this group (not having an appeals team > > yet) for an acceptable solution. Since they would not change the > > results, I am suggesting that they be included in the quorum and > > hence list of people voting, but not be included in the results. > > > > ---------- > > > > d. next steps > > > > 1. anyone who believes they are misrepresented as having voted when > > they didn't should let me know. > > > > 2. anyone who believes they did vote but are not listed as having > > voted should let me know. If possible please forward me the receipt > > you were sent when you voted. > > > > 3. anyone who objects to the results or to the way i am handling them > > should discuss this on the list. > > > > 4. i will meantime edit the proposed charter to remove the choice-not- > > taken regarding voting styles and methods for selecting the appeals > > team and to fix a few a few spelling/grammatical errors that were > > pointed out to me during the vote. > > > > 5. by Friday, i will publish the edited version of the charter which > > i believe constitutes the agreed upon text. I will also specifically > > list any changes i made in spelling/grammar. if anyone believes that > > these change the meaning in _any_ way, i will revert to the language > > of the proposed text wether it is grammatically correct or not. > > > > 6. At that point, barring any obvious consensus against doing so, the > > charter will be the charter of the IGC. At that point I will > > propose specifics for electing the proper coordinators and for > > setting up the nomcom to select the appeals team. One question to be > > resolved is whether the election of coordinators will be open or > > closed - i will start a thread on this shortly. People should also > > start to consider candidates for the coordinator and appeals team roles. > > > > 7. I will continue to work with the evote developer and the volunteer > > who is working on the interface to understand the various bugs, to > > fix them and to improve the tool, especially the user interface. > > > > Finally I want to thank all those who voted and all those who > > encouraged others to vote. > > > > thanks > > a. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President ASAFE Tel. 237 337 50 22 Fax. 237 342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 5 08:33:58 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 18:03:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Highlights of GAID Steering Committee In-Reply-To: <20061005081708.540FBDA8BE@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20061005123357.D2A0ADA8EB@smtp3.electricembers.net> Sorry, I forwarded this without stating the context. I was replying to an email on the plenary list, and forwarded it not realizing that the original email was never sent to the egov list. This is from the deliberations of the Global Alliance on ICT for Development. IGF and GAID are seen as the two main post WSIS bodies and therefore their governance may need to be seen in a common perspective to some extent - as the global governance framework of the emerging information society. And asking for annual contributions 'on indicative scale' from members of strategy council and steering committee is directly equivalent to asking for 'financial contributions' from the members of the IGF MAG - and thereupon, maybe, pulling it into an implicit criterion for selection. And it is useful to see it in the context where the African Civil Society for the Information Society is making appeals for pro-active assistance for ensuring CS participants to attend MAG meetings. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 1:47 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Highlights of GAID Steering Committee Dear All Going through the discussions summary, the following comes as a surprise, and alarms me a lot.. At the Chairman's proposal, it was agreed that members of the Strategy Council and Steering Committee be requested to support the Global Alliance through annual contributions (in cash or in kind), according to an indicative scale, taking into account the financial constraints of some members, in particular civil society organizations and developing countries. (quote ends) This will then, sooner or later, make the reverse logic operational as well - the steering committee and strategic committee membership will begin to include an implicit or explicit criterion of 'capacity to contribute funds'. And this logic is dangerous in public policy spaces.. There already is a growing tendency of public policy meetings and conferences sponsored heavily by interested parties which of course casts a shadow on the deliberations and outcomes, but to have a UN anchored public policy body have its governance positions linked to the criterion of 'capacity to pay' is going quite a few steps beyond. I find any such move very dangerous to the very fiber and structure of our public life. GAID needs to decide for itself whether it is a global public policy body, with important policy influence on ICTD policies globally, nationally and locally, or it is a non-profit which wants to challenge energies, goodwill and funds into ICTD activity. And if it is both, what is it primarily. Because in the latter mandate, it is fine to look around for funds in this manner, even offering governance positions for the purpose (though still, discretion is required to see that social responsibility funds are not used for narrow interests - commercial or otherwise, which in the long run harms the interests of the targeted group more than they benefit them immediately). And if its mandate is the former - that is mainly policy advice and influence related - GAID needs to be extra careful that its governance as well as other structures are free from narrow commercial (or other) interests. And the positions in its governance structure etc go strictly by the criterions like capacity to contribute and representative-ness of different stakeholders - more of those who could with some legitimacy be seen as representing the poor and marginalized sections (as the UN Secretary General advised during the deliberation, and I quote form the enclosed document - "the Alliance must keep the interest of the poor and marginalized foremost in mind". Going by the statement of GAID's mission given out by the press statement from the UN Secretary General's office that announced the launch of GAID, it seems to be oriented more as a platform for ICTD policy dialogue and advocacy. To quote the press statement - "The mission of the Global Alliance for ICT and Development will be to facilitate and promote such integration by providing a platform for an open, inclusive, multi-stakeholder cross-sectoral policy dialogue on the role of information and communication technology in development". Of course funds are needed, and contributions are welcome. But these can not be tied to positions in the governance structures. We all need to take a clear position on this issue. There is a great danger in requesting the members of governance bodies to contribute - this links the membership to contributions, even if implicitly, and in the long term. The call for contributions should instead be open - to all those who agree with the stated purpose and polices of GAID to contribute. I will request CS members in these deliberations to report in more detail on such issues, and their implications, though I understand the insider-outsider dilemma of participation in such high level bodies. And we also need to have a general CS view on these issues, and keep up a broader engagement with post-WSIS bodies through these elists, and other associations. This is specifically so because this group was asked to, and it did, contribute to the process of selection of the governance structures. regards Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of Renate Bloem Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 12:51 AM To: CS Plenary Cc: bureau wsis; governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Highlights of GAID Steering Committee Dear all, Please see attached a brief outline from the Secretariat of the GAID Steering Committee discussion held 27-28 September in New York. You will see that the essence for GAID is to provide a distinguished but broad platform to promote, scale up and accelerate action on initiatives provided by communities of expertise and some Flagship Partnership Initiatives. A summary of the meeting is being drafted by the Secretariat and will be published shortly. The statements by Secretary-General Kofi Annan and President of ECOSOC Amb Ali Hachani are available at http://www.un-gaid.org/steering/annan_27sept06.html and http://www.un-gaid.org/steering/hachani_27sept06.html respectively. Best, Renate Bloem President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: rbloem at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 08:35:55 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 05:35:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Re In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005080014.02bdfcd8@veni.com> Message-ID: <20061005123555.35541.qmail@web52214.mail.yahoo.com> Veni, I would appreciate receiving a clarification regarding point 5 in the ICANN Affirmation of Responsibilities. This point states (in part): "TLD Management: ICANN shall continue to enforce existing policy relating to WHOIS, such existing policy requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing and administrative contact information." My questions are as follows: 1. The public presentation of billing contact information is not a current requirement under the terms of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and as such does not constitute an element of existing policy relating to WHOIS. Why then is the Board stipulating that unrestricted public access to billing contact information is an element of current WHOIS policy? 2. What constitutes "enforcement" of existing policy relating to WHOIS? Does this mean that the use of proxy services will be banned by ICANN? Have Directors discussed this possibility? 3. As there seem to be many issues associated with point 5, have Directors discussed the possibility of seeking a clarifying amendment under the terms of Section IIIC of the Joint Agreement? Which Directors favored asking for a clarification? Which Directors opposed such a move? 4. Why didn't ICANN act to affirm the enforcement of other policies (such as those that focus on security by requiring registrant data escrow)? Why did the Board agree to single out only WHOIS policy for enforcement? As always, looking forward to your elucidations, Danny --- Veni Markovski wrote: > At 04:25 PM 04.10.2006 '?.'ÿˆö -0400, Milton > Mueller wrote: > >Twomey distances himself and ICANN from the new > JPA. Good. > > Milton, > I guess that doesn't change your opinion, right? > > > > Sincerely, > Veni Markovski __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Thu Oct 5 08:35:58 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:35:58 +0800 Subject: [governance] Question on IGF Advisory Group selection Message-ID: <4524FC2E.1020909@Malcolm.id.au> Apart from the civil society candidates nominated by the IGC Nomcom to the IGF Secretariat, does anyone know if there was a similar process for nomination of candidates for the Advisory Group by the other stakeholder groups? I believe ISOC was asked, but can find no mention of a nomination process for private sector, intergovernmental or governmental stakeholders anywhere (though, for that matter, there was no mention on the IGF Web site that the Secretariat would be receiving nominations from civil society other than directly from candidates, either). TIA -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3256 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From veni at veni.com Thu Oct 5 08:44:39 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 08:44:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Re In-Reply-To: <20061005123555.35541.qmail@web52214.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005080014.02bdfcd8@veni.com> <20061005123555.35541.qmail@web52214.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005083941.059f7b30@veni.com> point of order - it's good to NOT copy NCUC-DISCUSS, for which obviously only some of the people are subscribed. I don't understand what netiquette is this one, where a member of a list, addresses some questions, and cross-posts, without giving the others the option of responding in all lists. Danny, We already have had this argument some time ago. I am not ICANN's lawyer or clarification-writer. I think that there are at least two different opinions on the paragraph you quote. If you have questions for the Board, my advise is to address them to Vint Cerf as chair. I don't see that "many issues" are associated with point 5. I see another good step for the Internet in the JPA. But again - that's what I see. You, aparantly, see differently. veni At 05:35 AM 05.10.2006 '?.' -0700, Danny Younger wrote: >Veni, > >I would appreciate receiving a clarification regarding >point 5 in the ICANN Affirmation of Responsibilities. >This point states (in part): > >"TLD Management: ICANN shall continue to enforce >existing policy relating to WHOIS, such existing >policy requires that ICANN implement measures to >maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to >accurate and complete WHOIS information, including >registrant, technical, billing and administrative >contact information." > >My questions are as follows: > >1. The public presentation of billing contact >information is not a current requirement under the >terms of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and as >such does not constitute an element of existing policy >relating to WHOIS. Why then is the Board stipulating >that unrestricted public access to billing contact >information is an element of current WHOIS policy? > >2. What constitutes "enforcement" of existing policy >relating to WHOIS? Does this mean that the use of >proxy services will be banned by ICANN? Have >Directors discussed this possibility? > >3. As there seem to be many issues associated with >point 5, have Directors discussed the possibility of >seeking a clarifying amendment under the terms of >Section IIIC of the Joint Agreement? Which Directors >favored asking for a clarification? Which Directors >opposed such a move? > >4. Why didn't ICANN act to affirm the enforcement of >other policies (such as those that focus on security >by requiring registrant data escrow)? Why did the >Board agree to single out only WHOIS policy for >enforcement? > >As always, looking forward to your elucidations, > >Danny > > > >--- Veni Markovski wrote: > > > At 04:25 PM 04.10.2006 '?.'Ъ┬Ж -0400, Milton > > Mueller wrote: > > >Twomey distances himself and ICANN from the new > > JPA. Good. > > > > Milton, > > I guess that doesn't change your opinion, right? > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > Veni Markovski > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 09:01:35 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 06:01:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Re In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005083941.059f7b30@veni.com> Message-ID: <20061005130135.38721.qmail@web52206.mail.yahoo.com> Veni, I hit the Reply All button when I responded to your email. If you didn't want the conversation directed to NCUC-DISCUSS then you shouldn't have included their address. ... and thanks once again for dodging all the questions. Your contribution to enhanced transparency is noted. "ICANN will innovate and aspire to be a leader in the area of transparency for organizations involved in private sector management." -- Affirmation of Responsibilities Point #2. regards, Danny --- Veni Markovski wrote: > point of order - it's good to NOT copy > NCUC-DISCUSS, for which obviously only some of > the people are subscribed. I don't understand > what netiquette is this one, where a member of a > list, addresses some questions, and cross-posts, > without giving the others the option of responding > in all lists. > > > Danny, > > We already have had this argument some time ago. > I am not ICANN's lawyer or clarification-writer. > I think that there are at least two different > opinions on the paragraph you quote. If you have > questions for the Board, my advise is to address > them to Vint Cerf as chair. > > I don't see that "many issues" are associated > with point 5. I see another good step for the > Internet in the JPA. But again - that's what I > see. You, aparantly, see differently. > > veni > > At 05:35 AM 05.10.2006 '?.' -0700, Danny Younger > wrote: > >Veni, > > > >I would appreciate receiving a clarification > regarding > >point 5 in the ICANN Affirmation of > Responsibilities. > >This point states (in part): > > > >"TLD Management: ICANN shall continue to enforce > >existing policy relating to WHOIS, such existing > >policy requires that ICANN implement measures to > >maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to > >accurate and complete WHOIS information, including > >registrant, technical, billing and administrative > >contact information." > > > >My questions are as follows: > > > >1. The public presentation of billing contact > >information is not a current requirement under the > >terms of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and > as > >such does not constitute an element of existing > policy > >relating to WHOIS. Why then is the Board > stipulating > >that unrestricted public access to billing contact > >information is an element of current WHOIS policy? > > > >2. What constitutes "enforcement" of existing > policy > >relating to WHOIS? Does this mean that the use of > >proxy services will be banned by ICANN? Have > >Directors discussed this possibility? > > > >3. As there seem to be many issues associated with > >point 5, have Directors discussed the possibility > of > >seeking a clarifying amendment under the terms of > >Section IIIC of the Joint Agreement? Which > Directors > >favored asking for a clarification? Which > Directors > >opposed such a move? > > > >4. Why didn't ICANN act to affirm the enforcement > of > >other policies (such as those that focus on > security > >by requiring registrant data escrow)? Why did the > >Board agree to single out only WHOIS policy for > >enforcement? > > > >As always, looking forward to your elucidations, > > > >Danny > > > > > > > >--- Veni Markovski wrote: > > > > > At 04:25 PM 04.10.2006 '?.'ÿˆö -0400, Milton > > > Mueller wrote: > > > >Twomey distances himself and ICANN from the new > > > JPA. Good. > > > > > > Milton, > > > I guess that doesn't change your opinion, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Veni Markovski > > > > > >__________________________________________________ > >Do You Yahoo!? > >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > >http://mail.yahoo.com > > > Sincerely, > Veni Markovski > http://www.veni.com > > check also my blog: > http://blog.veni.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the > list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Oct 5 09:12:52 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:12:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Re In-Reply-To: <20061005130135.38721.qmail@web52206.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005083941.059f7b30@veni.com> <20061005130135.38721.qmail@web52206.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005090249.056f05c8@veni.com> At 06:01 AM 05.10.2006 '?.' -0700, Danny Younger wrote: >Veni, > >I hit the Reply All button when I responded to your >email. If you didn't want the conversation directed >to NCUC-DISCUSS then you shouldn't have included their >address. Danny, obviously you are writing quite quickly. I responded to the message from Milton; this address was there. And I got the error message, that I am not subscribed. You wrote me afterwards, and if you have received such a response, you wouldn't include the address in your current (second) response. The fact that you did (I just removed it from my CC field) shows that you are subscribed. >... and thanks once again for dodging all the >questions. Your contribution to enhanced transparency >is noted. > >"ICANN will innovate and aspire to be a leader in the >area of transparency for organizations involved in >private sector management." -- Affirmation of >Responsibilities Point #2. Danny, Danny... there's so much pain in the world. I believe you are mixing again ICANN with individuals. Or individuals with ICANN. In anycase, you are mixing people with institutions. Your questions were addressed to the wrong person, and I told you who you should address them to. However, instead of doing that, you prefer to go along the same old way of communicating. I am not a politician to "fight" for approval of my responses. If you have asked me a question, I would have responded. You asked ICANN a question, and there's no ground whatsoever for you to exepct a response from me. I will write it slowly, so that you could read it. See comments below. > > >My questions are as follows: > > > > > >1. The public presentation of billing contact > > >information is not a current requirement under the > > >terms of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and > > as > > >such does not constitute an element of existing > > policy > > >relating to WHOIS. Why then is the Board > > stipulating > > >that unrestricted public access to billing contact > > >information is an element of current WHOIS policy? This is a question for the Board, not for me. > > > > > >2. What constitutes "enforcement" of existing > > policy > > >relating to WHOIS? Does this mean that the use of > > >proxy services will be banned by ICANN? Have > > >Directors discussed this possibility? Again a question about ICANN. As for the discussions you know that there will be minutes, and you will be able to find out what has been discussed there. > > > > > >3. As there seem to be many issues associated with > > >point 5, have Directors discussed the possibility see above. > > > > > >4. Why didn't ICANN act to a question for ICANN, not for me. That's why I didn't respond. And I will continue not to respond to questions, which are not addressed to me. Hope that this makes it a little bit more clear for you? Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From chun at peacenet.or.kr Thu Oct 5 09:21:46 2006 From: chun at peacenet.or.kr (Chun Eung Hwi) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 22:21:46 +0900 (KST) Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Re In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005083941.059f7b30@veni.com> Message-ID: Dear Veni, Paul Twomey's quick response was definitely much better than nothing. However, there seems to be still unclear things. Danny Younger's questions are mine as well. Maybe, anybody who read the point 5 of JPA carefully would have had such questions in their minds. Moreover, for last four or five years, we, NCUC, have focused on whois policy rather than any other issues. You should understand this sensitivity in this community. Of course, we could have different views, but what matters is to ensure the principle of bottom-up consensus no matter what some governments intend to do. For this purpose, we should ask legitimate questions and clarify some suspicious points as much as possible. Fortunately or unfortunately, I have learned this lesson from my experience in ICANN. regards, Chun On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Veni Markovski wrote: > point of order - it's good to NOT copy > NCUC-DISCUSS, for which obviously only some of > the people are subscribed. I don't understand > what netiquette is this one, where a member of a > list, addresses some questions, and cross-posts, > without giving the others the option of responding in all lists. > > > Danny, > > We already have had this argument some time ago. > I am not ICANN's lawyer or clarification-writer. > I think that there are at least two different > opinions on the paragraph you quote. If you have > questions for the Board, my advise is to address them to Vint Cerf as chair. > > I don't see that "many issues" are associated > with point 5. I see another good step for the > Internet in the JPA. But again - that's what I > see. You, aparantly, see differently. > > veni > > At 05:35 AM 05.10.2006 '?.' -0700, Danny Younger wrote: > >Veni, > > > >I would appreciate receiving a clarification regarding > >point 5 in the ICANN Affirmation of Responsibilities. > >This point states (in part): > > > >"TLD Management: ICANN shall continue to enforce > >existing policy relating to WHOIS, such existing > >policy requires that ICANN implement measures to > >maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to > >accurate and complete WHOIS information, including > >registrant, technical, billing and administrative > >contact information." > > > >My questions are as follows: > > > >1. The public presentation of billing contact > >information is not a current requirement under the > >terms of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and as > >such does not constitute an element of existing policy > >relating to WHOIS. Why then is the Board stipulating > >that unrestricted public access to billing contact > >information is an element of current WHOIS policy? > > > >2. What constitutes "enforcement" of existing policy > >relating to WHOIS? Does this mean that the use of > >proxy services will be banned by ICANN? Have > >Directors discussed this possibility? > > > >3. As there seem to be many issues associated with > >point 5, have Directors discussed the possibility of > >seeking a clarifying amendment under the terms of > >Section IIIC of the Joint Agreement? Which Directors > >favored asking for a clarification? Which Directors > >opposed such a move? > > > >4. Why didn't ICANN act to affirm the enforcement of > >other policies (such as those that focus on security > >by requiring registrant data escrow)? Why did the > >Board agree to single out only WHOIS policy for > >enforcement? > > > >As always, looking forward to your elucidations, > > > >Danny > > > > > > > >--- Veni Markovski wrote: > > > > > At 04:25 PM 04.10.2006 '?.'��� -0400, Milton > > > Mueller wrote: > > > >Twomey distances himself and ICANN from the new > > > JPA. Good. > > > > > > Milton, > > > I guess that doesn't change your opinion, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Veni Markovski > > > > > >__________________________________________________ > >Do You Yahoo!? > >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > >http://mail.yahoo.com > > > Sincerely, > Veni Markovski > http://www.veni.com > > check also my blog: > http://blog.veni.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Chun Eung Hwi General Secretary, PeaceNet | fax: (+82) 2-2649-2624 Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 | pcs: (+82) 19-259-2667 Seoul, 158-600, Korea | eMail: chun at peacenet.or.kr ------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Oct 5 09:29:56 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 09:29:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Highlights of GAID Steering Committee In-Reply-To: <20061005123357.D2A0ADA8EB@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20061005123357.D2A0ADA8EB@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: On 5 okt 2006, at 08.33, Parminder wrote: > And it is useful to see it in the context where the African Civil > Society for the Information Society is making appeals for pro- > active assistance for ensuring CS participants to attend MAG meetings. this is a big item that has been missing from all of the recent civil society efforts - the effort to raise enough money to allow civil society from all regions and economic status to be able to attend the many important post-wsis meetings. i think that at some point, some of the people in the IGC and others, who know how to raise funds should form a funding sub-group to figure out how to come up with continuing funding for participation. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Oct 5 09:38:18 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:38:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Re In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005083941.059f7b30@veni.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005092746.0571d140@veni.com> At 10:21 PM 05.10.2006 '?.'Ъ┬Ж +0900, Chun Eung Hwi wrote: >Danny Younger's questions are mine as well. I am sorry that I can't respond on behalf of ICANN - but obviously there's a way to address such questions to ICANN, right? >Maybe, anybody who read the point 5 of JPA carefully would have had such >questions in their minds. I've read the whole JPA, including point 5, and I have responded to this (and other questions), and I have asked questions, and I have received responses. Paul also responds to some of the questions, asked by Bruce. >policy rather than any other issues. You should understand this >sensitivity in this community. Yes, I see that this community here is quite sensitive. Interestingly enough, some of the community members are not so sensitive, when they have to ask questions to the right people. Instead they attack me, who happen to be on the Board, because I wouldn't respond "for ICANN". >Of course, we could have different views, but what matters is to ensure >the principle of bottom-up consensus no matter what some governments >intend to do. For this purpose, we should ask legitimate questions and >clarify some suspicious points as much as possible. Fortunately or >unfortunately, I have learned this lesson from my experience in ICANN. I agree with you - and Danny could ask me any questions, but should not get upset when I just point him he's asking me the wrong questions. Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 10:27:24 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 07:27:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Re In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005092746.0571d140@veni.com> Message-ID: <20061005142725.68500.qmail@web52206.mail.yahoo.com> Veni, The issue is that the Joint Project Agreement serves to demonstrate that ICANN is once again acting as an unaccountable worldwide legislature. ICANN has promulgated a worldwide rule that declares that gTLD WHOIS billing contact data must now be publicly displayed. This declaration of new policy transpired without the benefit of community input and totally outside of what could have been a legitimate ICANN policy development process. This "legislation" (desired by intellectual property groups located mainly in the US) is exported to the nations of the world without community participation or consent. Such an action engenders a significant amount of hostility against both ICANN and the USG that insisted upon this clause. As a member of the WHOIS Task Force stated: "events" have overcome everything that was once ICANN. It certainly makes for a much easier reform process. We'd just need to model around this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet_state and call it a day. With respect to WHOIS considerations, ICANN has decided to become the vassal of the USG. I don't view this as a positive development. Do you? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Thu Oct 5 10:29:51 2006 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 16:29:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Re In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005092746.0571d140@veni.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005083941.059f7b30@veni.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061005092746.0571d140@veni.com> Message-ID: One question to the learned persons of this forum: What impact will this new development at ICCAN have on the whole internet concept in Africa; from the positive and the negative perspective Thanks for availing your precious time to this question Warm regards Aaron On 10/5/06, Veni Markovski wrote: > At 10:21 PM 05.10.2006 '?.'Ъ┬Ж +0900, Chun Eung Hwi wrote: > > >Danny Younger's questions are mine as well. > > I am sorry that I can't respond on behalf of > ICANN - but obviously there's a way to address such questions to ICANN, right? > > >Maybe, anybody who read the point 5 of JPA carefully would have had such > >questions in their minds. > > I've read the whole JPA, including point 5, and I > have responded to this (and other questions), and > I have asked questions, and I have received > responses. Paul also responds to some of the questions, asked by Bruce. > > >policy rather than any other issues. You should understand this > >sensitivity in this community. > > Yes, I see that this community here is quite > sensitive. Interestingly enough, some of the > community members are not so sensitive, when they > have to ask questions to the right people. > Instead they attack me, who happen to be on the > Board, because I wouldn't respond "for ICANN". > > >Of course, we could have different views, but what matters is to ensure > >the principle of bottom-up consensus no matter what some governments > >intend to do. For this purpose, we should ask legitimate questions and > >clarify some suspicious points as much as possible. Fortunately or > >unfortunately, I have learned this lesson from my experience in ICANN. > > I agree with you - and Danny could ask me any > questions, but should not get upset when I just > point him he's asking me the wrong questions. > > > > Sincerely, > Veni Markovski > http://www.veni.com > > check also my blog: > http://blog.veni.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President ASAFE Tel. 237 337 50 22 Fax. 237 342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Oct 5 10:36:54 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:36:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Re In-Reply-To: <20061005142725.68500.qmail@web52206.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005092746.0571d140@veni.com> <20061005142725.68500.qmail@web52206.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005103310.059fb580@veni.com> Danny, you have an opinion already. If you are asking me whether I agree with it, my response is no, I don't. If you were first asking questions, before forming your opinion, then we might have had a discussion. We can't have discussion, where we have different opinions. It will be just stating them. You've done so. I've done that by voting. veni At 07:27 AM 05.10.2006 '?.' -0700, Danny Younger wrote: >Veni, > >The issue is that the Joint Project Agreement serves >to demonstrate that ICANN is once again acting as an >unaccountable worldwide legislature. ICANN has >promulgated a worldwide rule that declares that gTLD >WHOIS billing contact data must now be publicly >displayed. > >This declaration of new policy transpired without the >benefit of community input and totally outside of what >could have been a legitimate ICANN policy development >process. > >This "legislation" (desired by intellectual property >groups located mainly in the US) is exported to the >nations of the world without community participation >or consent. Such an action engenders a significant >amount of hostility against both ICANN and the USG >that insisted upon this clause. > >As a member of the WHOIS Task Force stated: > >"events" have overcome everything that was once ICANN. >It certainly makes for a much easier reform process. >We'd just need to model around this - >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet_state and call it >a day. > >With respect to WHOIS considerations, ICANN has >decided to become the vassal of the USG. I don't view >this as a positive development. Do you? > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 5 11:15:03 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 18:15:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Re In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005083941.059f7b30@veni.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061005092746.0571d140@veni.com> Message-ID: On 10/5/06, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > One question to the learned persons of this forum: > What impact will this new development at ICCAN have on the whole > internet concept in Africa; from the positive and the negative > perspective zero -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Oct 5 11:19:16 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:19:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Re In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005083941.059f7b30@veni.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061005092746.0571d140@veni.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005111755.05762848@veni.com> At 06:15 PM 05.10.2006 '?.'Ъ┬Ж +0300, McTim wrote: >On 10/5/06, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: >>One question to the learned persons of this forum: >> What impact will this new development at ICCAN have on the whole >>internet concept in Africa; from the positive and the negative >>perspective > >zero I am not so sure. It would be good to wait four more weeks and find it out in Athens. Many African countries used to have issues with the MoU. That may change. In any case, the Internet governance model is not going to be the same with the JPA. Perhaps some reactions against are also driven because of this fact. Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Thu Oct 5 11:35:46 2006 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:35:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] Results from the charter ballot In-Reply-To: <003a01c6e70a$f80dc8e0$0a01a8c0@TLFMDOM.local> References: <003a01c6e70a$f80dc8e0$0a01a8c0@TLFMDOM.local> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20061005163538.04015b68@gn.apc.org> ditto avri good work! karen At 17:42 03/10/2006, Dave Kissoondoyal wrote: >Thank-you Avri for all your dedication and efforts in the whole process. > >It is highly appreciated > >Best regards > >Dave Kissoondoyal >President >ISOC Mauritius >PIR .ORG Advisory Council Member >IT Director - Teleforma Mauritius Ltd > >-----Original Message----- >From: governance-owner+dave=isoc-mu.org at lists.cpsr.org >[mailto:governance-owner+dave=isoc-mu.org at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri >Doria >Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:12 PM >To: Governance Caucus >Subject: [governance] Results from the charter ballot > >Hi, > >I have now closed the ballot and am tentatively announcing the >results. The reason it is tentative is that I want to give people on >this list who may have voted but who don't feel their vote was >accounted for a chance to raise a protest. In this email I will: > >a. list the results. >b. list the names of those who account for the quorum >c. list some of the problems that were with the software that cause a >discrepancy between the sum of votes reflected in (a) and the quorum >list in (b). >d. list of next steps. > >a. Quorum for the vote was met with 62 votes > > - The charter was accepted with a vote of > 56 votes for > 3 votes against > > - Voting style was determined as being open with the opportunity >for > the coordinators to close a vote, subject to appeal > 19 for Secret ballots > 30 for Open ballots > > - regarding the method of selecting the Appeals Team > 35 in favor of using a Nomcom > 9 in favor of voting > > - regarding the method of selecting nominees to other bodies > 34 in favor of using a nomcom > 10 in favor of voting > >Note: results can be verified by sending >eVote stats >to the appropriate list (same subject as was used to vote) > >------------------------------- > >b. the Quorum was made up of the following people: > >Those for whom a vote is recorded > >A Michael Froomkin >Adam Peake >Anita Gurumurthy >Annette Muehlberg >Anriette Esterhuysen, >avri doria >Bertrand de La Chapelle >Brenden Kuerbis >Carlos Alfonso >Chung Eung Hwi >Danny Butt >Dave Kissoondoyal >David Allen >David Goldstein >Derrick L Cogburn >Garth Graham >German Valdez >Giacomo Mazzone >Gurumurthy K >Ian Peter >Izumi Aizu >Jacqueline Morris >Jeanette Hofmann >Jeremy Shtern >John Mathiason >Joseph SARR >Karen Banks >Ken Lohento >Louis Pouzin >Maja Andjelkovic >Mawaki Chango >Max Senges >McTim >Meryem Marzouki >Milton Mueller >Mridula Swamy >Nnenna Nwakanma >Norbert Bollow >Norbert Klein >Nyangkwe Agien Aaron >Parminder Jeet Singh >Patrick Vande Walle >Piyoo Kochar >Qusai Al-Shatti >Rainer Kuhlen >Ralf Bendrath >Renate Bloem >Robert Guerra >Shoba Viswanathan >Siavash Shahshah >Susan Crawford >Sylvia Caras >Tapani Tarvainen >Valeria Betancourt >William J Drake >Willie Currie >Vittorio Bertola >Vivek Vaidyanathan > >Those for whom a vote is not recorded. > >Bret Fausett >Hans Klein >Michael Gurstein >Sudhir Krishnaswamy > >--------------------- > >c. Discrepancy. > >The four whose participation is recorded in the quorum but not the >results are for the following set of reasons. > >i. 2 votes were not sent successfully to eVote because of excess >characters in the message > (i.e. not plain text) > >ii. 1 vote was sent to the wrong list. > >iii. 1 vote was dropped through some still undiagnosed combination of >operator error (i.e. me) and a software fault. > >I have not listed them in the result tallies, even though for 3 out >of the 4 cases their vote was inadvertently made public due to the >error/list the vote was sent on, because it cannot be verified using >the voting tool. > >This bothers me, because I do not feel good about ignoring someone's >vote in any case. If the votes would materially have changed the >results then I would appeal to this group (not having an appeals team >yet) for an acceptable solution. Since they would not change the >results, I am suggesting that they be included in the quorum and >hence list of people voting, but not be included in the results. > >---------- > >d. next steps > >1. anyone who believes they are misrepresented as having voted when >they didn't should let me know. > >2. anyone who believes they did vote but are not listed as having >voted should let me know. If possible please forward me the receipt >you were sent when you voted. > >3. anyone who objects to the results or to the way i am handling them >should discuss this on the list. > >4. i will meantime edit the proposed charter to remove the choice-not- >taken regarding voting styles and methods for selecting the appeals >team and to fix a few a few spelling/grammatical errors that were >pointed out to me during the vote. > >5. by Friday, i will publish the edited version of the charter which >i believe constitutes the agreed upon text. I will also specifically >list any changes i made in spelling/grammar. if anyone believes that >these change the meaning in _any_ way, i will revert to the language >of the proposed text wether it is grammatically correct or not. > >6. At that point, barring any obvious consensus against doing so, the >charter will be the charter of the IGC. At that point I will >propose specifics for electing the proper coordinators and for >setting up the nomcom to select the appeals team. One question to be >resolved is whether the election of coordinators will be open or >closed - i will start a thread on this shortly. People should also >start to consider candidates for the coordinator and appeals team roles. > >7. I will continue to work with the evote developer and the volunteer >who is working on the interface to understand the various bugs, to >fix them and to improve the tool, especially the user interface. > >Finally I want to thank all those who voted and all those who >encouraged others to vote. > >thanks >a. > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 5 12:01:39 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 19:01:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Re In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005111755.05762848@veni.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005083941.059f7b30@veni.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061005092746.0571d140@veni.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061005111755.05762848@veni.com> Message-ID: On 10/5/06, Veni Markovski wrote: > At 06:15 PM 05.10.2006 '?.'Ъ┬Ж +0300, McTim wrote: > >On 10/5/06, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > >>One question to the learned persons of this forum: > >> What impact will this new development at ICCAN have on the whole > >>internet concept in Africa; from the positive and the negative > >>perspective > > > >zero > > I am not so sure. It would be good to wait four > more weeks and find it out in Athens. Many > African countries used to have issues with the > MoU. That may change. well, changing a governments perception isn't going to change the cost of access or increase internet penetration in Africa. neither will attending a non-binding forum that has no authority to change national laws or policies. If, for examplke, the IGF or ICANN could reduce the Int'l gateway fee from 250,000 USD to something sane, then they could have an impact, but as it stands, I see zero impact. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Oct 5 12:04:12 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 12:04:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Re In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005083941.059f7b30@veni.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061005092746.0571d140@veni.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061005111755.05762848@veni.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005120303.05509350@veni.com> At 07:01 PM 05.10.2006 '?.' +0300, McTim wrote: >On 10/5/06, Veni Markovski >wrote: > At 06:15 PM 05.10.2006 '?.'Ъ┬Ж +0300, >McTim wrote: > >On 10/5/06, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > wrote: > >>One >question to the learned persons of this >forum: > >> What impact will this new >development at ICCAN have on the >whole > >>internet concept in Africa; from the >positive and the >negative > >>perspective > > > >zero > > I am >not so sure. It would be good to wait four > >more weeks and find it out in Athens. Many > >African countries used to have issues with the > >MoU. That may change. well, changing a >governments perception isn't going to change the >cost of access or increase internet penetration >in Africa. neither will attending a non-binding >forum that has no authority to change national >laws or policies. If, for examplke, the IGF or >ICANN could reduce the Int'l gateway fee from >250,000 USD to something sane, then they could >have an impact, but as it stands, I see zero >impact. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim Actually the cost of access may change, if the governments change their policies. This has happened in other developing countries. The IGF is a place where this can be discussed. Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Thu Oct 5 12:48:38 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 12:48:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation Message-ID: >>> dogwallah at gmail.com 10/4/2006 4:42 PM >>> On 10/4/06, Milton Mueller wrote: >> Twomey distances himself and ICANN from the new JPA. > >how do you reckon that from the below? He has to explicitly assert that ICANN has the freedom to alter its current Whois policy. This is not what the USG wants. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Thu Oct 5 12:50:16 2006 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 09:50:16 -0700 Subject: [governance] Conference: Internet and the Law Message-ID: Is anyone here planning to go to this next April? I had hoped to attend the whole thing but there are no registration scholarships being offered. I'm wondering whether to just go for one day and then do some touring in the area. Sylvia Center for International Legal Studies: Sessions will deal with topics such as Internet Governance beyond the Nation State, Cyber Regulation, Convergence of Telecommunications, PC and Broadcast; Competition; Deregulation; Free Speech vs. Defamation/Hate Speech, Privacy vs. Security; Consumer Protection, Cryptography, Domain Name, Open Source, Patents, Copyright, Trademarks, Cybercrime and Terrorism, E-Commerce, Legal Liability and e-Transactions, Property and Piracy, Telemarketing Fraud et. al. // An informal networking dinner kicks off proceedings on Wednesday, 25 April. The Thursday dinner and reception is hosted at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum and will include private tours of the museum. Friday is open for optional hospitality and individual dinners and the symposium will conclude Saturday with a dinner at the Peabody Hotel. http://cils.net/conferences/conference.php?ConferenceID=183&&PHPSESSID=0911582329da21792f1b7aed04188e7a ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nne75 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 13:37:55 2006 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 10:37:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Conference: Internet and the Law In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061005173755.21146.qmail@web50215.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Sylvia, all I was actually contacted for this conference and did express interest. You will find the latest info on registration which was sent to me attached to this mail Same problems here, funding... Best regards Nnenna Sylvia Caras wrote: Is anyone here planning to go to this next April? I had hoped to attend the whole thing but there are no registration scholarships being offered. I'm wondering whether to just go for one day and then do some touring in the area. Sylvia Center for International Legal Studies: Sessions will deal with topics such as Internet Governance beyond the Nation State, Cyber Regulation, Convergence of Telecommunications, PC and Broadcast; Competition; Deregulation; Free Speech vs. Defamation/Hate Speech, Privacy vs. Security; Consumer Protection, Cryptography, Domain Name, Open Source, Patents, Copyright, Trademarks, Cybercrime and Terrorism, E-Commerce, Legal Liability and e-Transactions, Property and Piracy, Telemarketing Fraud et. al. // An informal networking dinner kicks off proceedings on Wednesday, 25 April. The Thursday dinner and reception is hosted at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum and will include private tours of the museum. Friday is open for optional hospitality and individual dinners and the symposium will conclude Saturday with a dinner at the Peabody Hotel. http://cils.net/conferences/conference.php?ConferenceID=183&&PHPSESSID=0911582329da21792f1b7aed04188e7a ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Legal conference April 2007.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 51002 bytes Desc: 884448684-Legal conference April 2007.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 5 13:50:19 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 20:50:19 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Re In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005120303.05509350@veni.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005083941.059f7b30@veni.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061005092746.0571d140@veni.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061005111755.05762848@veni.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061005120303.05509350@veni.com> Message-ID: On 10/5/06, Veni Markovski wrote: > > Actually the cost of access may change, if the > governments change their policies. This has > happened in other developing countries. The IGF > is a place where this can be discussed. > discussed, but not accomplished. what will change access costs and penetration rates are market mechanisms, which respond to gov't intervention or lack thereof. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Oct 5 14:55:42 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:55:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Re In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005083941.059f7b30@veni.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061005092746.0571d140@veni.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061005111755.05762848@veni.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061005120303.05509350@veni.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005145405.057cbf40@veni.com> At 08:50 PM 05.10.2006 '?.' +0300, McTim wrote: >On 10/5/06, Veni Markovski wrote: >> >>Actually the cost of access may change, if the >>governments change their policies. This has >>happened in other developing countries. The IGF >>is a place where this can be discussed. > >discussed, but not accomplished. what will change access costs and >penetration rates are market mechanisms, which respond to gov't >intervention or lack thereof. Market mechanisms work where there's a market. In many countries, developing "socialism" in its weird form, threre's no market, or market economy. Governments are the biggest IT-buyers. Check www.internetpolicy.net for some information of how changing the legal framework has managed to make the Internet affordable. best, veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Oct 5 15:00:41 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:00:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005145337.057d34e0@veni.com> At 12:48 PM 05.10.2006 '?.'Ъ┬Ж -0400, you wrote: > >>> dogwallah at gmail.com 10/4/2006 4:42 PM >>> >On 10/4/06, Milton Mueller wrote: > >> Twomey distances himself and ICANN from the new JPA. > > > >how do you reckon that from the below? > >He has to explicitly assert that ICANN has the >freedom to alter its current Whois policy. This is not what the USG wants. I don't understand how are you so certain what the USG wants? Besides, you are arguing with me only, because I am the only director writing in this mailing list. If I remember correctly all the board, with one exception, voted for this JPA. I can understand your frustration from many facts, but the fact is the MoU is over, and the JPA is not the MoU in new clothes - regardless of what you say. Problem with opinions, based on asumptions, is that once you form them, you can't stop defending them. There's nothing wrong in being wrong. There's something wrong when you can't admit you're wrong. My reading of the MoU, including the point of the Whois, is the same as the reading of the European Commission. It may be due to the fact that I am an European, and you are an American. It seems like a cross-cultural issue. In anycase, the language of Mrs. Reding is more clear to me, than many of the wording here, esp. when people start to interprete them. It seems you say one thing, but you mean something different. Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 15:26:20 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 12:26:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005145337.057d34e0@veni.com> Message-ID: <20061005192620.29401.qmail@web52202.mail.yahoo.com> Re: "I don't understand how are you so certain what the USG wants?" UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION TO THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (GAC) AND THE GENERIC NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION (GNSO) ON WHOIS -- http://www.icann.org/presentations/usg-mar-26jun06.pdf __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Oct 5 15:36:19 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:36:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation In-Reply-To: <20061005192620.29401.qmail@web52202.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005145337.057d34e0@veni.com> <20061005192620.29401.qmail@web52202.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005153215.056be838@veni.com> So - are we talking about this point... At 12:26 PM 05.10.2006 '?.' -0700, Danny Younger wrote: >Re: "I don't understand how are you so certain what >the USG wants?" > >UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION TO THE >GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (GAC) AND THE >GENERIC NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION (GNSO) >ON WHOIS -- >http://www.icann.org/presentations/usg-mar-26jun06.pdf ... or about this one... 5. TLD Management: ICANN shall maintain and build on processes to ensure that competition, consumer interests, and Internet DNS stability and security issues are identified and considered in TLD management decisions, including the consideration and implementation of new TLDs and the introduction of IDNs. ICANN will continue to develop its policy development processes, and will further develop processes for taking into account recommendations from ICANN's advisory committees and supporting organizations and other relevant expert advisory panels and organizations. ICANN shall continue to enforce existing policy relating to WHOIS, such existing policy requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing and administrative contact information. ICANN shall continue its efforts to achieve stable agreements with country-code top-level domain (ccTLD) operators. ... because I don't see anything here stating that the ICANN policy can not change. Existing policy is existing at every given moment. Today it's one. Tomorrow it may be different. Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 16:10:55 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 13:10:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005153215.056be838@veni.com> Message-ID: <20061005201055.58358.qmail@web52204.mail.yahoo.com> Veni, Some of us have been dealing with WHOIS policy issues for many years. I participated in Paul Kane's original WHOIS Committee back in 2001. Wouldn't you agree that it is not fair for ICANN to expect volunteers to devote countless man-hours to policy formulation on WHOIS while under a cloud of doubt? As I and others see it, the USG view is rather clearly enunciated. During the three-year term of the Joint Project Agreement "ICANN shall continue to enforce existing policy relating to WHOIS". That's what the language states. The Board has the opportunity under section IIIC of the Agreement to introduce a clarifying amendment that would put an end to your speculation regarding what the USG wants. If you believe that ICANN's WHOIS policy can indeed be changed during the term of the JPA, is it too much to ask the DOC and your fellow Board members jointly to confirm this point? --- Veni Markovski wrote: > So - are we talking about this point... > > > At 12:26 PM 05.10.2006 '?.' -0700, Danny Younger > wrote: > >Re: "I don't understand how are you so certain > what > >the USG wants?" > > > >UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION TO THE > >GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (GAC) AND THE > >GENERIC NAMES SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION (GNSO) > >ON WHOIS -- > >http://www.icann.org/presentations/usg-mar-26jun06.pdf > > ... or about this one... > > > 5. TLD Management: ICANN shall maintain and build on > processes to > ensure that competition, consumer interests, and > Internet DNS > stability and security issues are identified and > considered in TLD > management decisions, including the consideration > and implementation > of new TLDs and the introduction of IDNs. ICANN will > continue to > develop its policy development processes, and will > further develop > processes for taking into account recommendations > from ICANN's > advisory committees and supporting organizations and > other relevant > expert advisory panels and organizations. ICANN > shall continue to > enforce existing policy relating to WHOIS, such > existing policy > requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain > timely, > unrestricted and public access to accurate and > complete WHOIS > information, including registrant, technical, > billing and > administrative contact information. ICANN shall > continue its efforts > to achieve stable agreements with country-code > top-level domain > (ccTLD) operators. > > ... because I don't see anything here stating that > the ICANN policy > can not change. Existing policy is existing at every > given moment. > Today it's one. Tomorrow it may be different. > > > > > Sincerely, > Veni Markovski > http://www.veni.com > > check also my blog: > http://blog.veni.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the > list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Oct 5 16:16:56 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:16:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation In-Reply-To: <20061005201055.58358.qmail@web52204.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005153215.056be838@veni.com> <20061005201055.58358.qmail@web52204.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005161248.05f00770@veni.com> At 01:10 PM 05.10.2006 '?.' -0700, Danny Younger wrote: >Veni, > >Some of us have been dealing with WHOIS policy issues >for many years. Why I am not surprised that you use this line? I've sent you a separate mail 5 minutes before you wrote it - you might have received it by now... >Wouldn't you agree that it is not fair for ICANN to >expect volunteers to devote countless man-hours to >policy formulation on WHOIS while under a cloud of >doubt? Danny, I guess I have to repeat again - I can't speak on behalf of ICANN. When you ask me if I'd agree or not on something for ICANN, you will never get a response. Hope this is clear now? >If you believe that ICANN's WHOIS policy can indeed be >changed during the term of the JPA, is it too much to >ask the DOC and your fellow Board members jointly to >confirm this point? I don't see a reason to confirm something which is there already. I don't doubt it. But then, in the USA they put signs on the coffees in McDonalds "hot coffee", after that lady sued the company and got some money for there was no such warning on the cup. So, I understand why you want explanations on every line. Perhaps the 2-page JPA would look then like a 20-page annex :-) Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Oct 5 16:38:39 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:38:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] Results from the charter ballot In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20061005163538.04015b68@gn.apc.org> References: <003a01c6e70a$f80dc8e0$0a01a8c0@TLFMDOM.local> <7.0.0.16.2.20061005163538.04015b68@gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005163755.0789db00@veni.com> Agree. With the existing slow inertia, it's good Avri managed to get the quorum! veni At 04:35 PM 05.10.2006 '?.'Ъ┬Ж +0100, karen banks wrote: >ditto avri > >good work! > >karen Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Thu Oct 5 17:34:33 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:34:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Results from the charter ballot In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061005163755.0789db00@veni.com> References: <003a01c6e70a$f80dc8e0$0a01a8c0@TLFMDOM.local> <7.0.0.16.2.20061005163538.04015b68@gn.apc.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20061005163755.0789db00@veni.com> Message-ID: On 5 okt 2006, at 16.38, Veni Markovski wrote: > With the existing slow inertia, it's good Avri managed to get the > quorum! i don't want to seem ungrateful or picky (ok, it may be too late to not seem picky), but i did not get the quorum, the IGC got the quorum and it was due largely to the many people on this list that not only voted but who encouraged others to vote. i could have nagged all i wanted, if the people on this list had not cared, it would not have happened. thanks a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From aizu at anr.org Thu Oct 5 17:40:39 2006 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 06:40:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] Results from the charter ballot In-Reply-To: References: <003a01c6e70a$f80dc8e0$0a01a8c0@TLFMDOM.local> <7.0.0.16.2.20061005163538.04015b68@gn.apc.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20061005163755.0789db00@veni.com> Message-ID: True - we got it all by all of us, but that does not undermine your effort, Avri, to take the dirty work and leadeship, I mean modest and humble one. That is, really effective. Like our former co-chairs and co-cordinators. I am really glad that this positive and humble approach, even at the last minute, produced some good outcome. Of course, the real challenge for the Civil Society is how to go from here to there. izumi > > On 5 okt 2006, at 16.38, Veni Markovski wrote: > > > With the existing slow inertia, it's good Avri managed to get the > > quorum! > > > i don't want to seem ungrateful or picky (ok, it may be too late to > not seem picky), but i did not get the quorum, the IGC got the quorum > and it was due largely to the many people on this list that not only > voted but who encouraged others to vote. i could have nagged all i > wanted, if the people on this list had not cared, it would not have > happened. > > thanks > a. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, University of Tama * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Thu Oct 5 17:53:13 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:53:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Results from the charter ballot In-Reply-To: References: <003a01c6e70a$f80dc8e0$0a01a8c0@TLFMDOM.local> <7.0.0.16.2.20061005163538.04015b68@gn.apc.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20061005163755.0789db00@veni.com> Message-ID: <8C6E97D0-7EF3-4057-8929-5F3F5D93E04A@acm.org> On 5 okt 2006, at 17.40, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > Of course, the real challenge for the Civil Society is how to go > from here to there. well other then substantive work, we now have the opportunity to select our leadership going further. i will shortly put out a call for nominations for the 2 co- coordinator roles and will start the process of moving toward their election. so, hopefully, people are thinking about who to nominate. also i will soon need to name a non voting chair for the nomcom that will lead the process of selecting the appeal's team members. i am interested in recommendations. my preference would be for someone who has: - voted in the charter vote - has participated in a nomcom before - could be either the IGC or CS-Plenary one, or could be any other nomcom such as ICANN or IETF and it must be someone who does not with to be one of the co- coordinators. note: - i am not qualified for either of the co-coordinator positions as i will be managing the election - i am not qualified to be the non-voting chair of the nomcom as i am currently in the role of coordinator. i will, however, help the chair in terms of setting up the process such as email lists and web pages, random selection process, etc... thanks a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Oct 6 05:39:00 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 05:39:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC - where to go and how to get there In-Reply-To: References: <003a01c6e70a$f80dc8e0$0a01a8c0@TLFMDOM.local> <7.0.0.16.2.20061005163538.04015b68@gn.apc.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20061005163755.0789db00@veni.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061006050718.02b9da30@veni.com> Izumi and all, >Of course, the real challenge for the Civil Society is how to go >from here to there. There are many real challenges for the CS. Such challenges include, but are not limited to: - mandate - goals - participation - elections - working system The people in this list - they are the same in the last 4 years. Same people go to the meetings. Long time ago I suggested that we form some kind of an NGO, so that we could apply for funding, and start to send new people to these meetings. This idea was note welcome. Perhaps people who could come to the meetings, don't feel like there's a need of fresh ideas. I, on the other hand, feel that we need to bring new people, new ideas, new countries in our discussions. The IGF is a good example of something that could make a difference. It's up to us to see if we can use it to make this opportunity reality. Obviously for the meeting in (less than) four weeks, it's too late to organize well, but we need to think for 2007-2010. I remember the first WSIS, where the CS made a big difference. It was thanks to people, who are still on the list. I don't want to count names, as I may miss someone. But the spirit we all had there, is gone. There was substantial funding from Switzerland to bring people from developing countries, and there were many people there, who contributed a lot. But are they all still with us? My proposal would be to try to create a system within the IGC that will be working, regardless of the enthusiasm of the leadership. Or in other words, what are we going to do if the few people who are always taking the responsibility to lead our efforts (and often initiate these efforts!), decide to go for a vacation? At the moment, our system is working on enthusiasm and volunteers. That's a good system, and it works, but it will work even better, if we can create a mechanism that will regulate such issues. I wouldn't add more details here, because if there's no desire in the list to change the current model into one, which is self-sustainable, then it doesn't make sense. Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Fri Oct 6 06:28:06 2006 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 12:28:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC - where to go and how to get there In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061006050718.02b9da30@veni.com> References: <003a01c6e70a$f80dc8e0$0a01a8c0@TLFMDOM.local> <7.0.0.16.2.20061005163538.04015b68@gn.apc.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20061005163755.0789db00@veni.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061006050718.02b9da30@veni.com> Message-ID: <45262FB6.4090500@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Veni Markovski wrote: > My proposal would be to try to create a system within the IGC that will > be working, regardless of the enthusiasm of the leadership. This is a great idea to bring forward _after_ we just closed the vote on the new IGC charter and procedures. Where on earth have you been when we discussed the re-organization of the caucus for months? BTW: I would not want to work in an NGO environment without enthusiasm. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Oct 6 06:42:34 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 06:42:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC - where to go and how to get there In-Reply-To: <45262FB6.4090500@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <003a01c6e70a$f80dc8e0$0a01a8c0@TLFMDOM.local> <7.0.0.16.2.20061005163538.04015b68@gn.apc.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20061005163755.0789db00@veni.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061006050718.02b9da30@veni.com> <45262FB6.4090500@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061006063346.06218748@veni.com> At 12:28 PM 06.10.2006 '?.'Ъ┬Ж +0200, you wrote: >BTW: I would not want to work in an NGO environment without enthusiasm. Enthusiasm is always good - in the beginning. But if we want to have working system, it's not going to be enough. It's not by accident that at the first WSIS the participation was so well organized, and so many people from different countries could come to Geneva, and contribute. The second WSIS was not so enthusiastic, and the organization for bringing people was not there to the same extent. Let's not forget also the PrepComs, where most of the actual work was done. Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Oct 6 07:48:16 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 13:48:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC - where to go and how to get there In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061006050718.02b9da30@veni.com> References: <003a01c6e70a$f80dc8e0$0a01a8c0@TLFMDOM.local> <7.0.0.16.2.20061005163538.04015b68@gn.apc.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20061005163755.0789db00@veni.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061006050718.02b9da30@veni.com> Message-ID: <45264280.7070803@bertola.eu.org> Veni Markovski ha scritto: > My proposal would be to try to create a system within the IGC that will > be working, regardless of the enthusiasm of the leadership. Or in other > words, what are we going to do if the few people who are always taking > the responsibility to lead our efforts (and often initiate these > efforts!), decide to go for a vacation? At the moment, our system is > working on enthusiasm and volunteers. That's a good system, and it > works, but it will work even better, if we can create a mechanism that > will regulate such issues. I wouldn't add more details here, because if > there's no desire in the list to change the current model into one, > which is self-sustainable, then it doesn't make sense. No political activism ever will work without enthusiasm and volunteers - even when you have a NGO (take as an example our ISOC chapters) you barely manage to collect funding to pay for costs and direct expenses, you almost never get enough to hire professionals. Bigger NGOs might be a different story, but then, what you are proposing is in fact to start a new global "internet governance NGO", right? I think that many of us would be able to keep the enthusiasm even if they were paid for what they do, but I am afraid of the distortions that it would create. For example, many of those who you couldn't pay are likely to reduce their volunteer involvement. And people who are paid or funded might easily become a sort of "bureaucracy" and/or try to stay there forever. In my opinion, lobbying for institutions to put money on funding people's attendance to meeting is a great idea (BTW, while you're still on ICANN's Board, perhaps you could propose something like that to ICANN; we tried to do it on our own, irregularly and very limitedly, with the money we have for the ALAC). On the other hand, turning the IGC into something that directly collects and allocates money is IMHO a very bad idea. Ciao, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From anriette at apc.org Fri Oct 6 05:10:21 2006 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:10:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] Effective participation .... In-Reply-To: <1213.196.207.244.69.1159858984.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> References: <1213.196.207.244.69.1159858984.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> Message-ID: <4526399D.1077.138A1061@anriette.apc.org> Hi all Using this thread on the difficulty for people who cannot afford to get to the IGF (the statement from ACSIS that Ken posted) to raise another participation question. Why are there so few participants from national IG communities in this space, and it appears, going to the IGF? APC has been talking with ISOC ZA (South African chapter) and the local ISPA as we would really like someone to talk about content regulation from a southern internet service provider's perspective at one of our workshops in Athens. As far as I found out no one from the South African ISP association or ISOC chapter was planning to go. With a bit of luck and lots of good will I think we will be able to bring someone from here (SA) to Athens who has a long track record in working on IG issues as well as on content regulation as it impacts on ISPs. But the question remains. Why is ISOC not making it possible for more participants from their national chapters to make it to these global events? And what is it the that IGF is doing, or not doing, that renders it not all that interesting to national registries or operators? The value of global ICT policy forums peaks when they interact with national and regional processes (and actors) to support change that increases rights and access, and lowers costs and barriers to users and operators at local level. Or am I wrong and will local actors (e.g. local/national consumer groups, regulators, internet lawyers, operators, registries etc.) be there and I just don't know about it? Anriette ------------------------------------------------------ Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org http://www.apc.org PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 Tel. 27 11 726 1692 Fax 27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Oct 6 08:20:59 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 08:20:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC - where to go and how to get there In-Reply-To: <45264280.7070803@bertola.eu.org> References: <003a01c6e70a$f80dc8e0$0a01a8c0@TLFMDOM.local> <7.0.0.16.2.20061005163538.04015b68@gn.apc.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20061005163755.0789db00@veni.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20061006050718.02b9da30@veni.com> <45264280.7070803@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061006081211.06617850@veni.com> At 01:48 PM 06.10.2006 '?.' +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >No political activism ever will work without enthusiasm and >volunteers - even when you have a NGO (take as an example our ISOC >chapters) you barely manage to collect funding to pay for costs and >direct expenses, you almost never get enough to hire professionals. Actually I can take as an example different ISOC chapters, and there are different results. See ISOC-Netherland for example from the West, or ISOC-Bulgaria from the countries in transition. >Bigger NGOs might be a different story, but then, what you are >proposing is in fact to start a new global "internet governance NGO", right? No. What we may try to do is bring more and new people. How - doesn't matter. >In my opinion, lobbying for institutions to put money on funding >people's attendance to meeting is a great idea (BTW, while you're >still on ICANN's Board, perhaps you could propose something like >that to ICANN; we tried to do it on our own, irregularly and very >limitedly, with the money we have for the ALAC). On the other hand, >turning the IGC into something that directly collects and allocates >money is IMHO a very bad idea. I will definitely try to do something like that. Keep in mind, though, that ICANN budget is open, public, and you can see on your own if it has enough money. I think ISOC is a better organization to be addressed with this. It has a lot of money, coming from .org, and it should be used for such purposes. Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Fri Oct 6 08:57:00 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 05:57:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGC - where to go and how to get there In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061006081211.06617850@veni.com> Message-ID: <20061006125700.33150.qmail@web52208.mail.yahoo.com> Veni, Re: Keep in mind, though, that ICANN budget is open, public, and you can see on your own... ... and I guess that some things will always be hidden in plain sight -- like the allocations for IANA service. The budget only lists two entries pertaining to the IANA: 1. measure and improve customer satisfaction @ $230,000 2. improve robustness of IANA infrustructure @ $120,000 Is this all that ICANN is spending on IANA services? I can't find another capital spending entry. Can you? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com Fri Oct 6 14:17:46 2006 From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:17:46 -0700 Subject: [governance] Conference: Internet and the Law Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061006111700.02b3c8b8@peoplewho.org> On 10/6/06, Kicki Nordstr=F6m wrote: > Dear Sylvia, > I do not think I can afford this! But are you going to Greece for the IGF? > I have heard that accessibility is on the agenda! Yes, I am going to Athens. And yes, I think W3C is presenting. I will raise the point you made that even if web design is accessible, the computer of the end-user needs updated software and the person might need some retraining. I'm looking forward to meeting in person others from this list. Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Oct 6 18:18:59 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 01:18:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] Effective participation .... In-Reply-To: <4526399D.1077.138A1061@anriette.apc.org> References: <1213.196.207.244.69.1159858984.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> <4526399D.1077.138A1061@anriette.apc.org> Message-ID: Howzit Anriette, On 10/6/06, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Why are there so few participants from national IG communities in this > space, and it appears, going to the IGF? perhaps because they participate in their own little ponds and not so much on a global scale? I think that is the case here in UG, where we have a large-ish group of folk interested in these issues. Seminars and meetings have been sponsored by ISOC in the distant past, recent past by IICD and most recently APC/CIPESA have joined in. Despite this, there is years of capacity building to do to bring most of these folk to the level of discussions on this list or "in this space". > > APC has been talking with ISOC ZA (South African chapter) and the local > ISPA as we would really like someone to talk about content regulation from > a southern internet service provider's perspective at one of our workshops in > Athens. > > As far as I found out no one from the South African ISP association or ISOC > chapter was planning to go. With a bit of luck and lots of good will I think we > will be able to bring someone from here (SA) to Athens who has a long track > record in working on IG issues as well as on content regulation as it impacts > on ISPs. > > But the question remains. Why is ISOC not making it possible for more > participants from their national chapters to make it to these global events? 0) Why single out ISOC? Neither Ken nor Nana mentioned them. 1) You should ask ISOC this via the public policy discussion list or via Chapter delegates list: Chapter-delegates mailing list Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates _______________________________________________ Memberpubpol mailing list Memberpubpol at elists.isoc.org http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/memberpubpol 2) They certainly did make it possible for more ISOC folks to go to to WSIS. 3) AFAIK, it is more the chapters job to send their folk to the IGF, not the Geneva/Reston HQ task. I count 8 ISOC chapter delegations, so the chapters are somewhat active in this area, tho it may be out of scope for some chapters. 4) ISOC already devotes a great deal of time and money on bottom up IG fora, IETF in particuar, so perhaps that remains the focus. > > And what is it the that IGF is doing, or not doing, that renders it not all that > interesting to national registries or operators? I see a number of ccTLD folk and a few large providers, tho not many of either, on the participant list. I would suggest that it is because these fok already participate in the current IG system via bottom up processes, and this non-binding forum may be a bridge too far for many. I know it is not even on the radar for the ISPs I work with. They are far too busy with AfriNIC/AfrISPA/AfNOG etc to spend any cycles, let alone resources on the IGF. > > The value of global ICT policy forums peaks when they interact with national > and regional processes (and actors) to support change that increases rights > and access, and lowers costs and barriers to users and operators at local > level. That may be, but apparently the vast majority of perators/registries don't see the value of the IGF in re: to the above issues. I can't say I blame them. > Or am I wrong and will local actors (e.g. local/national consumer groups, > regulators, internet lawyers, operators, registries etc.) be there and I just > don't know about it? http://www.intgovforum.org/PLP.html shows some of all of the above, except consumer groups. http://info.intgovforum.org/PL.php seems to be a later version. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Oct 7 02:09:55 2006 From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 07:09:55 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Effective participation .... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061007060955.45406.qmail@web25506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Howzit Anriette, On 10/6/06, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Why are there so few participants from national IG communities in this > space, and it appears, going to the IGF? #################### The problem of participation from developing countries goes beyond funding. There a number of issues involved, among which are: 1. Very few people know about IG, ISOC, ICANN, etc. and most of those who know about them (including government officials, IT professionals, academics, those working or doing business in the IT industry, etc.) don't even understand them or the issues involved. 2. They don't know about these conferences, discussions, meetings, cyberspaces, etc. and they don't even know they can attend. 3. Local Chapters of ISOC exist on web pages, when you even send an e-mail enquiry you don't get response 4. Those who are supposed to know don't even know and/ or understand ccTLDs. Some company claims to be sponsoring ccTLDs but doesn't even respond to e-mail enquiries. dot gh for instance is far more expensive than a dot uk and you ask yourself why. Besides no one seems to care. 5. Most of the folks who get to attend these IG related conferences and meetings and represent developing countries probably don't understand the issues - some of them are businessmen and government officials who stand to gain by the status quo. 2. The average person can't get visa to attend these meetings; we are living in a situation where being allowed to travel depends on the whims and caprices of some entry clearance official who doesn't even know about ICANN and probably doesn't even care. 3. The average person can't even afford to fully participate in these online spaces; he cannot afford Internet connection at home and can't pay for a decent Internet access. Internet access is more expensive in developing countries; universities, colleges, schools, can't afford them. Academics as a result don't have them. 5. I have come to live in the UK for 5 years and I'm dreading going back because of Internet access. In the UK regardless of how low your income is you can afford it, in Ghana, it is a luxury and sometimes a status symbol. I work 15 hours a week (my visa allows me to work a max. of 20 hours, as an International student) but I can afford broadband Internet access. 6. Government officials can afford this luxury so why bother 7. ICANN held a general meeting in 2001 in Ghana and local IT professionals didn't know about it; those who knew didn't understand what was going on neither were they aware they could participate. These, in my opinion, are just a few of the issues we are plagued with. ...Kwasi McTim wrote: Howzit Anriette, On 10/6/06, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Why are there so few participants from national IG communities in this > space, and it appears, going to the IGF? perhaps because they participate in their own little ponds and not so much on a global scale? I think that is the case here in UG, where we have a large-ish group of folk interested in these issues. Seminars and meetings have been sponsored by ISOC in the distant past, recent past by IICD and most recently APC/CIPESA have joined in. Despite this, there is years of capacity building to do to bring most of these folk to the level of discussions on this list or "in this space". > > APC has been talking with ISOC ZA (South African chapter) and the local > ISPA as we would really like someone to talk about content regulation from > a southern internet service provider's perspective at one of our workshops in > Athens. > > As far as I found out no one from the South African ISP association or ISOC > chapter was planning to go. With a bit of luck and lots of good will I think we > will be able to bring someone from here (SA) to Athens who has a long track > record in working on IG issues as well as on content regulation as it impacts > on ISPs. > > But the question remains. Why is ISOC not making it possible for more > participants from their national chapters to make it to these global events? 0) Why single out ISOC? Neither Ken nor Nana mentioned them. 1) You should ask ISOC this via the public policy discussion list or via Chapter delegates list: Chapter-delegates mailing list Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates _______________________________________________ Memberpubpol mailing list Memberpubpol at elists.isoc.org http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/memberpubpol 2) They certainly did make it possible for more ISOC folks to go to to WSIS. 3) AFAIK, it is more the chapters job to send their folk to the IGF, not the Geneva/Reston HQ task. I count 8 ISOC chapter delegations, so the chapters are somewhat active in this area, tho it may be out of scope for some chapters. 4) ISOC already devotes a great deal of time and money on bottom up IG fora, IETF in particuar, so perhaps that remains the focus. > > And what is it the that IGF is doing, or not doing, that renders it not all that > interesting to national registries or operators? I see a number of ccTLD folk and a few large providers, tho not many of either, on the participant list. I would suggest that it is because these fok already participate in the current IG system via bottom up processes, and this non-binding forum may be a bridge too far for many. I know it is not even on the radar for the ISPs I work with. They are far too busy with AfriNIC/AfrISPA/AfNOG etc to spend any cycles, let alone resources on the IGF. > > The value of global ICT policy forums peaks when they interact with national > and regional processes (and actors) to support change that increases rights > and access, and lowers costs and barriers to users and operators at local > level. That may be, but apparently the vast majority of perators/registries don't see the value of the IGF in re: to the above issues. I can't say I blame them. > Or am I wrong and will local actors (e.g. local/national consumer groups, > regulators, internet lawyers, operators, registries etc.) be there and I just > don't know about it? http://www.intgovforum.org/PLP.html shows some of all of the above, except consumer groups. http://info.intgovforum.org/PL.php seems to be a later version. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance "In the END, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends" - Martin Luther King, Jr. Visit me at: www.boakye-akyeampong.zoomshare.com --------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos – NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 7p a photo. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Oct 7 06:22:27 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 13:22:27 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC - where to go and how to get there In-Reply-To: <20061006125700.33150.qmail@web52208.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061006081211.06617850@veni.com> <20061006125700.33150.qmail@web52208.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 10/6/06, Danny Younger wrote: > Veni, > > Re: Keep in mind, though, that ICANN budget is open, > public, and you can see on your own... > > ... and I guess that some things will always be hidden > in plain sight -- like the allocations for IANA > service. > > The budget only lists two entries pertaining to the > IANA: > > 1. measure and improve customer satisfaction @ > $230,000 > 2. improve robustness of IANA infrustructure @ > $120,000 > > Is this all that ICANN is spending on IANA services? Well obviousllly the big non-capital spend for IANA is staff -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Sat Oct 7 11:17:09 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 11:17:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC-charter_final-draft.html posted Message-ID: <47B9EB5C-8A76-416E-BC32-C387ABAF58D6@acm.org> Hi, The charter reflecting the choices made during the vote can be found at: http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-draft.html The draft, ass it was during the vote, can still be found at: http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_proposed.html As I mentioned, during the process of voting, I received some comments about spelling and grammatical errors as well as some stylistic and substantive comments. I think that for some people it was probably one of the few times they actually read the text carefully. While I was somewhat apprehensive about making any changes once the vote was complete, I decided that fixing a few grammatical and spelling errors might not be a problem. I tried to only make changes that cleaned the text up and avoided any change which i thought was risked changing substantive content in any way. I also avoided the stylistic suggestions for several reasons: - anything but the simplest grammatical change can change subtle meanings. I did not want to risk that sort of change. - i did not think it appropriate to start a wholesale rewrite without going into the ammendment process - i do not wish to start an amendment process at this time. Sometime after we have lived with this charter for a while, we will definitlely want to change things. At that point we can go though a stylistic edit if that is what the IGC as a whole wishes to do. As i indicated, while I was willing to clean up the document, the draft that was voted on is the IGC approved draft. So if _any_ voter objects to a changes i made, i will return to the workindg in the original version. As I mentioned above, I do not think we should get into an editing session at this point and I do believe that while the changes are ok to make, it is preferable to return to possible errors then it is to go through any word-smithing exercise. I know that I do not have time at this point to get into extensive editing or revoting. There is one exception from the above, I appended a statement to the end of the charter indicating the date and conditions under which the charter was accepted. To those who voted, please check the final draft and comment with any objections. If there are no unresolved objections from those who voted in a week (by Oct 14th) then I will post the charter as accepted and no longer draft. thanks a. note: i am traveling later toady and may not respond to messages quickly over the next few days. ------------------ Changes made: 0. I made one systematic changes throughout the entire document: - Whenever a number was used, e.g. 1, I replaced it with - one (1) 1. in Mission: < changed from: and representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. > to: and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. --reason: grammar: parallel construction 2. in Mission < From: of Civil society > to: of Civil Society (CS) --reason: inconsistent capitalization Society and and added (CS) so that CS alone could stand without needing to be expanded the rest of the way through the document. 3. in Objectives and Tasks < from: online > to: on line --reason: correct misspelling 4. in Organizational Roles < from: serving in a role for one > to: serving in that role for one --reason: grammar, ambiguous reference 5. in Recall < from: The recall vote itself requires a 2/3 majority to succeed. > to: The recall vote itself requires a 2/3 majority of voters to succeed. --reason: grammar: missing reference 6. in Appeals Team < from: The appeals board will be selected yearly by option 1: a randomly selected nominating committee as defined in http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html. option 2: a voting process [Note: this is being resolved in a separate vote] > to: The appeals board will be selected yearly by a randomly selected nominating committee as defined in http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom- process.html. --reason: result of vote 7. in Working Methods < from: No Personal insults No Spam > to: No personal insults No spam --reason: incorrect capitalization 8. in Working Methods < From: All nominations to external bodies, e.g. the IGF multistakholder advisory group, Option 1: will be made using a randomly selected nomcom process as defined in http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html. Option 2: according to the voting process. [Note: this is being resolved in a separate vote] > to: All nominations to external bodies, e.g., the IGF multistakholder advisory group, will be made using a randomly selected nomcom process as defined in http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html. --reason: results of vote 9: in Statements and representation at meetings < from: In this case > to: In these cases --reason: grammar - plural referent 10: in Statements and representation at meetings (several cases of this change) < from: face to face > to: face-to-face --reason: grammar (i never really did understand when you use hyphens and when you don't) 11: in Ad hoc sub-groups < from: Working Groups > to: sub-groups --reason: consistent wording, this was the only use of working groups in a section about sub-groups 12: in Voting Process < from: A list of the self-defined member-voters will be published after the election with the results of the election, though all votes will remain secret. > to: A list of the self-defined member-voters will be published after the election with the results of the election. --reason: consistent with results of the vote 13: in Voting Process < from: Option 1: All voting will be by secret ballot with the exception noted above for release of voters names. Option 2: All voting will be open, though at the discretion of the coordinators, with or without a specific request from member(s), any vote can be made into a secret vote. The reasons for making it a secret vote will be stated, and are subject to appeal. [Note: this is being resolved in a separate vote] > to: All voting will be open, though at the discretion of the coordinators, with or without a specific request from member(s), any vote can be made into a secret vote. The reasons for making it a secret vote will be stated, and are subject to appeal. --reason: results of vote 14: Acceptance of the Charter > Added: This charter was approved in a two (2) week vote ending on 2 October 2006. Sixty-three (63) voters participated in the vote, giving the charter a 95% approval. Details on the vote can be found at: http://www.igcaucus.org/charter-vote-061002.html --Reason: seemed like it belonged in the document. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 08:49:30 2006 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 05:49:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] The Future of WHOIS Panel Discussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061009124930.54749.qmail@web52206.mail.yahoo.com> For distribution as required: Please be advised that the New York Chapter of the Internet Society is sponsoring a panel discussion on "the Future of WHOIS Policy". 8 November, 2006 6-8PM Jefferson Market Public Library 425 Avenue of the Americas (Sixth Avenue), at Tenth St New York City, NY USA Panelists: -- Jon Nevett, Chair of the ICANN Registrars Constituency; VP Policy & Ethics, Network Solutions -- Wendy Seltzer, North American representative, ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee -- Attorney Bruce A. McDonald, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP -- Jordyn Buchanan, Chair ICANN WHOIS Task Force -- Jeff Neuman, Senior Director, Law, Advanced Services and Business Development, NeuStar Inc. -- Rita Rodin, ICANN Board of Directors -- FTC representative (to be announced) The event is free, open to the public and the site is fully accessible. Event coordinator: Danny Younger dannyyounger at yahoo.com VP ISOC-NY http://isoc-ny.org __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 11 00:48:16 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:18:16 +0530 Subject: Fw: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Highlights of GAID Steering Committee - contributions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061011044937.698A9C956A@smtp1.electricembers.net> Dear Sergie, Thanks for your reassurance. As I said the noted comments came to me as quite a surprise, because with the UN background/anchorage of GAID, one is assured that the basic canons of 'public spaces' and 'policy spaces' with not be compromised, as innovations, both of process and substance, are sought. In fact, even after reading the meeting records, I would have been inclined to give a benign interpretation to it, but what troubled me most was the phrase 'according to an indicative scale' in the line "annual contributions (in cash or in kind), according to an indicative scale. ". The mention of this term looked prescriptive to me, and hence my email. However, I am now happy with your clarification. My best wishes to GAID, and I hope you attract a lot of funding for an area which is such a 'basic enabler' for development. regards Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: sergei kambalov [mailto:kambalov at un.org] > Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 10:25 PM > To: parminder at itforchange.net > Cc: Cheryl Stafford; Enrica Murmura; ilkka.rasanen at intel.com; > Maria Carreno; Robert De Jesus; Rosalinda O. Sanchez; > Sarbuland Khan; rbloem at ngocongo.org; > governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: Fw: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Highlights of > GAID Steering Committee - contributions > > Dear Mr. Singh, > Thank you very much for your thoughtful message and the > expression of your > legitimate concerns. > I am happy to state that we are all on the same page. Making > financial > contributions a pre-condition for or even a factor in > formation of the > governing bodies of the Global Alliance would be fatal for > the whole > concept of the Alliance as an open and inclusive forum and > platform. > This is why members of the Steering Committee at their > meeting on 27 > September here in New York made very strong and explicit > statements that > their call to members of the Committee, as well as the > members of the > Strategy Council, to support the Alliance through > contributions must not > become or be seen as a "ticket" to membership in governing > bodies of the > Alliance. > Such support - financial or in kind - is seen as an > embodiment of > committment and of participation. To provide an analogy, a > contribution is > not a ticket to a VIP lounge, but another brick in the > foundation of the > building that the Alliance is helping to build: a truly > global and > inclusive information society. > The Steering Committee also explicitly recognized that > different members of > the Steering Committee and the Strategy Council have VERY > different > capacities to make a contribution. It is also clear that our > fundraising > efforts must continue to be targeted on a broad array of > potential partners > and participants, certainly not just members of the Committee > and the > Council. > Again, thank you very much for your attention and interest, > and please let > us know if you have any questions, concerns, or suggestions. > Best regards, > > Sergei Kambalov, > Deputy Executive Coordinator, > Secretariat of GAID > > Chief, ECOSOC and Interorganizational Cooperation Branch > Office for ECOSOC Support and Coordination/DESA > United Nations, New York > Tel: (212) 963-4751 > Fax: (212) 963-7454 > Email: kambalov at un.org > > > > Serge > Kapto/NY/UNO > > To > 05/10/2006 10:29 sergei > kambalov/NY/UNO at UNHQ, > AM Sarbuland > Khan/NY/UNO at UNHQ > > cc > Maria > Carreno/NY/UNO at UNHQ, > Rosalinda O. > Sanchez/NY/UNO at UNHQ, > Cheryl > Stafford/NY/UNO at UNHQ, Enrica > Murmura/NY/UNO at UNHQ, > Robert De > Jesus/NY/UNO at UNHQ, > > ilkka.rasanen at intel.com > > Subject > Fw: [governance] [WSIS > CS-Plenary] > Highlights of GAID > Steering > Committee > > > > > > > > > > FYI > ----- Forwarded by Serge Kapto/NY/UNO on 10/05/2006 10:41 AM > ----- > > "Parminder" > hange.net> > To > > > 10/05/2006 04:17 > cc > AM > > Subject > [governance] [WSIS CS- > Plenary] > Please respond to Highlights of GAID > Steering > governance at lists. Committee > cpsr.org; Please > respond to > "Parminder" > hange.net> > > > > > > > > Dear All > > Going through the discussions summary, the following comes as > a surprise, > and alarms me a lot.. > > At the Chairman's proposal, it was agreed that members of > the Strategy > Council and Steering Committee be requested to support the > Global > Alliance through annual contributions (in cash or in > kind), according to > an indicative scale, taking into account the financial > constraints of > some members, in particular civil society organizations > and developing > countries. (quote ends) > > > This will then, sooner or later, make the reverse logic > operational as well > - the steering committee and strategic committee membership > will begin to > include an implicit or explicit criterion of 'capacity to > contribute > funds'. And this logic is dangerous in public policy spaces.. > There already > is a growing tendency of public policy meetings and > conferences sponsored > heavily by interested parties which of course casts a shadow > on the > deliberations and outcomes, but to have a UN anchored public > policy body > have its governance positions linked to the criterion of > 'capacity to pay' > is going quite a few steps beyond. I find any such move very > dangerous to > the very fiber and structure of our public life. > > GAID needs to decide for itself whether it is a global public > policy body, > with important policy influence on ICTD policies globally, > nationally and > locally, or it is a non-profit which wants to challenge > energies, goodwill > and funds into ICTD activity. And if it is both, what is it > primarily. > Because in the latter mandate, it is fine to look around for > funds in this > manner, even offering governance positions for the purpose > (though still, > discretion is required to see that social responsibility > funds are not used > for narrow interests - commercial or otherwise, which in the > long run harms > the interests of the targeted group more than they benefit > them > immediately). > > And if its mandate is the former - that is mainly policy > advice and > influence related - GAID needs to be extra careful that its > governance as > well as other structures are free from narrow commercial (or > other) > interests. And the positions in its governance structure etc > go strictly by > the criterions like capacity to contribute and > representative-ness of > different stakeholders - more of those who could with some > legitimacy be > seen as representing the poor and marginalized sections (as > the UN > Secretary General advised during the deliberation, and I > quote form the > enclosed document - "the Alliance must keep the interest of > the poor and > marginalized foremost in mind". > > Going by the statement of GAID's mission given out by the > press statement > from the UN Secretary General's office that announced the > launch of GAID, > it seems to be oriented more as a platform for ICTD policy > dialogue and > advocacy. To quote the press statement - "The mission of the > Global > Alliance for ICT and Development will be to facilitate and > promote such > integration by providing a platform for an open, inclusive, > multi-stakeholder cross-sectoral policy dialogue on the role > of information > and communication technology in development". > > Of course funds are needed, and contributions are welcome. > But these can > not be tied to positions in the governance structures. We all > need to take > a clear position on this issue. There is a great danger in > requesting the > members of governance bodies to contribute - this links the > membership to > contributions, even if implicitly, and in the long term. The > call for > contributions should instead be open - to all those who agree > with the > stated purpose and polices of GAID to contribute. > > I will request CS members in these deliberations to report in > more detail > on such issues, and their implications, though I understand > the > insider-outsider dilemma of participation in such high level > bodies. > > And we also need to have a general CS view on these issues, > and keep up a > broader engagement with post-WSIS bodies through these > elists, and other > associations. This is specifically so because this group was > asked to, and > it did, contribute to the process of selection of the > governance > structures. > > regards > > Parminder > > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological > Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > > From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis- > cs.org] On > Behalf Of Renate Bloem > Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 12:51 AM > To: CS Plenary > Cc: bureau wsis; governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Highlights of GAID Steering > Committee > > Dear all, > > Please see attached a brief outline from the Secretariat of > the GAID > Steering Committee discussion held 27-28 September in New > York. You will > see that the essence for GAID is to provide a distinguished > but broad > platform to promote, scale up and accelerate action on > initiatives provided > by communities of expertise and some Flagship Partnership > Initiatives. > > A summary of the meeting is being drafted by the Secretariat > and will be > published shortly. > > The statements by Secretary-General Kofi Annan and President > of ECOSOC Amb > Ali Hachani are available at > http://www.un-gaid.org/steering/annan_27sept06.html and > http://www.un-gaid.org/steering/hachani_27sept06.html > respectively. > > Best, > > Renate Bloem > President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) > 11, Avenue de la Paix > CH-1202 Geneva > Tel: +41 22 301 1000 > Fax: +41 22 301 2000 > E-mail: rbloem at ngocongo.org > Website: www.ngocongo.org > > > > The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, > membership association > that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations > debates and > decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to > ensure the > presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments > and United > Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more > information see our > website at www.ngocongo.org > > (See attached file: SteeC 2nd mtg highlights 29Sep2006 > (2).doc) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From mueller at syr.edu Wed Oct 11 10:23:22 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:23:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Effective participation .... Message-ID: Kwasi: Thanks for your realistic if bleak appraisal of the situation. Makes for an interesting contrast with McTim's... --MM >>> kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk 10/07/06 2:09 AM >>> Howzit Anriette, On 10/6/06, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Why are there so few participants from national IG communities in this > space, and it appears, going to the IGF? #################### The problem of participation from developing countries goes beyond funding. There a number of issues involved, among which are: 1. Very few people know about IG, ISOC, ICANN, etc. and most of those who know about them (including government officials, IT professionals, academics, those working or doing business in the IT industry, etc.) don't even understand them or the issues involved. 2. They don't know about these conferences, discussions, meetings, cyberspaces, etc. and they don't even know they can attend. 3. Local Chapters of ISOC exist on web pages, when you even send an e-mail enquiry you don't get response 4. Those who are supposed to know don't even know and/ or understand ccTLDs. Some company claims to be sponsoring ccTLDs but doesn't even respond to e-mail enquiries. dot gh for instance is far more expensive than a dot uk and you ask yourself why. Besides no one seems to care. 5. Most of the folks who get to attend these IG related conferences and meetings and represent developing countries probably don't understand the issues - some of them are businessmen and government officials who stand to gain by the status quo. 2. The average person can't get visa to attend these meetings; we are living in a situation where being allowed to travel depends on the whims and caprices of some entry clearance official who doesn't even know about ICANN and probably doesn't even care. 3. The average person can't even afford to fully participate in these online spaces; he cannot afford Internet connection at home and can't pay for a decent Internet access. Internet access is more expensive in developing countries; universities, colleges, schools, can't afford them. Academics as a result don't have them. 5. I have come to live in the UK for 5 years and I'm dreading going back because of Internet access. In the UK regardless of how low your income is you can afford it, in Ghana, it is a luxury and sometimes a status symbol. I work 15 hours a week (my visa allows me to work a max. of 20 hours, as an International student) but I can afford broadband Internet access. 6. Government officials can afford this luxury so why bother 7. ICANN held a general meeting in 2001 in Ghana and local IT professionals didn't know about it; those who knew didn't understand what was going on neither were they aware they could participate. These, in my opinion, are just a few of the issues we are plagued with. ...Kwasi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jhunker at andrew.cmu.edu Wed Oct 11 11:54:54 2006 From: jhunker at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Hunker) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:54:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Effective participation .... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3036.172.197.11.176.1160582094.squirrel@172.197.11.176> May I suggest that a brief primer on the organizations involoved, including contact info and a brief line about their role, would be helpful to those (like me) interested in issues of governance, but still learning how to be engaged. I do a lot of work involving Internet security and reliability, and realize that governance issues are critical. I suspect that there are many in my position. Jeffrey Hunker Professor of Public Policy and Management Professor of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University jhunker at andrew.cmu.edu > Kwasi: Thanks for your realistic if bleak appraisal of the situation. > Makes for an interesting contrast with McTim's... --MM > >>>> kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk 10/07/06 2:09 AM >>> > Howzit Anriette, > > On 10/6/06, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> >> Why are there so few participants from national IG communities in this >> space, and it appears, going to the IGF? > #################### > > The problem of participation from developing countries goes beyond > funding. There a number of issues involved, among which are: > > 1. Very few people know about IG, ISOC, ICANN, etc. and most of those who > know about them (including government officials, IT professionals, > academics, those working or doing business in the IT industry, etc.) don't > even understand them or the issues involved. > > 2. They don't know about these conferences, discussions, meetings, > cyberspaces, etc. and they don't even know they can attend. > > 3. Local Chapters of ISOC exist on web pages, when you even send an e-mail > enquiry you don't get response > > 4. Those who are supposed to know don't even know and/ or understand > ccTLDs. Some company claims to be sponsoring ccTLDs but doesn't even > respond to e-mail enquiries. dot gh for instance is far more expensive > than a dot uk and you ask yourself why. Besides no one seems to care. > > 5. Most of the folks who get to attend these IG related conferences and > meetings and represent developing countries probably don't understand the > issues - some of them are businessmen and government officials who stand > to gain by the status quo. > > 2. The average person can't get visa to attend these meetings; we are > living in a situation where being allowed to travel depends on the whims > and caprices of some entry clearance official who doesn't even know about > ICANN and probably doesn't even care. > > 3. The average person can't even afford to fully participate in these > online spaces; he cannot afford Internet connection at home and can't pay > for a decent Internet access. Internet access is more expensive in > developing countries; universities, colleges, schools, can't afford them. > Academics as a result don't have them. > > 5. I have come to live in the UK for 5 years and I'm dreading going back > because of Internet access. In the UK regardless of how low your income is > you can afford it, in Ghana, it is a luxury and sometimes a status symbol. > I work 15 hours a week (my visa allows me to work a max. of 20 hours, as > an International student) but I can afford broadband Internet access. > > 6. Government officials can afford this luxury so why bother > > 7. ICANN held a general meeting in 2001 in Ghana and local IT > professionals didn't know about it; those who knew didn't understand what > was going on neither were they aware they could participate. > > These, in my opinion, are just a few of the issues we are plagued with. > > ...Kwasi > > ____________________________________________________________ You received > this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be > removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From info at INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG Wed Oct 11 11:37:05 2006 From: info at INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG (IGP Info) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:37:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Newsletter, Vol 1.04 Message-ID: ====================================== Internet Governance Project Newsletter ====================================== ...current events in Internet Governance and the activities of the Internet Governance Project. http://www.internetgovernance.org Volume 1.04 October 11, 2006 ======== Contents ======== [1] FIRST INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM IN ATHENS NEARS [2] GIGANET PROGRAM [3] CARIBBEAN INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM [4] NEW ICANN-DOC AGREEMENT [5] DOES SHE KNOW SOMETHING WE DON'T? [6] CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ON ICANN =================================================== [1] FIRST INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM IN ATHENS NEARS =================================================== In only two weeks, the UN's experiment in multistakeholder dialogue on Internet governance will be held in Athens. We extend our thanks to the hard-working Forum Secretariat and its Advisory Group, which has pulled together this unique event in a short period of time with minimal resources. Ideally, the forum will provide a space where civil society, business and governments can critically assess the global institutions that affect the Internet (mainly the WTO, WIPO, ICANN and policies of the US and EU with extraterritorial effects), identify new and emerging issues, and develop new horizontal alliances and mobilizations. As noted in our previous newsletter, a lot of the most useful dialogue will take place in the Workshops proposed and run by participants. Both of the Workshops proposed by IGP were accepted, and we recommend an additional two as especially worthy of note (all times listed are Athens, Greece): * Freedom of Expression and Internet blocking and filtering * * October 31, 17:30 - 19:00 * Sponsored by IGP and UNESCO, the workshop theme is governmental Internet content regulation by means of legally mandated or directly implemented filtering and content blocking. It will explore current legal efforts, such as the Global Online Freedom Act proposed in the USA or Code of Conduct proposals emanating from the EU, to regulate the interactions of private Internet service providers, equipment manufacturers and hosting companies with the governments that regulate and censor content. Participants include US State Department Ambassador David Gross, Microsoft's Fred Tipson, ONI's Ron Deibert, Reporters Sans Frontiers Julien Pain, Jeanette Hofmann of IGP and Mogens Schmidt of UNESCO. In the previous time slot (15:30-17:00), a Workshop on content regulation and Internet pornography from feminist perspectives, organized by APC, will be held. * New Technical & Policy Challenges in DNS Root Zone Management * * November 1, 17:30 - 19:00 * Sponsored by IGP, Brazil, and the Third World Network, this panel will explore how current developments pose a number of new problems for root zone management that need to be discussed. The workshop will focus on three of these issues: 1) the attempt to build security into DNS through the DNSSEC protocol, which raises major policy issues surrounding the "signing" the root zone; 2) new applications such as IDNs, IPv6 and ENUM; 3) proposals to multi-lateralize root zone oversight. * Exploring a Framework Convention on the Internet * * October 31, 13:30 - 15:00 * Sponsored by IT for Change, Bangalore; Hivos, Netherlands; Panos institute, West Africa; Third World Institute, Uruguay; and Foundation for Media Alternatives, Philippines. This workshop picks up on an idea of a “Framework Convention” < http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/igp-fc.pdf > promoted by IGP's John Mathiason during the WSIS, namely that of negotiating global policy principles for the Internet by means of a framework convention. * Harnessing the Power of the Internet to Provide Access to Knowledge and Encourage the Free Flow of Information * * November 1, 11:30 - 13:00 * Sponsored by a large group of NGOs including CPTech, EFF, IPJustice, APC and FSFE, and by Google and Sun, this workshop explores the ability of the Internet to promote access to knowledge. =================== [2] GIGANET PROGRAM =================== The Global Internet Governance Academic Network will be holding a symposium October 29, the day before the Athens Forum meeting, at the Divani Apollon Palace & Spa Hotel. This conference will feature some of the world's top academic researchers on internet governance and provide a space for unconstrained dialogue about some of the deeper issues around global Internet policy. For the full program, link here: < http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/GigaNetProgram.pdf > Attendance is free and open to all IGF attendees. ======================================= [3] CARIBBEAN INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM ======================================= The Caribbean Telecommunications Union (CTU), in partnership with IGP's Lee McKnight and Derrick Cogburn, are holding an on-line Internet Governance Forum (IGF) November 1-3, 2006. The regional event will overlap with the global Athens Forum and be linked to Athens via online collaboration tools. For the program link here: < http://www.c-t-u.org/Internet_governance_forum2006/CIGF%20-%20CIF%202006%20Overview%20and%20Agenda.doc >. For registration, link here: < http://mrp.uwi.tt/internet_governance/ > =========================== [4] NEW ICANN-DOC AGREEMENT =========================== The day before the old ICANN MoU expired, the U.S. Commerce Department released a new 3-year "Joint Project Agreement" < http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/agreements/jpa/ICANNJPA_09292006.htm >. ICANN's news release claimed that it was a dramatic change in the relationship, and many media outlets blindly reproduced this line. IGP doesn't think so. Granted, we see some welcome verbal concessions to the overwhelming number of public comments urging the U.S. government to stop meddling in the Internet's administration. But we also see the U.S. government exploiting its control over ICANN by telling it what policy to enforce on the privacy of domain name registrants. Although ICANN CEO Paul Twomey was forced by stakeholder pressure to insist that ICANN's "bottom up" process is not bound by these US instructions, we still want to know what that paragraph is doing in an allegedly "non-prescriptive" charter. You can read our complete analysis of the new ICANN-Commerce Department Joint Project Agreement here < http://internetgovernance.org/news.html#ICANNoldwine_093006 >. ========================================================================= [5] DOES SHE KNOW SOMETHING WE DON'T? EU COMMISSIONER RESPONDS TO NEW JPA ========================================================================= EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media Viviane Redding welcomed the "US government's declared intention to grant more autonomy to ICANN and to end its governmental oversight." We must have missed that part of the agreement: as far as we can tell the new JPA does not introduce any guarantee that the relationship will end in 2009. < http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1297&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en > =================================== [6] CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ON ICANN =================================== You can't do a much better job of reporting on the House and Senate hearings on ICANN than Kieren McCarthy did – so we point you to his blog here < http://kierenmccarthy.co.uk/2006/09/21/are-the-icann-senate-hearings-just-a-waste-of-time > Also, see the blog of Media Access Project’s Harold Feld, which sheds light on inside the beltway Internet governance politics < http://www.wetmachine.com/totsf/item/600 >. We note that IGP's critique of the U.S. government's oversight of ICANN was picked up by Harold Feld and Tim Ruiz of GoDaddy registrar in their testimony. ========================= Subscription Information ========================= Subscribe/unsubscribe from the IGP-Announce mailing list via web interface: http://internetgovernance.org/subscribe.html =============== Privacy Policy =============== The IGP-Announce mailing list is used only to mail IGP news announcements. We do not sell, rent or share our mailing list. We do not enhance (link to other databases) our mailing list or require your actual name. In the event you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe your e-mail address from this list, please follow the above instructions under "subscription information." Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 11 12:31:58 2006 From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:31:58 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Effective participation .... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061011163158.73567.qmail@web25501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Thanks Milton. While I'm not too proud of painting such a bleak picture of the situation in my country, that's what it is. All the good stories about the strides Ghana is making with regards to ICT, can be likened to the one-eyed man being King in the land of the blind. I believe for us to get to where we want to be a lot has got to be done in the area of promoting and strengthening ICT institutions, effective ICT manpower and academic curricula development, and above all ICT policy development and implementation. As we are speaking the mailing list of the only IT professional organisation is so dead quiet. We don't make any attempt to contribute to and affect policy decisions. May be if these professional institutions could receive some funding and staffing of some sort, things will change. I have been thinking a lot about this. What do you think? Kwasi Milton Mueller wrote: Kwasi: Thanks for your realistic if bleak appraisal of the situation. Makes for an interesting contrast with McTim's... --MM >>> kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk 10/07/06 2:09 AM >>> Howzit Anriette, On 10/6/06, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Why are there so few participants from national IG communities in this > space, and it appears, going to the IGF? #################### The problem of participation from developing countries goes beyond funding. There a number of issues involved, among which are: 1. Very few people know about IG, ISOC, ICANN, etc. and most of those who know about them (including government officials, IT professionals, academics, those working or doing business in the IT industry, etc.) don't even understand them or the issues involved. 2. They don't know about these conferences, discussions, meetings, cyberspaces, etc. and they don't even know they can attend. 3. Local Chapters of ISOC exist on web pages, when you even send an e-mail enquiry you don't get response 4. Those who are supposed to know don't even know and/ or understand ccTLDs. Some company claims to be sponsoring ccTLDs but doesn't even respond to e-mail enquiries. dot gh for instance is far more expensive than a dot uk and you ask yourself why. Besides no one seems to care. 5. Most of the folks who get to attend these IG related conferences and meetings and represent developing countries probably don't understand the issues - some of them are businessmen and government officials who stand to gain by the status quo. 2. The average person can't get visa to attend these meetings; we are living in a situation where being allowed to travel depends on the whims and caprices of some entry clearance official who doesn't even know about ICANN and probably doesn't even care. 3. The average person can't even afford to fully participate in these online spaces; he cannot afford Internet connection at home and can't pay for a decent Internet access. Internet access is more expensive in developing countries; universities, colleges, schools, can't afford them. Academics as a result don't have them. 5. I have come to live in the UK for 5 years and I'm dreading going back because of Internet access. In the UK regardless of how low your income is you can afford it, in Ghana, it is a luxury and sometimes a status symbol. I work 15 hours a week (my visa allows me to work a max. of 20 hours, as an International student) but I can afford broadband Internet access. 6. Government officials can afford this luxury so why bother 7. ICANN held a general meeting in 2001 in Ghana and local IT professionals didn't know about it; those who knew didn't understand what was going on neither were they aware they could participate. These, in my opinion, are just a few of the issues we are plagued with. ...Kwasi "In the END, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends" - Martin Luther King, Jr. Visit me at: www.boakye-akyeampong.zoomshare.com --------------------------------- Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail . "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dan at cpsr.org Wed Oct 11 14:02:11 2006 From: dan at cpsr.org (Dan Krimm) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:02:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] Effective participation .... In-Reply-To: <20061011163158.73567.qmail@web25501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20061011163158.73567.qmail@web25501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Greetings governance-list folks, Dan Krimm here, CPSR's new Communication Director (announcement will be forthcoming fairly soon). My background in this area is that in August I worked with Robin Gross at IP Justice on an NCUC statement on Whois policy to the IGF for the pending Athens conference. There is also a process for ICANN GAC that is approaching an initial comment deadline tomorrow (usurpation of GNSO vote as to the purpose of Whois data) that I'm sure many of you may be well aware of. Prior to working with IPJ/NCUC this summer, I was only rather vaguely aware of IG issues (a brief exchange with Milton on the cc-mediareform list a few months back was also informative), and I consider myself fairly well informed about digital tech issues generally. Frankly, IG does not get much visibility in the mainstream media. What I can suggest is the following: There is information on the web about this stuff, from IPJ, IGP, etc., and it could be useful to set up a resource page on the web that links to these various sources, with some general framing/orientation. This would be just a first step, because such resources would ultimately be incomplete and holes would need to be filled in the info over time (for example, ICANN governance structure which is pretty complex with various advisory bodies and supporting organizations, as well as the MOU arrangement with the USG etc.). When I get fully up and running here at CPSR, I will consider this sort of thing for the CPSR web site itself. A complement to that would be some pro-active process of getting the word out about the info resources, the issue(s), and opportunities for engagement at CPSR and elsewhere. To the extent that CPSR is involved in this, it is part of my job description to do exactly that, both with collaborating organizations and the press and general public. While it'll take a little time for me to build momentum, this is the sort of model I'd like to try to build here, moving forward. Dan Krimm Communication Director, CPSR On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:31:58 +0100 (BST) kwasi boakye-akyeampong wrote: > Thanks Milton. > > While I'm not too proud of painting such a bleak picture of the situation >in my country, that's what it is. All the good stories about the strides >Ghana is making with regards to ICT, can be likened to the one-eyed man >being King in the land of the blind. > > I believe for us to get to where we want to be a lot has got to be done >in the area of promoting and strengthening ICT institutions, effective ICT >manpower and academic curricula development, and above all ICT policy >development and implementation. As we are speaking the mailing list of the >only IT professional organisation is so dead quiet. We don't make any >attempt to contribute to and affect policy decisions. > > May be if these professional institutions could receive some funding and >staffing of some sort, things will change. I have been thinking a lot about >this. What do you think? > > Kwasi > > > > Milton Mueller wrote: > Kwasi: > Thanks for your realistic if bleak appraisal of the situation. Makes for > an interesting contrast with McTim's... > --MM > >>>> kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk 10/07/06 2:09 AM >>> > Howzit Anriette, > > On 10/6/06, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> >> Why are there so few participants from national IG communities in this >> space, and it appears, going to the IGF? > #################### > > The problem of participation from developing countries goes beyond > funding. There a number of issues involved, among which are: > > 1. Very few people know about IG, ISOC, ICANN, etc. and most of those > who know about them (including government officials, IT professionals, > academics, those working or doing business in the IT industry, etc.) > don't even understand them or the issues involved. > > 2. They don't know about these conferences, discussions, meetings, > cyberspaces, etc. and they don't even know they can attend. > > 3. Local Chapters of ISOC exist on web pages, when you even send an > e-mail enquiry you don't get response > > 4. Those who are supposed to know don't even know and/ or understand > ccTLDs. Some company claims to be sponsoring ccTLDs but doesn't even > respond to e-mail enquiries. dot gh for instance is far more expensive > than a dot uk and you ask yourself why. Besides no one seems to care. > > 5. Most of the folks who get to attend these IG related conferences > and meetings and represent developing countries probably don't > understand the issues - some of them are businessmen and government > officials who stand to gain by the status quo. > > 2. The average person can't get visa to attend these meetings; we are > living in a situation where being allowed to travel depends on the whims > and caprices of some entry clearance official who doesn't even know > about ICANN and probably doesn't even care. > > 3. The average person can't even afford to fully participate in these > online spaces; he cannot afford Internet connection at home and can't > pay for a decent Internet access. Internet access is more expensive in > developing countries; universities, colleges, schools, can't afford > them. Academics as a result don't have them. > > 5. I have come to live in the UK for 5 years and I'm dreading going > back because of Internet access. In the UK regardless of how low your > income is you can afford it, in Ghana, it is a luxury and sometimes a > status symbol. I work 15 hours a week (my visa allows me to work a max. > of 20 hours, as an International student) but I can afford broadband > Internet access. > > 6. Government officials can afford this luxury so why bother > > 7. ICANN held a general meeting in 2001 in Ghana and local IT > professionals didn't know about it; those who knew didn't understand > what was going on neither were they aware they could participate. > > These, in my opinion, are just a few of the issues we are plagued > with. > > ...Kwasi > > > > > "In the END, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the >silence of our friends" - Martin Luther King, Jr. > > Visit me at: www.boakye-akyeampong.zoomshare.com > > > > --------------------------------- > Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail . "The New Version is radically easier to use" >– The Wall Street Journal ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Oct 12 04:14:31 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:14:31 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] Effective participation .... References: <20061011163158.73567.qmail@web25501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043857@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dan, welcome on board. More media involvement is always needed and in this case in particular. Best regards wolfgang ________________________________ Fra: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at cpsr.org] Sendt: on 11-10-2006 20:02 Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org Emne: Re: [governance] Effective participation .... Greetings governance-list folks, Dan Krimm here, CPSR's new Communication Director (announcement will be forthcoming fairly soon). My background in this area is that in August I worked with Robin Gross at IP Justice on an NCUC statement on Whois policy to the IGF for the pending Athens conference. There is also a process for ICANN GAC that is approaching an initial comment deadline tomorrow (usurpation of GNSO vote as to the purpose of Whois data) that I'm sure many of you may be well aware of. Prior to working with IPJ/NCUC this summer, I was only rather vaguely aware of IG issues (a brief exchange with Milton on the cc-mediareform list a few months back was also informative), and I consider myself fairly well informed about digital tech issues generally. Frankly, IG does not get much visibility in the mainstream media. What I can suggest is the following: There is information on the web about this stuff, from IPJ, IGP, etc., and it could be useful to set up a resource page on the web that links to these various sources, with some general framing/orientation. This would be just a first step, because such resources would ultimately be incomplete and holes would need to be filled in the info over time (for example, ICANN governance structure which is pretty complex with various advisory bodies and supporting organizations, as well as the MOU arrangement with the USG etc.). When I get fully up and running here at CPSR, I will consider this sort of thing for the CPSR web site itself. A complement to that would be some pro-active process of getting the word out about the info resources, the issue(s), and opportunities for engagement at CPSR and elsewhere. To the extent that CPSR is involved in this, it is part of my job description to do exactly that, both with collaborating organizations and the press and general public. While it'll take a little time for me to build momentum, this is the sort of model I'd like to try to build here, moving forward. Dan Krimm Communication Director, CPSR On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:31:58 +0100 (BST) kwasi boakye-akyeampong wrote: > Thanks Milton. > > While I'm not too proud of painting such a bleak picture of the situation >in my country, that's what it is. All the good stories about the strides >Ghana is making with regards to ICT, can be likened to the one-eyed man >being King in the land of the blind. > > I believe for us to get to where we want to be a lot has got to be done >in the area of promoting and strengthening ICT institutions, effective ICT >manpower and academic curricula development, and above all ICT policy >development and implementation. As we are speaking the mailing list of the >only IT professional organisation is so dead quiet. We don't make any >attempt to contribute to and affect policy decisions. > > May be if these professional institutions could receive some funding and >staffing of some sort, things will change. I have been thinking a lot about >this. What do you think? > > Kwasi > > > > Milton Mueller wrote: > Kwasi: > Thanks for your realistic if bleak appraisal of the situation. Makes for > an interesting contrast with McTim's... > --MM > >>>> kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk 10/07/06 2:09 AM >>> > Howzit Anriette, > > On 10/6/06, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> >> Why are there so few participants from national IG communities in this >> space, and it appears, going to the IGF? > #################### > > The problem of participation from developing countries goes beyond > funding. There a number of issues involved, among which are: > > 1. Very few people know about IG, ISOC, ICANN, etc. and most of those > who know about them (including government officials, IT professionals, > academics, those working or doing business in the IT industry, etc.) > don't even understand them or the issues involved. > > 2. They don't know about these conferences, discussions, meetings, > cyberspaces, etc. and they don't even know they can attend. > > 3. Local Chapters of ISOC exist on web pages, when you even send an > e-mail enquiry you don't get response > > 4. Those who are supposed to know don't even know and/ or understand > ccTLDs. Some company claims to be sponsoring ccTLDs but doesn't even > respond to e-mail enquiries. dot gh for instance is far more expensive > than a dot uk and you ask yourself why. Besides no one seems to care. > > 5. Most of the folks who get to attend these IG related conferences > and meetings and represent developing countries probably don't > understand the issues - some of them are businessmen and government > officials who stand to gain by the status quo. > > 2. The average person can't get visa to attend these meetings; we are > living in a situation where being allowed to travel depends on the whims > and caprices of some entry clearance official who doesn't even know > about ICANN and probably doesn't even care. > > 3. The average person can't even afford to fully participate in these > online spaces; he cannot afford Internet connection at home and can't > pay for a decent Internet access. Internet access is more expensive in > developing countries; universities, colleges, schools, can't afford > them. Academics as a result don't have them. > > 5. I have come to live in the UK for 5 years and I'm dreading going > back because of Internet access. In the UK regardless of how low your > income is you can afford it, in Ghana, it is a luxury and sometimes a > status symbol. I work 15 hours a week (my visa allows me to work a max. > of 20 hours, as an International student) but I can afford broadband > Internet access. > > 6. Government officials can afford this luxury so why bother > > 7. ICANN held a general meeting in 2001 in Ghana and local IT > professionals didn't know about it; those who knew didn't understand > what was going on neither were they aware they could participate. > > These, in my opinion, are just a few of the issues we are plagued > with. > > ...Kwasi > > > > > "In the END, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the >silence of our friends" - Martin Luther King, Jr. > > Visit me at: www.boakye-akyeampong.zoomshare.com > > > > --------------------------------- > Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail . "The New Version is radically easier to use" >- The Wall Street Journal ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Thu Oct 12 05:18:20 2006 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:18:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Effective participation .... In-Reply-To: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043857@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20061011163158.73567.qmail@web25501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F3043857@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Welcome Dan Your presence was in dire need so that you may at least help forumists understand the importance of sourcing to journalists. TThey, who very often post very informative statement on the list but refuse to clearly identify themselves, thus rendering the jod of the Journalist who want to dessiminate such information very difficult. That too may be the reason why "IG is not getting much visibility in the mainstream media" That visibility can only come when a reporter can state "who (and what is he/she) said what, where, when and when... Most often in this forum, the fundamental point of what is he or she is, is frequently left in the back ground thus giving less credibility to the reporter's stuff. Mainstream media editors do not want less credible stuff. I pointed this some time ago but no one seem to be hearing On 10/12/06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > Dan, > > welcome on board. More media involvement is always needed and in this case in particular. > > > Best regards > > wolfgang > > > > ________________________________ > > Fra: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at cpsr.org] > Sendt: on 11-10-2006 20:02 > Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Emne: Re: [governance] Effective participation .... > > > > Greetings governance-list folks, > > Dan Krimm here, CPSR's new Communication Director (announcement will be > forthcoming fairly soon). My background in this area is that in August I > worked with Robin Gross at IP Justice on an NCUC statement on Whois policy > to the IGF for the pending Athens conference. There is also a process for > ICANN GAC that is approaching an initial comment deadline tomorrow > (usurpation of GNSO vote as to the purpose of Whois data) that I'm sure many > of you may be well aware of. > > Prior to working with IPJ/NCUC this summer, I was only rather vaguely aware > of IG issues (a brief exchange with Milton on the cc-mediareform list a few > months back was also informative), and I consider myself fairly well > informed about digital tech issues generally. Frankly, IG does not get much > visibility in the mainstream media. > > What I can suggest is the following: > > There is information on the web about this stuff, from IPJ, IGP, etc., and > it could be useful to set up a resource page on the web that links to these > various sources, with some general framing/orientation. This would be just > a first step, because such resources would ultimately be incomplete and > holes would need to be filled in the info over time (for example, ICANN > governance structure which is pretty complex with various advisory bodies > and supporting organizations, as well as the MOU arrangement with the USG > etc.). > > When I get fully up and running here at CPSR, I will consider this sort of > thing for the CPSR web site itself. > > A complement to that would be some pro-active process of getting the word > out about the info resources, the issue(s), and opportunities for engagement > at CPSR and elsewhere. To the extent that CPSR is involved in this, it is > part of my job description to do exactly that, both with collaborating > organizations and the press and general public. > > While it'll take a little time for me to build momentum, this is the sort of > model I'd like to try to build here, moving forward. > > Dan Krimm > Communication Director, CPSR > > > > On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:31:58 +0100 (BST) > kwasi boakye-akyeampong wrote: > > Thanks Milton. > > > > While I'm not too proud of painting such a bleak picture of the situation > >in my country, that's what it is. All the good stories about the strides > >Ghana is making with regards to ICT, can be likened to the one-eyed man > >being King in the land of the blind. > > > > I believe for us to get to where we want to be a lot has got to be done > >in the area of promoting and strengthening ICT institutions, effective ICT > >manpower and academic curricula development, and above all ICT policy > >development and implementation. As we are speaking the mailing list of the > >only IT professional organisation is so dead quiet. We don't make any > >attempt to contribute to and affect policy decisions. > > > > May be if these professional institutions could receive some funding and > >staffing of some sort, things will change. I have been thinking a lot about > >this. What do you think? > > > > Kwasi > > > > > > > > Milton Mueller wrote: > > Kwasi: > > Thanks for your realistic if bleak appraisal of the situation. Makes for > > an interesting contrast with McTim's... > > --MM > > > >>>> kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk 10/07/06 2:09 AM >>> > > Howzit Anriette, > > > > On 10/6/06, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > >> > >> Why are there so few participants from national IG communities in this > >> space, and it appears, going to the IGF? > > #################### > > > > The problem of participation from developing countries goes beyond > > funding. There a number of issues involved, among which are: > > > > 1. Very few people know about IG, ISOC, ICANN, etc. and most of those > > who know about them (including government officials, IT professionals, > > academics, those working or doing business in the IT industry, etc.) > > don't even understand them or the issues involved. > > > > 2. They don't know about these conferences, discussions, meetings, > > cyberspaces, etc. and they don't even know they can attend. > > > > 3. Local Chapters of ISOC exist on web pages, when you even send an > > e-mail enquiry you don't get response > > > > 4. Those who are supposed to know don't even know and/ or understand > > ccTLDs. Some company claims to be sponsoring ccTLDs but doesn't even > > respond to e-mail enquiries. dot gh for instance is far more expensive > > than a dot uk and you ask yourself why. Besides no one seems to care. > > > > 5. Most of the folks who get to attend these IG related conferences > > and meetings and represent developing countries probably don't > > understand the issues - some of them are businessmen and government > > officials who stand to gain by the status quo. > > > > 2. The average person can't get visa to attend these meetings; we are > > living in a situation where being allowed to travel depends on the whims > > and caprices of some entry clearance official who doesn't even know > > about ICANN and probably doesn't even care. > > > > 3. The average person can't even afford to fully participate in these > > online spaces; he cannot afford Internet connection at home and can't > > pay for a decent Internet access. Internet access is more expensive in > > developing countries; universities, colleges, schools, can't afford > > them. Academics as a result don't have them. > > > > 5. I have come to live in the UK for 5 years and I'm dreading going > > back because of Internet access. In the UK regardless of how low your > > income is you can afford it, in Ghana, it is a luxury and sometimes a > > status symbol. I work 15 hours a week (my visa allows me to work a max. > > of 20 hours, as an International student) but I can afford broadband > > Internet access. > > > > 6. Government officials can afford this luxury so why bother > > > > 7. ICANN held a general meeting in 2001 in Ghana and local IT > > professionals didn't know about it; those who knew didn't understand > > what was going on neither were they aware they could participate. > > > > These, in my opinion, are just a few of the issues we are plagued > > with. > > > > ...Kwasi > > > > > > > > > > "In the END, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the > >silence of our friends" - Martin Luther King, Jr. > > > > Visit me at: www.boakye-akyeampong.zoomshare.com > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail . "The New Version is radically easier to use" > >- The Wall Street Journal > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President ASAFE Tel. 237 337 50 22 Fax. 237 342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 12 07:51:38 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:21:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] Effective participation .... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061012115143.9C3E8C96A4@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi everyone, We always seem to take the 'effective participation' issues from a 'dominant standpoint' - "we know it - others need to learn to engage". And so observations like Despite this, there is > years of > capacity building to do to bring most of these folk to the > level of > discussions on this list or "in this space". Capacity building issues cannot be denied. But I think that an equally if not more important issue concerning increased participation is that we continue to speak of Internet Governance in somewhat exclusionary terms that we are most comfortable with. Internet is itself on a strong evolutionary curve - from basically a technical protocols based technical infrastructure, to a global information infrastructure, to a social relationship infrastructure - with different evolving logics and socio-political underpinnings and significance. Google's search logarithms may have become more important protocols that IDNs, but we still like to stick to speaking about IG in highly technical terms, to know which is really not that important to understand the public policy implications in IG. And "this space" as also IGF is primarily about pulbic policy implication of IG. So while others whose participation we seek may have much to learn about - we ourselves of "this space" may have to learn a lot. IG issues need to be interpreted in terms of the needs, context and idiom of the majority of the people (at first, at least of the organized interest groups). And we know that it impacts all - so why aren't we able to show them how it impacts them. They will certainly be interested, and will participate as well.. There is a lot of technical expertise needed to set up ISPs, internet exchanges, and other infrastructural elements, but the Internet is lot more. And we, as the front-end CS on IG issues need to interpret old and emerging IG issues to other CS constituencies, and make them interested. From all developing (and developed) countries enough high quality discourses emerge on issues like globalization, IPR etc - IG and Internet policy issues aren't much more 'difficult' than these. Yes, it is a fast changing terrain which makes its comprehension somewhat difficult - and to address this problem we in IGC need to be more pro-active in orienting IG issues more towards people's real needs and context, rather than making them more 'technical'. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 3:49 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen > Subject: Re: [governance] Effective participation .... > > Howzit Anriette, > > On 10/6/06, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > > > Why are there so few participants from national IG > communities in this > > space, and it appears, going to the IGF? > > perhaps because they participate in their own little ponds > and not so > much on a global scale? > > I think that is the case here in UG, where we have a large- > ish group > of folk interested in these issues. Seminars and meetings > have been > sponsored by ISOC in the distant past, recent past by IICD > and most > recently APC/CIPESA have joined in. Despite this, there is > years of > capacity building to do to bring most of these folk to the > level of > discussions on this list or "in this space". > > > > > APC has been talking with ISOC ZA (South African chapter) > and the local > > ISPA as we would really like someone to talk about content > regulation from > > a southern internet service provider's perspective at one > of our workshops in > > Athens. > > > > As far as I found out no one from the South African ISP > association or ISOC > > chapter was planning to go. With a bit of luck and lots of > good will I think we > > will be able to bring someone from here (SA) to Athens who > has a long track > > record in working on IG issues as well as on content > regulation as it impacts > > on ISPs. > > > > But the question remains. Why is ISOC not making it > possible for more > > participants from their national chapters to make it to > these global events? > > 0) Why single out ISOC? Neither Ken nor Nana mentioned them. > > 1) You should ask ISOC this via the public policy discussion > list or > via Chapter delegates list: > > Chapter-delegates mailing list > Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org > http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates > > _______________________________________________ > Memberpubpol mailing list > Memberpubpol at elists.isoc.org > http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/memberpubpol > > 2) They certainly did make it possible for more ISOC folks to > go to to WSIS. > > 3) AFAIK, it is more the chapters job to send their folk to > the IGF, > not the Geneva/Reston HQ task. I count 8 ISOC chapter > delegations, so > the chapters are somewhat active in this area, tho it may be > out of > scope for some chapters. > > 4) ISOC already devotes a great deal of time and money on > bottom up IG > fora, IETF in particuar, so perhaps that remains the focus. > > > > > And what is it the that IGF is doing, or not doing, that > renders it not all that > > interesting to national registries or operators? > > I see a number of ccTLD folk and a few large providers, tho > not many > of either, on the participant list. > > I would suggest that it is because these fok already > participate in > the current IG system via bottom up processes, and this non- > binding > forum may be a bridge too far for many. I know it is not > even on the > radar for the ISPs I work with. They are far too busy with > AfriNIC/AfrISPA/AfNOG etc to spend any cycles, let alone > resources on > the IGF. > > > > > The value of global ICT policy forums peaks when they > interact with national > > and regional processes (and actors) to support change that > increases rights > > and access, and lowers costs and barriers to users and > operators at local > > level. > > That may be, but apparently the vast majority of > perators/registries > don't see the value of the IGF in re: to the above issues. I > can't say > I blame them. > > > Or am I wrong and will local actors (e.g. local/national > consumer groups, > > regulators, internet lawyers, operators, registries etc.) > be there and I just > > don't know about it? > > http://www.intgovforum.org/PLP.html shows some of all of the > above, > except consumer groups. > > http://info.intgovforum.org/PL.php seems to be a later > version. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Oct 12 08:16:29 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:16:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Effective participation .... In-Reply-To: <3036.172.197.11.176.1160582094.squirrel@172.197.11.176> References: <3036.172.197.11.176.1160582094.squirrel@172.197.11.176> Message-ID: <452E321D.3060703@wz-berlin.de> Jeffrey, are you referring to the Internet Governance Forum or to this list? In any case, my guess is that in both activities too many organizations are involved for a "brief primer" :-) I'd suggest you have a look at the forum's website for a start: http://www.intgovforum.org/ jeanette Jeffrey Hunker wrote: > May I suggest that a brief primer on the organizations involoved, > including contact info and a brief line about their role, would be > helpful to those (like me) interested in issues of governance, but > still learning how to be engaged. I do a lot of work involving > Internet security and reliability, and realize that governance issues > are critical. I suspect that there are many in my position. > > Jeffrey Hunker Professor of Public Policy and Management Professor of > Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University jhunker at andrew.cmu.edu > > >> Kwasi: Thanks for your realistic if bleak appraisal of the >> situation. Makes for an interesting contrast with McTim's... --MM >> >> >>>>> kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk 10/07/06 2:09 AM >>> >> >> Howzit Anriette, >> >> On 10/6/06, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >> >>> Why are there so few participants from national IG communities in >>> this space, and it appears, going to the IGF? >> >> #################### >> >> The problem of participation from developing countries goes beyond >> funding. There a number of issues involved, among which are: >> >> 1. Very few people know about IG, ISOC, ICANN, etc. and most of >> those who know about them (including government officials, IT >> professionals, academics, those working or doing business in the IT >> industry, etc.) don't even understand them or the issues involved. >> >> 2. They don't know about these conferences, discussions, meetings, >> cyberspaces, etc. and they don't even know they can attend. >> >> 3. Local Chapters of ISOC exist on web pages, when you even send an >> e-mail enquiry you don't get response >> >> 4. Those who are supposed to know don't even know and/ or >> understand ccTLDs. Some company claims to be sponsoring ccTLDs but >> doesn't even respond to e-mail enquiries. dot gh for instance is >> far more expensive than a dot uk and you ask yourself why. Besides >> no one seems to care. >> >> 5. Most of the folks who get to attend these IG related conferences >> and meetings and represent developing countries probably don't >> understand the issues - some of them are businessmen and government >> officials who stand to gain by the status quo. >> >> 2. The average person can't get visa to attend these meetings; we >> are living in a situation where being allowed to travel depends on >> the whims and caprices of some entry clearance official who doesn't >> even know about ICANN and probably doesn't even care. >> >> 3. The average person can't even afford to fully participate in >> these online spaces; he cannot afford Internet connection at home >> and can't pay for a decent Internet access. Internet access is more >> expensive in developing countries; universities, colleges, schools, >> can't afford them. Academics as a result don't have them. >> >> 5. I have come to live in the UK for 5 years and I'm dreading going >> back because of Internet access. In the UK regardless of how low >> your income is you can afford it, in Ghana, it is a luxury and >> sometimes a status symbol. I work 15 hours a week (my visa allows >> me to work a max. of 20 hours, as an International student) but I >> can afford broadband Internet access. >> >> 6. Government officials can afford this luxury so why bother >> >> 7. ICANN held a general meeting in 2001 in Ghana and local IT >> professionals didn't know about it; those who knew didn't >> understand what was going on neither were they aware they could >> participate. >> >> These, in my opinion, are just a few of the issues we are plagued >> with. >> >> ...Kwasi >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any >> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 12 09:28:01 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:58:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] GigaNet Symposium in Athens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061012132812.45528C9618@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi Drake, The program looks really good. I am especially interested in the part on ‘enhanced cooperation’ because that bit in the Tunis agenda intrigues me a lot, and it is also relevant from the view of our proposed workshop on framework convention on the Internet. EU was instrumental in putting in this term. But it seems that, with WSIS over, and EU having asserted these issues, I understand, more on sovereignty based pride, rather any substantive desire to change the status-quo, it now seems not too keen to elaborate on what did it mean by these terms, and what does it propose to do.. Surprising no one else seems very keen either… In fact, the UN secretary general was supposed to begun a process towards ‘enhanced cooperation’ in the first quarter of 2006. Unless something is being done very secretively, it surprises me that such a clear mandate has not been followed… This is unusual for UN processes. All other follow-up processes mandated by the WSIS – CSTD, IGF and in some ways also GAID – have taken off. But why not the process towards ‘enhanced cooperation’…. And first of all, what is it supposed to be….. Best Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 5:47 PM To: Governance Subject: [governance] GigaNet Symposium in Athens Please distribute as appropriate Final Program Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) First Annual Symposium www.intgovforum.org/IGF_Platform.php Divani Apollon Palace & Spa Hotel Athens, Greece Room: TBA 29 October 2006 The Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) is an emerging scholarly community initiated in Spring 2006. Its four principal objectives are to: support the establishment of a global cohort of scholars specializing on Internet governance issues; promote the development of Internet governance as a recognized, interdisciplinary field of study; advance theoretical and applied research on Internet governance, broadly defined; and facilitate informed dialogue on policy issues and related matters between scholars and Internet governance stakeholders (governments, international organizations, the private sector, and civil society). In this context, the GigaNet plans to organize symposia to be held on site prior to the annual meetings of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). This event is the first in that series. 9:30-9:45 Welcome and Overview Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Professor of International Communication Policy and Regulation, University of Aarhus; Denmark 9:45-11:15 Theorizing Internet Governance: The State of the Art Chair: Peng Hwa Ang, Dean, School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, and Director, Singapore Internet Research Center; Singapore Panelists: “The Need For Interdisciplinary Understanding” Mary Rundle, Director, Net Dialogue, and Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University and the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford University; USA “Cross-national Collaboration on Internet Governance: Critical Success Factors for Cross-Disciplinary and Cross-Cultural Studies” Nanette S. Levinson, Associate Professor of International Relations, American University; Washington DC, USA “The Role of the State in Heterogeneous Governance Arrangements” Jeanette Hoffman, Research Fellow, Social Science Research Center, and Partner, the Internet Governance Project; Berlin, Germany “An Economic Rationale for Internet Regulation” Filomena Chirico, Post-doc Researcher, Tilburg Center for Law and Economics, Tilburg University; The Netherlands “Hybrid Regimes, Power, and Legitimacy in Global Governance: 
Insights from Internet Privacy Regulation”
Ralf Bendrath, Research Fellow, University of Bremen; Germany Focus: In recent years, scholars have begun to analyze Internet governance issues using the theoretical tools of their respective academic disciplines. While issues surrounding ICANN have attracted particular attention, there also has been significant work done on the international governance of digital international trade and intellectual property, privacy, security, speech, and other topics. Such research often has been rather specialized and geared toward the distinct audiences interested in each issue-area, which limited intellectual cross-fertilization. These topics are related, and Internet governance should be seen as a broad but coherent field of study that merits elaboration and support. Mapping the landscape of relevant theoretical perspectives is an important first step toward this end. The purpose of this panel is to consider questions such as: What aspects of Internet governance are uniquely interesting and worthy of scholarly analysis? How has Internet governance been addressed by scholars in the social sciences, humanities, law, and other disciplines, and which theoretical approaches seem to be the most promising for which issues and dynamics? Do these efforts point to the emergence of a coherent research agenda and the cumulative development of new knowledge? Are there barriers—intellectual, institutional, and other—that might have to be overcome to advance that agenda? How can Internet governance develop into an interdisciplinary scholarly field that is taken seriously by academics and also capable of providing useful inputs to the Internet Governance Forum and other policy development institutions? What lessons can be learned, if any, from other fields defined by the object of inquiry/dependent variables rather than by shared theories and independent variables, e.g., “communication studies,” “information studies,” and “women's studies”? Are there national or cultural differences in the ways scholars approach these matters, and if so how might these be reconciled? 11:15-11:30 Coffee break 11:30-13:00 “Enhanced Cooperation” and Interaction among Stakeholders in Internet Governance Chair: Milton Mueller, Professor of Information Studies, Syracuse University, and Partner, the Internet Governance Project Panelists: “A European Perspective on Enhanced Cooperation” Bernard Benhamou, Senior Lecturer for the Information Society, National Foundation of Political Science; Paris, France “‘The Sovereign Right of States:’ Why Multi-Stakeholder Policy Development is Possible and Necessary” Jeremy Malcolm, Doctoral candidate, Murdoch University; Perth, Australia “Distributed Internet Governance: A Chance or a Threat to Democracy?” Meryem Marzouki, Researcher, National Center for Scientific Research, and Computer Science Laboratory of the University Paris 6; France “The Future of Enhanced Cooperation” Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Professor of International Communication Policy and Regulation, University of Aarhus; Denmark Focus: In addition to creating the Internet Governance Forum, the Tunis Agenda calls for “enhanced cooperation” among governments. This language originated with the European Union's June 2005 criticism of US unilateral control of ICANN. The EU claimed that the WSIS statement constituted, “a worldwide political agreement providing for further internationalization of Internet governance, and enhanced intergovernmental cooperation to this end” and that, “Such cooperation should include the development of globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources.” The purpose of this panel is to consider questions such as: What are the causes of US-EU tensions over Internet governance? What institutional form might such a “new cooperation model” for deliberations among governments take? How viable is the distinction between “day-to-day management of the Internet and “public policy?” What, more generally, is the role of national governments in Internet governance in relation to other stakeholder groups? What implications might “enhanced cooperation” have for civil society and multistakeholder participation? How might such a philosophy lead to changes in the structure or processes of ICANN? 13:00-14:30 Lunch break (on your own) 14:30-16:00 The Distributed Architecture of Internet Governance Chair: William J. Drake, Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance, Graduate Institute of International Studies; Geneva, Switzerland Panelists: “The Role of International Telecommunications Arrangements in Distributed Internet Governance” Don MacLean, Independent consultant (formerly Chief of Strategic Planning and External Affairs, the International Telecommunication Union); Ottawa, Canada “Institutional Factors Impacting Participation in Distributed Internet Governance” David Souter, Visiting Professor in Communications Management (formerly Chief Executive, Commonwealth Telecommunications Organization); University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom “Striking a Balance in Guiding Principles for Distributed Internet Governance” Qiheng Hu, President of the Internet Society of China and Chairperson of the Steering Committee for the China Network and Information Center (formerly Vice President, Chinese Academy of Sciences); Beijing, China “Best Practices for Internet Standards Governance?” Laura DeNardis, Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project; New Haven, USA Focus: As the WSIS agreements recognized, Internet governance involves much more than ICANN or the collective management of naming and numbering. Internet governance also includes the development and application of internationally shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs in a variety of other issue-areas, e.g. technical standardization, cybercrime and network security, international interconnection, e-commerce, e-contracting, networked trade in digital goods and services, digital intellectual property, jurisdiction and choice of law, human rights, speech and social conduct, cultural and linguistic diversity, privacy and consumer protection, dispute resolution, and so on. These activities take a variety of forms and are pursued in a heterogeneous array of settings, including governmental, intergovernmental, private sector, and multistakeholder organizations and collaborations. In parallel, the international regimes and related frameworks they establish vary widely in their institutional attributes, e.g. the collective action problems addressed, functions performed, participants involved, organizational setting and decision making procedures, agreement type, strength and scope of prescriptions, compliance mechanisms, power dynamics and distributional biases, etc. But while there is now broad recognition that the architecture of Internet governance is highly distributed, there has been little systematic scholarly analysis or policy dialogue about its precise nature and implications. The purpose of this panel is to explore and clarify some of the lingering ambiguities, including questions such as: Which governance mechanisms are relatively more or less important in shaping the Internet¹s evolution and use? How well do these mechanisms cohere, and are there tensions and gaps between them? Are there crosscutting issues that merit consideration from analytical and programmatic standpoints? Are there generalizable lessons to be learned by the distinct communities of expertise involved in different issue-areas with regard to best practices and institutional design? Does the distributed architecture pose any challenges with respect to the effective participation of less powerful stakeholders and the global community¹s ability to govern in an effective and equitable manner? Looking beyond formalized collective frameworks, under what circumstances, if any, may private market power or spontaneously harmonized practices constitute forms of Internet governance? What is the current role of governance mechanisms for international telecommunications, and what might that role become in a future marked by convergence and potentially non-neutral next generation networks? 16:00-16:15 Closing of the Symposium 16:15-16:30 Coffee break 16:30-18:00 GigaNet Business Meeting (Open to current and prospective GigaNet members) ******************************************************* William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland http://www.cpsr.org/Members/wdrake ******************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Thu Oct 12 09:56:32 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:56:32 +0800 Subject: [governance] Effective participation .... In-Reply-To: <452E321D.3060703@wz-berlin.de> References: <3036.172.197.11.176.1160582094.squirrel@172.197.11.176> <452E321D.3060703@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <452E4990.6010101@Malcolm.id.au> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Jeffrey, are you referring to the Internet Governance Forum or to this > list? In any case, my guess is that in both activities too many > organizations are involved for a "brief primer" :-) I'd suggest you have > a look at the forum's website for a start: http://www.intgovforum.org/ The IGF's Web site is quite poor, though. There is little information there about the process by which it came into being, who is directing it, by what authority, who are the other stakeholders involved, what its aims are, and until two days ago, what the programme of its first meeting will be. The chronology of the IGF is particularly difficult to piece together given that items on its home page are in no particular order, and there is nowhere where updates to the site are listed (not even its RSS feed). Kieran McCarthy and I are working on a site that will (note: future tense, there's not much there yet) offer a better introduction to the IGF, at http://www.igf2006.info/cms, as well as providing a variety of means for remote participation by those who can't make it to Athens. For somewhat critical commentary on the IGF and a very brief introduction to it, there's also my IGFWatch site at http://igfwatch.org/. For broader coverage of IG institutions, the Net Dialogue site at http://www.netdialogue.org/ could be useful, though it's a little out of date. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3256 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Oct 13 11:26:37 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:26:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Newsletter, Vol 1.04 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <452FB02D.5020307@bertola.eu.org> IGP Info ha scritto: > ========================================================================= > [5] DOES SHE KNOW SOMETHING WE DON'T? EU COMMISSIONER RESPONDS TO > NEW JPA > ========================================================================= > > > EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media Viviane Redding > welcomed the "US government's declared intention to grant more > autonomy to ICANN and to end its governmental oversight." We must > have missed that part of the agreement: as far as we can tell the new > JPA does not introduce any guarantee that the relationship will end > in 2009. < > http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1297&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en > > On this point, after having spent a couple of days in Rome with various people, I have the strong feeling that this statement is pure wishful thinking. In other words, they know perfectly that there is no guarantee that the formal connection between the USG and ICANN will end in 2009, but they thought that they could send a message and put some pressure to that end by acting "as if". I can also tell you that AFAIK the European officers who work on privacy are totally unhappy about the Whois provision of the JPA. Totally. The point is, what can they do about it. Don't say that the king is naked... -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nhklein at gmx.net Fri Oct 13 12:34:34 2006 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:34:34 +0900 Subject: [governance] [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Newsletter, Vol 1.04 In-Reply-To: <452FB02D.5020307@bertola.eu.org> References: <452FB02D.5020307@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <452FC01A.2060608@gmx.net> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > [snip] > > I can also tell you that AFAIK the European officers who work on > privacy are totally unhappy about the Whois provision of the JPA. > Totally. The point is, what can they do about it. Don't say that the > king is naked... Vittorio, I do not understand well what you mean: "what can they do about it?" I am sometimes surprised about the difference between what some of the European members of the GAC say over a cup of coffee, and then in the meeting, there is silence. Why? Norbert Klein ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 14 01:46:50 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 11:16:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Newsletter, Vol 1.04 In-Reply-To: <452FC01A.2060608@gmx.net> Message-ID: <20061014054658.B3BD9DA80B@smtp3.electricembers.net> > I am sometimes surprised about the difference between what > some of the > European members of the GAC say over a cup of coffee, and > then in the > meeting, there is silence. Why? It is the difference between the identified 'strategic interests' and what they really think, and believe right.... EU need to do more on asserting itself, vis-à-vis its strategic economic and political partnership with the US, in which US mostly gets away with unilaterally defining the agenda. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Norbert Klein [mailto:nhklein at gmx.net] > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 10:05 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola > Subject: Re: [governance] [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Newsletter, Vol > 1.04 > > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > [snip] > > > > I can also tell you that AFAIK the European officers who > work on > > privacy are totally unhappy about the Whois provision of > the JPA. > > Totally. The point is, what can they do about it. Don't say > that the > > king is naked... > > Vittorio, I do not understand well what you mean: "what can > they do > about it?" > > I am sometimes surprised about the difference between what > some of the > European members of the GAC say over a cup of coffee, and > then in the > meeting, there is silence. Why? > > > Norbert Klein > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Sat Oct 14 02:21:10 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 08:21:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Administrativa - trim your headers Message-ID: <19A6D507-6CA4-4DC1-8BDA-ABAA78147BC8@acm.org> Hi, If possible i would like to ask people to trim their headers when they respond to email. Currently two copies of every message on the "IGP Newsletter, Vol 1.04" thread are going out. I think it strange enough that the governance list is a subscriber to the newsletter, i wonder when the caucus opted in for the subscription, but to get 2 copies of every message is a bit much. thanks a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dcogburn at syr.edu Sat Oct 14 06:52:00 2006 From: dcogburn at syr.edu (Derrick L. Cogburn) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 6:52:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] [IGP-ANNOUNCE] IGP Newsletter, Vol 1.04 Message-ID: <200610141053.k9EArFbl027940@wcmta3.mycingular.net> There is also literature to explain this. Goffman talks about the differences between 'frontstage' and 'backstage' behavior. There are various explanations for what drives this behavior. DLC Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn Syracuse University http://cotelco.syr.edu Sent wirelessly via Palm Treo ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sat Oct 14 15:48:30 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:48:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for Papers - Journal of IT in Social Change Message-ID: <45313F0E.8010509@lists.privaterra.org> Passing on this request for papers for a new US journal - for more information please contact [research at nten.org] Regards, Robert == Call for Papers Announcement Organizations in the nonprofit and voluntary sector have recognized that information technologies are a vital part of their effective mission achievement. While a large and growing body of practical knowledge already exists, practitioners, managers, and policy makers still lack systematic scholarly research about how information technologies are changing the nonprofit sector and the organizations within it. NTEN and Nonprofit Online News are seeking research papers for a panel and a publication. The panel will be held at the upcoming Nonprofit Technology Conference, in Washington DC April 4-6, 2007 and will be entitled "The State of the Art in Nonprofit Technology." The publication will be the first issue of The Journal of Information Technology in Social Change. We are seeking rigorously designed research that explores all facets of ICT implementation, use, and innovation in nonprofit and grassroots organizations and sectors. We are interested in research that engages with these and similar themes: * Technology adoption in the voluntary sector * The relationship between open ICT ecosystems and civil society * Issues around the use of technology platforms, e.g., free/open source software and proprietary systems * How non-profits and grassroots organizations use information technologies * Organizational change and technology implementation * The unique technological needs of nonprofit and grassroots organizations * The role of technology in promoting social change We are taking a multidisciplinary approach. Original papers and proposals are sought from researchers in all relevant subject areas. Proposals submitted should address facets of nonprofit technology, broadly construed. Complete papers are encouraged and will be given priority over proposals. Two to three page proposals that include a summary of research findings and methods used will also be considered. Send submissions including the author's contact information, position, and affiliation as PDF, RTF, or DOC files to research at nten.org. Timeline: * Deadline for Proposals (complete papers preferred): December 15, 2006 * Author notification (and editorial requests) by: February 1, 2007 * Complete Papers Due: March 10, 2007 * Journal Publication Date: April 5, 2007 * Conference: April 4-6, 2007 Partners: * Nonprofit Technology Enterprise Network, Sponsor * Nonprofit Online News, Publisher * Michael C. Gilbert, Editor * Katrin Verclas, Editor ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 03:59:58 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:59:58 +0300 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus debacle Message-ID: Finally, someone gets it right: "ICANN has no contractual power to order a domain de-activated;" http://www.circleid.com/posts/spamming_news_spamhaus_non_story_viral/#2665 -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Sun Oct 15 06:38:59 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:38:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Charter final Message-ID: <97D715E8-7813-4BC1-B4DC-5CB91EA391C4@acm.org> Hi, The final version of the charter is at: http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html The only comments I received had to do with a few people who had had problems with the vote, so a few names where added to the list of those who were part of the quorum. The vote for/against count was not changed, and the only change made to the charter was the reference to the number of those voting. thanks to all. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Sun Oct 15 07:04:09 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:04:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] The vote for coordinators and call for nominations Message-ID: Hi, In thinking about the upcoming vote: Per the charter, we now need to elect two coordinators: - 1 for 1 year - 1 for 2 years There are several ways one could go about it: A. elect both in one vote. I.e., give everyone two votes and deem that the person with the most votes is elected for 2 years and the one with the second most votes is elected for 1 year. B. hold two separate votes, one for the 1 year term and one for the 2 year term. B1. hold these votes simultaneously B2. hold these votes sequentially A is easier, but B gives us a better chance at achieving a balance. A and B1 are quicker, but B2 gives the greatest choice. There are probably other possibilities as well but i would like to keep this vote relativly simple. I am tending toward option B2, though I would like the advice of the participants. Regardless of which option we take, I am putting out a two week call for nominees as of today and ending on 28 October. I am proposing using a single set of nominees, whichever of the options we use. Nominees should provide me with - contact points - country of residence - gender - and with a brief statement/bio That I will post on www.igcaucus.org by the time all the nominations are in. In order to make sure I don't miss a nomination, please put (Nomination) in the subject. Concerning the voter's list, it will be based on the Governance list membership I pulled down on 21 September. I am hoping that some of the improvements in the voting system, including the web front end, will be available by the time we vote. Email voting will still be available for those who have become comfortable with it. Note, I am planning as a secret ballot. Though we don't have an appeals team in place yet, i will consider this as 'appealed' and will make in an open vote if there is an overwhelming opinion in favor of making the election open. thanks a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sun Oct 15 07:06:07 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:06:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus debacle In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4532161F.8090102@bertola.eu.org> McTim ha scritto: > Finally, someone gets it right: > > "ICANN has no contractual power to order a domain de-activated except if some IPR enforcement firm notices that you mistyped your home address when registering it. In any case, I suppose that the court could order the registry or the registrar to deactivate the domain, assuming that they fell under its jurisdiction, right? Also, I think that this case proves once more that collective regulation of anti-spam practices is urgently necessary - where "collective" means "done not only by engineers", and "regulation" does not necessarily imply coercion, could mean agreed best practices that are voluntarily followed by everyone. Is there anything planned to happen about anti-spam practices at the IGF? -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Sun Oct 15 07:21:45 2006 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:21:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Spamhaus debacle In-Reply-To: <4532161F.8090102@bertola.eu.org> References: <4532161F.8090102@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <453219C9.7090201@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Is there anything planned to happen about anti-spam practices at the IGF? Yes, big time: Plenary: http://www.intgovforum.org/Description_of_Theme.php#Security Workshop: http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=31 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon Oct 16 06:49:28 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:49:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] The vote for coordinators and call for nominations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Avri, > From: Avri Doria > There are several ways one could go about it: > > A. elect both in one vote. I.e., give everyone two votes and deem > that the person with the most votes is elected for 2 years and the > one with the second most votes is elected for 1 year. > > B. hold two separate votes, one for the 1 year term and one for the 2 > year term. > B1. hold these votes simultaneously > B2. hold these votes sequentially > > A is easier, but B gives us a better chance at achieving a balance. > A and B1 are quicker, but B2 gives the greatest choice. Since this won't be resolved prior to the IGF and we're not doing anything there under the caucus' name, time would not appear to be of the essence. As such, it's probably better to take the time to get it right, and B2 would seem the best way to ensure balance (I'm not clear on whether it would increase choice per se...). BTW, speaking of Athens, presumably we should have a caucus meeting, but I don't recall seeing any discussion here of when/how etc. Since everyone's schedules are probably filling up, it might be good to decide this sooner than later. A priori, one would think that lunchtime on the 31st is the best window of opportunity, since there are lunch workshops on the following days. Make sense? Do we need to ask Markus for a room, or can we assume there'd be a suitable space we could simply occupy in the plaza? Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Mon Oct 16 06:51:29 2006 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 06:51:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Effective participation .... Message-ID: Since the issue of participation has again arisen it probably is not inappropriate for me to reintroduce into the discussion what I take to be the fundamental issue that I believe underlies our overall discussions (and those of the IGF) and particularly that of "participation"; that is, what is it that we mean by "Internet Governance" or more particularly, what are we referring to when we speak of "Internet Governance". I think it is fairly well accepted that the Internet in some form or at least ICTs in their various modes of application and networking will provide the central infrastructure (nervous system cf. Bill Gates among others) of the future politico-socio-economy. That being said the issue of Internet Governance could arguably be interpreted to be concerned with the "governance of the fundamental infrastructure of the future" and at least in a context of what is to be excluded from that future (rather than what is ensured) could be said to be determinative of what the shape of that future economy, society and polity will likely be. I think that this is (at least half) recognized but never articulated by many of those most actively concerned with "Internet Governance". My own feeling is that what should be of most direct concern at the IGF is to identify what does not fall under the purview of "Internet Governance" as currently being presented (and to identify where elsewhere those other issues will be discussed). Once it is determined what is not on the table (everything other than the hopefully fairly narrow and largely technical issues that are on the table) then the matter of who should participate in what forums and in what manner should flow quite easily and sensibly. If everything is on the table, as seems to be implied by several of the contributors to this discussion and elsewhere, then indeed we have a very very serious problem of participation (and representation, legitimacy, transparency etc.etc. Best to all, Mike Gurstein -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: October 12, 2006 1:52 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'; 'Anriette Esterhuysen' Subject: RE: [governance] Effective participation .... Hi everyone, We always seem to take the 'effective participation' issues from a 'dominant standpoint' - "we know it - others need to learn to engage". And so observations like Despite this, there is > years of > capacity building to do to bring most of these folk to the > level of > discussions on this list or "in this space". Capacity building issues cannot be denied. But I think that an equally if not more important issue concerning increased participation is that we continue to speak of Internet Governance in somewhat exclusionary terms that we are most comfortable with. Internet is itself on a strong evolutionary curve - from basically a technical protocols based technical infrastructure, to a global information infrastructure, to a social relationship infrastructure - with different evolving logics and socio-political underpinnings and significance. Google's search logarithms may have become more important protocols that IDNs, but we still like to stick to speaking about IG in highly technical terms, to know which is really not that important to understand the public policy implications in IG. And "this space" as also IGF is primarily about pulbic policy implication of IG... So while others whose participation we seek may have much to learn about - we ourselves of "this space" may have to learn a lot. IG issues need to be interpreted in terms of the needs, context and idiom of the majority of the people (at first, at least of the organized interest groups). And we know that it impacts all - so why aren't we able to show them how it impacts them. They will certainly be interested, and will participate as well...... There is a lot of technical expertise needed to set up ISPs, internet exchanges, and other infrastructural elements, but the Internet is lot more. And we, as the front-end CS on IG issues need to interpret old and emerging IG issues to other CS constituencies, and make them interested. From all developing (and developed) countries enough high quality discourses emerge on issues like globalization, IPR etc - IG and Internet policy issues aren't much more 'difficult' than these. Yes, it is a fast changing terrain which makes its comprehension somewhat difficult - and to address this problem we in IGC need to be more pro-active in orienting IG issues more towards people's real needs and context, rather than making them more 'technical'. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 3:49 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen > Subject: Re: [governance] Effective participation .... > > Howzit Anriette, > > On 10/6/06, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > > > Why are there so few participants from national IG > communities in this > > space, and it appears, going to the IGF? > > perhaps because they participate in their own little ponds > and not so > much on a global scale? > > I think that is the case here in UG, where we have a large- > ish group > of folk interested in these issues. Seminars and meetings > have been > sponsored by ISOC in the distant past, recent past by IICD > and most > recently APC/CIPESA have joined in. Despite this, there is > years of > capacity building to do to bring most of these folk to the > level of > discussions on this list or "in this space". > > > > > APC has been talking with ISOC ZA (South African chapter) > and the local > > ISPA as we would really like someone to talk about content > regulation from > > a southern internet service provider's perspective at one > of our workshops in > > Athens. > > > > As far as I found out no one from the South African ISP > association or ISOC > > chapter was planning to go. With a bit of luck and lots of > good will I think we > > will be able to bring someone from here (SA) to Athens who > has a long track > > record in working on IG issues as well as on content > regulation as it impacts > > on ISPs. > > > > But the question remains. Why is ISOC not making it > possible for more > > participants from their national chapters to make it to > these global events? > > 0) Why single out ISOC? Neither Ken nor Nana mentioned them. > > 1) You should ask ISOC this via the public policy discussion > list or > via Chapter delegates list: > > Chapter-delegates mailing list > Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org > http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates > > _______________________________________________ > Memberpubpol mailing list > Memberpubpol at elists.isoc.org > http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/memberpubpol > > 2) They certainly did make it possible for more ISOC folks to > go to to WSIS. > > 3) AFAIK, it is more the chapters job to send their folk to > the IGF, > not the Geneva/Reston HQ task. I count 8 ISOC chapter > delegations, so > the chapters are somewhat active in this area, tho it may be > out of > scope for some chapters. > > 4) ISOC already devotes a great deal of time and money on > bottom up IG > fora, IETF in particuar, so perhaps that remains the focus. > > > > > And what is it the that IGF is doing, or not doing, that > renders it not all that > > interesting to national registries or operators? > > I see a number of ccTLD folk and a few large providers, tho > not many > of either, on the participant list. > > I would suggest that it is because these fok already > participate in > the current IG system via bottom up processes, and this non- > binding > forum may be a bridge too far for many. I know it is not > even on the > radar for the ISPs I work with. They are far too busy with > AfriNIC/AfrISPA/AfNOG etc to spend any cycles, let alone > resources on > the IGF. > > > > > The value of global ICT policy forums peaks when they > interact with national > > and regional processes (and actors) to support change that > increases rights > > and access, and lowers costs and barriers to users and > operators at local > > level. > > That may be, but apparently the vast majority of > perators/registries > don't see the value of the IGF in re: to the above issues. I > can't say > I blame them. > > > Or am I wrong and will local actors (e.g. local/national > consumer groups, > > regulators, internet lawyers, operators, registries etc.) > be there and I just > > don't know about it? > > http://www.intgovforum.org/PLP.html shows some of all of the > above, > except consumer groups. > > http://info.intgovforum.org/PL.php seems to be a later > version. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nne75 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 07:49:44 2006 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 04:49:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGC @ IGF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061016114944.58407.qmail@web50203.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Bill, all William Drake wrote: Since this won't be resolved prior to the IGF and we're not doing anything there under the caucus' name, time would not appear to be of the essence. On reading through the Charter, it struck me that something needs to be done under the name of the caucus! The IGF is too big an event to be missed. My suggestion will be to, at least, inform (at a most convinient time as will be determined by those who will be in place) of the continued existence of the Civil Society IGC. This is very important. As we recall, most caucuses have been naturally phased out with the end of the WSIS. A short presentation of the IGC as it stands, I believe, will be most important. This, does not, in any way, prevent the caucus from actually engaging in more pro-active ways vis a vis the themes. Very best Nnenna --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Mon Oct 16 09:59:21 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:59:21 +0800 Subject: [governance] Effective participation .... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45339039.7040408@Malcolm.id.au> Gurstein, Michael wrote: > My > own feeling is that what should be of most direct concern at the IGF is > to identify what does not fall under the purview of "Internet > Governance" as currently being presented (and to identify where > elsewhere those other issues will be discussed). > > Once it is determined what is not on the table (everything other than > the hopefully fairly narrow and largely technical issues that are on the > table) then the matter of who should participate in what forums and in > what manner should flow quite easily and sensibly. > > If everything is on the table, as seems to be implied by several of the > contributors to this discussion and elsewhere, then indeed we have a > very very serious problem of participation (and representation, > legitimacy, transparency etc.etc. I would say that, on the contrary, it is the "narrow and largely technical" issues that are *not* on the table, and the wide-ranging public policy issues that are. For example paragraph 77 of the Tunis Agenda specifies that the IGF will "not replace existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organizations" (ie. ICANN, ISOC, IAB, IETF) and in paragraph 69 that is is not to be involved in "day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues", but rather according to paragraph 60 in "cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms". So I don't see that the issues can or will be narrowed in such a way that participation, transparency, etc will become lesser problems. I have quite a lot to say about this, and about a whole lot of other things, in the PhD thesis that I'm writing, which at this juncture I probably ought to mention on this list for those who don't already know about it. It's titled "Civil Society's Role in the Collaborative Development of Transnational Law Within the Internet Governance Forum", and it's being published progressively as a wiki at http://www.malcolm.id.au/thesis (from where a PDF version is also available). Currently it is over half-finished, with the last section completed being 4.2 ("Authoritarian" in Chapter 4... if you reach 4.3 "Democratic" then you've gone too far). If wading through a PhD thesis is too much, then I'll be talking about some of the main themes at GigaNet, and for a sneak preview the slides from that presentation are linked from IGFWatch.org. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3256 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca Mon Oct 16 11:13:11 2006 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:13:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] The vote for coordinators and call for nominations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4533A187.6060100@umontreal.ca> William Drake wrote: > BTW, speaking of Athens, presumably we should have a caucus meeting, but I > don't recall seeing any discussion here of when/how etc. Since everyone's > schedules are probably filling up, it might be good to decide this sooner > than later. A priori, one would think that lunchtime on the 31st is the > best window of opportunity, since there are lunch workshops on the following > days. Make sense? Do we need to ask Markus for a room, or can we assume > there'd be a suitable space we could simply occupy in the plaza? > > Best, > > Bill > > > I am going to be at the IGF, and I think that we should definitely meet- not for the least of reasons to: -A) have a catch-up/discussion/briefing/de-briefing session about the goings on that have led up to the IGF, the events themselves and to talk about co-ordinating activities going forward. -B) have a chance to treat Avri to some beer or perhaps baklava in thanks for her Herculian efforts regarding the charter and vote. What is the best strategy- should we pick a time and place or coordinate by email from the building about so that we can first determine room availability etc? Look forward to seeing many of you there, -Jeremy ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Oct 16 11:30:02 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:30:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC @ IGF In-Reply-To: <20061016114944.58407.qmail@web50203.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061016114944.58407.qmail@web50203.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4533A57A.7040801@bertola.eu.org> Nnenna ha scritto: > A short presentation of the IGC as it stands, I believe, will be most > important. I agree, and I think that we could ask Avri to do it: sure, we appointed her only to manage the charter process, but we might reach consensus on a "process" statement that summarizes what we are doing, and reassures on our continued existence, deferring substance positions to when we will be fully operational with the new charter. I also support Bill's proposal of a caucus meeting in Athens, at the beginning of the Forum if possible. Perhaps some of our members who are in the IGF-AG could try to find a space and timeslot by asking the Forum secretariat? As for the election of coordinators, I am fine with any of the different options, but I would tend to support B2 as well, as we have time. I am also putting forward my name as one of the candidates: I enjoyed giving some (very limited) support to Avri in these months, and I would love to increase my commitment and pursue the role of civil society in this environment, as a facilitator to the discussion. At the same time, I think that it would be great if Avri continued; in theory, she is disqualified as she is running the process, but I think that she has been leading the caucus very well, so if she wishes to stand for nomination we should find someone else to run the elections and add her to the list. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 12:18:03 2006 From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:18:03 -0700 Subject: [governance] The vote for coordinators and call for nominations Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061016091755.05fa5990@peoplewho.org> Please pick a time and place ahead of time or at least a place to look for a notice. I would like to come, and don't much want to find email access to locate the meeting. Sylvia On 10/16/06, Jeremy Shtern wrote: > should we pick a time and place or coordinate by email from the building ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Oct 16 12:32:08 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 01:32:08 +0900 Subject: Meting in Athens (Re: [governance] The vote for coordinators and call for nominations) Message-ID: The schedule is beginning to take shape No lunchtime workshops on Monday 30th (31st - there are workshops) so I'll see if we can find a room then. Been told the hotel understands how to cater for large meetings, there will be sandwiches to buy (let's hope correct.) Adam On 10/17/06, Sylvia Caras wrote: > Please pick a time and place ahead of time or at least a place to look > for a notice. I would like to come, and don't much want to find email > access to locate the meeting. > > Sylvia > > On 10/16/06, Jeremy Shtern wrote: > > should we pick a time and place or coordinate by email from the building > > ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Mon Oct 16 20:12:26 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:12:26 +0800 Subject: [governance] Question on IGF Advisory Group selection Message-ID: <45341FEA.9010708@Malcolm.id.au> Apart from the civil society candidates nominated by the IGC Nomcom to the IGF Secretariat, does anyone know if there was a similar process for nomination of candidates for the Advisory Group by the other stakeholder groups? I believe ISOC was asked, but can find no mention of a nomination process for private sector, intergovernmental or governmental stakeholders anywhere (though, for that matter, there was no mention on the IGF Web site that the Secretariat would be receiving nominations from civil society other than directly from candidates, either). TIA -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Mon Oct 16 20:13:04 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:13:04 +0800 Subject: [governance] Effective participation .... In-Reply-To: <452E321D.3060703@wz-berlin.de> References: <3036.172.197.11.176.1160582094.squirrel@172.197.11.176> <452E321D.3060703@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <45342010.9040203@Malcolm.id.au> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Jeffrey, are you referring to the Internet Governance Forum or to this > list? In any case, my guess is that in both activities too many > organizations are involved for a "brief primer" :-) I'd suggest you have > a look at the forum's website for a start: http://www.intgovforum.org/ The IGF's Web site is quite poor, though. There is little information there about the process by which it came into being, who is directing it, by what authority, who are the other stakeholders involved, what its aims are, and until two days ago, what the programme of its first meeting will be. The chronology of the IGF is particularly difficult to piece together given that items on its home page are in no particular order, and there is nowhere where updates to the site are listed (not even its RSS feed). Kieran McCarthy and I are working on a site that will (note: future tense, there's not much there yet) offer a better introduction to the IGF, at http://www.igf2006.info/cms, as well as providing a variety of means for remote participation by those who can't make it to Athens. For somewhat critical commentary on the IGF and a very brief introduction to it, there's also my IGFWatch site at http://igfwatch.org/. For broader coverage of IG institutions, the Net Dialogue site at http://www.netdialogue.org/ could be useful, though it's a little out of date. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Mon Oct 16 20:13:27 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:13:27 +0800 Subject: [governance] Effective participation .... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45342027.3050405@Malcolm.id.au> Gurstein, Michael wrote: > My > own feeling is that what should be of most direct concern at the IGF is > to identify what does not fall under the purview of "Internet > Governance" as currently being presented (and to identify where > elsewhere those other issues will be discussed). > > Once it is determined what is not on the table (everything other than > the hopefully fairly narrow and largely technical issues that are on the > table) then the matter of who should participate in what forums and in > what manner should flow quite easily and sensibly. > > If everything is on the table, as seems to be implied by several of the > contributors to this discussion and elsewhere, then indeed we have a > very very serious problem of participation (and representation, > legitimacy, transparency etc.etc. I would say that, on the contrary, it is the "narrow and largely technical" issues that are *not* on the table, and the wide-ranging public policy issues that are. For example paragraph 77 of the Tunis Agenda specifies that the IGF will "not replace existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organizations" (ie. ICANN, ISOC, IAB, IETF) and in paragraph 69 that is is not to be involved in "day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues", but rather according to paragraph 60 in "cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms". So I don't see that the issues can or will be narrowed in such a way that participation, transparency, etc will become lesser problems. I have quite a lot to say about this, and about a whole lot of other things, in the PhD thesis that I'm writing, which at this juncture I probably ought to mention on this list for those who don't already know about it. It's titled "Civil Society's Role in the Collaborative Development of Transnational Law Within the Internet Governance Forum", and it's being published progressively as a wiki at http://www.malcolm.id.au/thesis (from where a PDF version is also available). Currently it is over half-finished, with the last section completed being 4.2 ("Authoritarian" in Chapter 4... if you reach 4.3 "Democratic" then you've gone too far). If wading through a PhD thesis is too much, then I'll be talking about some of the main themes at GigaNet, and for a sneak preview the slides from that presentation are linked from IGFWatch.org. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Mon Oct 16 20:17:47 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:17:47 +0800 Subject: [governance] Explanation for just resending my last three list posts Message-ID: <4534212B.6060507@Malcolm.id.au> I've only just been informed (thanks Michael) that my posts to the list have been coming up blank (for some? all? recipients), so that's why I've just re-sent them. Please ignore them if they are duplicates for you. The reason must be that they are digitally signed, however it is poor design of the mailing list software and/or the MUA for it to cause digitally signed mail to come up blank. I was already aware of, and had blogged about (http://jeremy.malcolm.id.au/?page=journal&sub_page=archive&display=0000000048) the problems that Microsoft Outlook and Outlook Express have when people try to reply to digitally signed email, but the blank messages seem to be a separate issue. As a work-around for now, I won't sign my mails to the list. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Oct 17 01:33:43 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:33:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Athens Message-ID: We need to decide what we want to do at a meeting on Monday 30th. We can have a room, but the question came back "what size"? If just usual suspects meeting then 10-20 persons. If we reach out to all the people coming for CS organized workshops then the number is more like 40. If an open invitation to all civil society interested, then it could be 100+ If any thing other than "usual suspects" then some agenda, schedule and purpose needed. 700 people have no confirmed hotel rooms. There's no registration fee for the IGF, someone having made a room booking (cancellation fees apply), then that is a reasonable guide to the minimum number attending. Can expect at least 200 local people. Whoever considers themselves coordinators, get coordinating please :-) Other things going on during lunch will be the new informal plaza (and food.) As the first day that might be the most important day for that activity. I would like to find a way for workshop organizers to showcase what they will be discussing: a place to meet and greet workshops. And for workshop organizers to mingle among themselves. First lunchtime would be a good time to kick anything like this off. Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Tue Oct 17 03:14:00 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:14:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Athens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Adam, > From: Adam Peake > We need to decide what we want to do at a meeting on Monday 30th. > > We can have a room, but the question came back "what size"? > > If just usual suspects meeting then 10-20 persons. If we reach out > to all the people coming for CS organized workshops then the number > is more like 40. If an open invitation to all civil society > interested, then it could be 100+ Just guessing, but I would ask for a mid-sized room for 50. We don't need an intensively focused usual suspects meeting because we're not drafting text or planning lobbying or whatever, and if we're trying to reboot the caucus with broader participation the priority should be to draw in new blood. But I suspect we're not going to get 100+ without serious outreach to people who are not on the governance or plenary lists, and it's not clear that anyone will step up and offer to identify and contact all those folks in the time remaining. If in the end only usual suspects + some show up fine, we sit in a slightly oversized room and talk loudly if per usual there's no microphones. > If any thing other than "usual suspects" then some agenda, schedule > and purpose needed. Since we're not planning a joint intervention in the IGF discussions, why don't we make it more inward-oriented, an informal informational session on the caucus geared toward folks who weren't actively engaged in the WSIS phase but might like to be now? Maybe overview the charter and some past position statements, talk about how people can get involved and what we could do together going forward? >700 people have no confirmed hotel rooms. There's > no registration fee for the IGF, someone having made a room booking > (cancellation fees apply), then that is a reasonable guide to the > minimum number attending. Can expect at least 200 local people. I'm not quite sure how to read this. There are over 1000 registered but 700 don't have hotel rooms confirmed less than two weeks from the event? So we are completely clueless about how many people may actually attend? Makes planning events difficult... > Whoever considers themselves coordinators, get coordinating please :-) In the above scenario, perhaps you and Jeanette and/or others who were involved back in the day could do a quick overview of caucus history, positions adopted, and impact, and Avri could talk about the charter, voting, and where we are now, then we just open it up for discussion? Like 15 minutes total of presentation, very informal? (sorry for volunteering you---others here could also do this stuff if you three don't want to or can't) > Other things going on during lunch will be the new informal plaza > (and food.) As the first day that might be the most important day for > that activity. > > I would like to find a way for workshop organizers to showcase what > they will be discussing: a place to meet and greet workshops. And > for workshop organizers to mingle among themselves. First lunchtime > would be a good time to kick anything like this off. Sounds good. But to state the obvious, I'd think the higher priority is to get actual programs for the workshops onto the web and printed out for distribution on site. Right now, all people have to go on when deciding what to attend is the initial workshop proposals. Presumably they might like to know who's speaking at the workshops; I know I would. The same goes for the plenary sessions. The thing starts in less than two weeks, and the program is still a blank slate... Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Tue Oct 17 03:43:52 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:43:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Athens In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 17 okt 2006, at 09.14, William Drake wrote: > >> Whoever considers themselves coordinators, get coordinating >> please :-) > > In the above scenario, perhaps you and Jeanette and/or others who were > involved back in the day could do a quick overview of caucus history, > positions adopted, and impact, and Avri could talk about the charter, > voting, and where we are now, then we just open it up for > discussion? Like > 15 minutes total of presentation, very informal? (sorry for > volunteering > you---others here could also do this stuff if you three don't want > to or > can't) thanks for the above. while i was deemd coordinator for processs only, planning a meeting seems somewhat like a process, so i am definitely willing to help. I think the suggestions you make are good. Adam and Jeanette are not only past coordinators, but are both on the MAG. and I am willing to give an update on the charter and where we are at the moment. It would also be good to see us go a little way into substance. some possiblities, - a panel of the CS MAGites addressing issues about the IGF: why it is organized the way it is and what they expect to come out of it. - a moderated discussion on what the attendees expect to come out of it - a sequence of short (5 min) presentations on directions the IGC could take over the next year. - i am sure there are other ideas I am assuming that we are going for a 90 minute slot. If so, Then I would recommend dedicating no more the 30 minutes to the WSIS review and Charter etc, leaving an hour for 1 or 2 other discussions of 30 minutes each. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Oct 17 04:07:39 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:07:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] audio from Nominet's recent IGF consultation Message-ID: Kieren McCarthy's put audio recordings of the Nominet's recent IGF consultation Also, please look at the site he's running with some others. Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Tue Oct 17 04:27:45 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:27:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Athens In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45349401.6010209@bertola.eu.org> Adam Peake ha scritto: > Whoever considers themselves coordinators, get coordinating please :-) You know, that might be an empty set! :-) Anyway, I would suggest that, if possible, we keep the two things parted. One might be a short and small coordination meeting among the current caucus members, where we discuss practical issues such as the election process (and candidates, if you like) and a possible process statement to be given afterwards in the plenary (which should, anyway, be first drafted and discussed on list). Another one might be a short but broader informational meeting, open to everyone in a big room, aimed at informing all civil society and individual participants of the opportunity to participate through us. We could just come up with a set of slides about what we did and how you can join, and do outreach. It could actually turn into a sort of "introduction to new participants to this process", a bit like ICANN's introduction at the beginning, and so it could actually be a service to the entire Forum. But then, this would require a big room on the first day, and I don't know whether that's feasible. On the other hand, the other, "internal" meeting could be moved out of the critical path, for example at dinner or just before it, after the Forum ends for the first day. > Other things going on during lunch will be the new informal plaza (and > food.) And don't forget about food... people less crazy than us tend to put it as a high priority item :-) -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 17 04:57:52 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:27:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Athens In-Reply-To: <45349401.6010209@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <20061017085800.5A9415C7F@smtp2.electricembers.net> I agree with Vittorio's scheme of two meetings... >>>a possible process statement to be given afterwards in the plenary (which should, anyway, be first drafted and discussed on list) Yes, we should give a statement on IGC to the plenary and outside. IGF is too big an opportunity to be missed.. However, I also think that it should be possible to agree on this list - in the next few days - on a short statement at least on the IGF process (if not on some substantive matters - even if briefly stating public interest orientation etc) - and what we expect out of it, and what is our level of satisfaction over its current institutional form.... The way IGF is organized and is increasing describing itself has some problems about its ability and effectiveness in fulfilling all the points of its mandate under para 72 of Tunis Agenda. In this regard please see the latest statement of Nitin Desai in London at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6037345.stm (quote) "The forum has no membership, it's an open door, a town hall, all views are welcome." "But it's not a decision-making body. We have no members so we have no power to make decision." (ends) For example how does it plan to "Interface with appropriate intergovernmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview" or to "advice all stakeholder" or "Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes" and few such mandates that require a more active role than being an international conference on IGF. How does IGF plan to do it, since it says that it has no members and no 'body' so as to say, and is merely a 'space'. What is the special status or legitimacy of this 'space' and if there is any such specialty about it - how is it proposed to be expressed. (we may even just list such questions form IGC and ask them officially on IGC's behalf in open house. Maybe with a list forwarded to the secretariat earlier) After WSIS, a top US officials said something to the effect that things have turned out well for the US (and allied economic and political) interests, but that we - meaning these interests - need to be careful over 2006 as well - and that 2006 is an important year. He obviously meant WSIS follow-up processes, where 'unpleasant' issues may again raise their head. Id say, as things are going, they are having it even better than they had it during the WSIS, and any strong public interest, or south oriented advocacy has not build up in post-WSIS spaces. The first meeting of IGF is an important occasion which still have (I hope) some possibility of determining IGF's character in a meaningful way whereby IGF still has some status, role and effectiveness beyond being an annual IG conference.. Any effort to get this done needs to come from IGC, and we should not declare it lost even before we have tried the least bit.. We must recognise we represent, in some ways, the global civil society, since there aren't many others in this space, and we have corresponding responsibilities. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu.org] > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:58 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus meeting in Athens > > Adam Peake ha scritto: > > Whoever considers themselves coordinators, get coordinating > please :-) > > You know, that might be an empty set! :-) Anyway, I would > suggest that, > if possible, we keep the two things parted. > > One might be a short and small coordination meeting among the > current > caucus members, where we discuss practical issues such as the > election > process (and candidates, if you like) and a possible process > statement > to be given afterwards in the plenary (which should, anyway, > be first > drafted and discussed on list). > > Another one might be a short but broader informational > meeting, open to > everyone in a big room, aimed at informing all civil society > and > individual participants of the opportunity to participate > through us. We > could just come up with a set of slides about what we did and > how you > can join, and do outreach. It could actually turn into a sort > of > "introduction to new participants to this process", a bit > like ICANN's > introduction at the beginning, and so it could actually be a > service to > the entire Forum. But then, this would require a big room on > the first > day, and I don't know whether that's feasible. On the other > hand, the > other, "internal" meeting could be moved out of the critical > path, for > example at dinner or just before it, after the Forum ends for > the first day. > > > Other things going on during lunch will be the new informal > plaza (and > > food.) > > And don't forget about food... people less crazy than us tend > to put it > as a high priority item :-) > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] > bertola.eu.org]<----- > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From avri at acm.org Tue Oct 17 05:59:34 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:59:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Athens In-Reply-To: <20061017085800.5A9415C7F@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20061017085800.5A9415C7F@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Personally speaking - not as interim process coordinator. I think it would be good if the the IGC could do 2 things: - Produce a statement, of questions and expectations as indicate below for release before the Athens meeting - Produce an in depth statement after the Athens meeting reviewing the first year, analyzing the meeting and the direction being taken and outlining the IGC goals and plans for itself and the IGF in the coming year. By then we should be done with this transition, and the IGF will have had its chance to make its mark on where it is going - so it will be time for the IGC to act. at least that is my personal feeling. a. On 17 okt 2006, at 10.57, Parminder wrote: > > > > > I agree with Vittorio's scheme of two meetings... > > > > >>>a possible process statement to be given afterwards in the > plenary (which should, anyway, be first drafted and discussed on list) > > > > Yes, we should give a statement on IGC to the plenary and outside. > IGF is too big an opportunity to be missed.. > > > > However, I also think that it should be possible to agree on this > list – in the next few days - on a short statement at least on the > IGF process (if not on some substantive matters – even if briefly > stating public interest orientation etc) - and what we expect out > of it, and what is our level of satisfaction over its current > institutional form.... > > > > The way IGF is organized and is increasing describing itself has > some problems about its ability and effectiveness in fulfilling all > the points of its mandate under para 72 of Tunis Agenda. > > > > In this regard please see the latest statement of Nitin Desai in > London at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6037345.stm > > > > (quote) > > “The forum has no membership, it's an open door, a town hall, all > views are welcome.” > > "But it's not a decision-making body. We have no members so we have > no power to make decision." > > (ends) > > > > For example how does it plan to “Interface with appropriate > intergovernmental organizations and other institutions on matters > under their purview” or to “advice all stakeholder” or “Promote and > assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in > Internet governance processes” and few such mandates that require a > more active role than being an international conference on IGF… > > > > How does IGF plan to do it, since it says that it has no members > and no ‘body’ so as to say, and is merely a ‘space’. What is the > special status or legitimacy of this ‘space’ and if there is any > such specialty about it – how is it proposed to be expressed… > > > > (we may even just list such questions form IGC and ask them > officially on IGC’s behalf in open house. Maybe with a list > forwarded to the secretariat earlier) > > > > After WSIS, a top US officials said something to the effect that > things have turned out well for the US (and allied economic and > political) interests, but that we – meaning these interests - need > to be careful over 2006 as well – and that 2006 is an important > year. He obviously meant WSIS follow-up processes, where > ‘unpleasant’ issues may again raise their head. Id say, as things > are going, they are having it even better than they had it during > the WSIS, and any strong public interest, or south oriented > advocacy has not build up in post-WSIS spaces. > > > > The first meeting of IGF is an important occasion which still have > (I hope) some possibility of determining IGF’s character in a > meaningful way whereby IGF still has some status, role and > effectiveness beyond being an annual IG conference.. > > > > Any effort to get this done needs to come from IGC, and we should > not declare it lost even before we have tried the least bit…. We > must recognise we represent, in some ways, the global civil > society, since there aren’t many others in this space, and we have > corresponding responsibilities… > > > > Parminder > > > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > www.ITforChange.net > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu.org] > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:58 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus meeting in Athens > > > > > > Adam Peake ha scritto: > > > > Whoever considers themselves coordinators, get coordinating > > > please :-) > > > > > > You know, that might be an empty set! :-) Anyway, I would > > > suggest that, > > > if possible, we keep the two things parted. > > > > > > One might be a short and small coordination meeting among the > > > current > > > caucus members, where we discuss practical issues such as the > > > election > > > process (and candidates, if you like) and a possible process > > > statement > > > to be given afterwards in the plenary (which should, anyway, > > > be first > > > drafted and discussed on list). > > > > > > Another one might be a short but broader informational > > > meeting, open to > > > everyone in a big room, aimed at informing all civil society > > > and > > > individual participants of the opportunity to participate > > > through us. We > > > could just come up with a set of slides about what we did and > > > how you > > > can join, and do outreach. It could actually turn into a sort > > > of > > > "introduction to new participants to this process", a bit > > > like ICANN's > > > introduction at the beginning, and so it could actually be a > > > service to > > > the entire Forum. But then, this would require a big room on > > > the first > > > day, and I don't know whether that's feasible. On the other > > > hand, the > > > other, "internal" meeting could be moved out of the critical > > > path, for > > > example at dinner or just before it, after the Forum ends for > > > the first day. > > > > > > > Other things going on during lunch will be the new informal > > > plaza (and > > > > food.) > > > > > > And don't forget about food... people less crazy than us tend > > > to put it > > > as a high priority item :-) > > > -- > > > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] > > > bertola.eu.org]<----- > > > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Tue Oct 17 06:00:00 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:00:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC @ IGF In-Reply-To: <4533A57A.7040801@bertola.eu.org> References: <20061016114944.58407.qmail@web50203.mail.yahoo.com> <4533A57A.7040801@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: On 16 okt 2006, at 17.30, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > At the same time, I think that it would be great if Avri continued; > in theory, she is disqualified as she is running the process, but I > think that she has been leading the caucus very well, so if she > wishes to stand for nomination we should find someone else to run > the elections and add her to the list. thanks. i appreciate the sentiments. and welcome your candidacy. i won't be standing for election as a coordinator. maybe in the future there will another role for me in the IGC, but at the moment i personally feel it is better for 2 people who have not been steeped in the transition process to take over and work with the IGC to create its substantive working direction. thanks a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Oct 17 06:35:03 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:35:03 +0900 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Athens In-Reply-To: <45349401.6010209@bertola.eu.org> References: <45349401.6010209@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: At 10:27 AM +0200 10/17/06, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Adam Peake ha scritto: >>Whoever considers themselves coordinators, get coordinating please :-) > >You know, that might be an empty set! :-) Anyway, I would suggest >that, if possible, we keep the two things parted. > >One might be a short and small coordination meeting among the >current caucus members, where we discuss practical issues such as >the election process (and candidates, if you like) and a possible >process statement to be given afterwards in the plenary (which >should, anyway, be first drafted and discussed on list). OK. Good suggestion -- as were Parminder and Avri's follow-ups. I hope the caucus can produce a statement. Following the charter, etc. >Another one might be a short but broader informational meeting, open >to everyone in a big room, aimed at informing all civil society and >individual participants of the opportunity to participate through >us. We could just come up with a set of slides about what we did and >how you can join, and do outreach. It could actually turn into a >sort of "introduction to new participants to this process", a bit >like ICANN's introduction at the beginning, and so it could actually >be a service to the entire Forum. But then, this would require a big >room on the first day, and I don't know whether that's feasible. Yes. It is feasible, that's the question I was asking, what size room would we like :-) We can go for 50 as Bill suggests, or a more formalized agenda as Avri posted. I agree with Avri and would go for the more structured event and I agree with the rough agenda she drafted. So I suggest we ask for one of the workshop rooms, options: - Plato: 220, classroom-type seating arrangements, - Kleoniki: 150, mixed classroom/theatre - type seating arrangements, - Aphrodite: 100, mixed classroom/theatre - type seating arrangements. We can ask to have the meeting announced during the morning opening session. I can ask the secretariat if it would be possible to include in any printed agenda (I guess there must be time...) Avri's agenda, looks good to me: At 9:43 AM +0200 10/17/06, Avri Doria wrote: > >- a panel of the CS MAGites addressing issues about the IGF: why it >is organized the way it is and what they expect to come out of it. > >- a moderated discussion on what the attendees expect to come out of it > >- a sequence of short (5 min) presentations on directions the IGC >could take over the next year. > >- i am sure there are other ideas > >I am assuming that we are going for a 90 minute slot. If so, > >Then I would recommend dedicating no more the 30 minutes to the WSIS >review and Charter etc, leaving an hour for 1 or 2 other discussions >of 30 minutes each. > So we'd start at 1:30, finish at 3. Would someone like to tidy up the agenda. If we can agree quickly then the meeting could be listed on the related activities page (back to quoting VB) >On the other hand, the other, "internal" meeting could be moved out >of the critical path, for example at dinner or just before it, after >the Forum ends for the first day. Makes sense to me. >>Other things going on during lunch will be the new informal plaza (and food.) > >And don't forget about food... people less crazy than us tend to put >it as a high priority item :-) The local hosts have promised there will be a range of sandwich type foods we can buy. There had better be, on other days people are holding workshops over the lunch period. Adam >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Tue Oct 17 06:41:35 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:41:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus statement in Athens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, While I'd be happy to be proven wrong, I tend to think that we're unlikely to develop and agree a strong new statement on complex substantive IG issues in the time remaining. But there is a rather easy alternative. As has been discussed here off and on in recent months and reiterated today by Parminder, it's uncontestable that the IGF is thus far a rather different beast from what was envisioned by the WGIG Report and Tunis Agenda. There are of course all kinds of reasons for this, some of which are understandable given the constraints and the IGF's 'fragile flower' status, others of which are related to power dynamics and merit a less generous assessment. But we probably shouldn't try to get into a critique of these, since that might prove divisive internally and externally. Instead, we could do a simple reiteration and endorsement of the mandate governments nominally agreed to in the TA (or alternatively, the caucus' July 2005 text on what we thought the IGF should be, which is pretty similar to the TA) that then asks Parminder's question, "how does IGF plan to do it?" per function listed. To this could be added another bit previously discussed in the caucus and agreed in the MMWG, namely the point on IGF as an ongoing process rather than solely an annual conference, and hence the potential utility of working groups (oops, sorry, not supposed to say those words---"dynamic coalitions" is apparently the term of choice now) comprising parties interested in discussing and proposing things for consideration at Rio, etc. This approach would require little new writing, build on prior caucus consensus, and be both constructive and cheekily subversive vis any control freaks opposed to truly open dialogue. It could be read out in the Nov. 2 plenary on Taking Stock & the Way Forward. Bill > From: Avri Doria > Reply-To: , Avri Doria > Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:59:34 +0200 > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus meeting in Athens > > Personally speaking - not as interim process coordinator. > > I think it would be good if the the IGC could do 2 things: > > - Produce a statement, of questions and expectations as indicate > below for release before the Athens meeting > > - Produce an in depth statement after the Athens meeting reviewing > the first year, analyzing the meeting and the direction being taken > and outlining the IGC goals and plans for itself and the IGF in the > coming year. > > By then we should be done with this transition, and the IGF will have > had its chance to make its mark on where it is going - so it will be > time for the IGC to act. > > at least that is my personal feeling. > > a. > > > On 17 okt 2006, at 10.57, Parminder wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> I agree with Vittorio's scheme of two meetings... >> >> >> >>>>> a possible process statement to be given afterwards in the >> plenary (which should, anyway, be first drafted and discussed on list) >> >> >> >> Yes, we should give a statement on IGC to the plenary and outside. >> IGF is too big an opportunity to be missed.. >> >> >> >> However, I also think that it should be possible to agree on this >> list ­ in the next few days - on a short statement at least on the >> IGF process (if not on some substantive matters ­ even if briefly >> stating public interest orientation etc) - and what we expect out >> of it, and what is our level of satisfaction over its current >> institutional form.... >> >> >> >> The way IGF is organized and is increasing describing itself has >> some problems about its ability and effectiveness in fulfilling all >> the points of its mandate under para 72 of Tunis Agenda. >> >> >> >> In this regard please see the latest statement of Nitin Desai in >> London at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6037345.stm >> >> >> >> (quote) >> >> ³The forum has no membership, it's an open door, a town hall, all >> views are welcome.² >> >> "But it's not a decision-making body. We have no members so we have >> no power to make decision." >> >> (ends) >> >> >> >> For example how does it plan to ³Interface with appropriate >> intergovernmental organizations and other institutions on matters >> under their purview² or to ³advice all stakeholder² or ³Promote and >> assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in >> Internet governance processes² and few such mandates that require a >> more active role than being an international conference on IGFŠ >> >> >> >> How does IGF plan to do it, since it says that it has no members >> and no Œbody¹ so as to say, and is merely a Œspace¹. What is the >> special status or legitimacy of this Œspace¹ and if there is any >> such specialty about it ­ how is it proposed to be expressedŠ >> >> >> >> (we may even just list such questions form IGC and ask them >> officially on IGC¹s behalf in open house. Maybe with a list >> forwarded to the secretariat earlier) >> >> >> >> After WSIS, a top US officials said something to the effect that >> things have turned out well for the US (and allied economic and >> political) interests, but that we ­ meaning these interests - need >> to be careful over 2006 as well ­ and that 2006 is an important >> year. He obviously meant WSIS follow-up processes, where >> Œunpleasant¹ issues may again raise their head. Id say, as things >> are going, they are having it even better than they had it during >> the WSIS, and any strong public interest, or south oriented >> advocacy has not build up in post-WSIS spaces. >> >> >> >> The first meeting of IGF is an important occasion which still have >> (I hope) some possibility of determining IGF¹s character in a >> meaningful way whereby IGF still has some status, role and >> effectiveness beyond being an annual IG conference.. >> >> >> >> Any effort to get this done needs to come from IGC, and we should >> not declare it lost even before we have tried the least bitŠ. We >> must recognise we represent, in some ways, the global civil >> society, since there aren¹t many others in this space, and we have >> corresponding responsibilitiesŠ >> >> >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________________________ >> >> Parminder Jeet Singh >> >> IT for Change, Bangalore >> >> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >> >> Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >> >> Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >> >> www.ITforChange.net >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu.org] >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:58 PM >> >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake >> >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus meeting in Athens >> >>> >> >>> Adam Peake ha scritto: >> >>>> Whoever considers themselves coordinators, get coordinating >> >>> please :-) >> >>> >> >>> You know, that might be an empty set! :-) Anyway, I would >> >>> suggest that, >> >>> if possible, we keep the two things parted. >> >>> >> >>> One might be a short and small coordination meeting among the >> >>> current >> >>> caucus members, where we discuss practical issues such as the >> >>> election >> >>> process (and candidates, if you like) and a possible process >> >>> statement >> >>> to be given afterwards in the plenary (which should, anyway, >> >>> be first >> >>> drafted and discussed on list). >> >>> >> >>> Another one might be a short but broader informational >> >>> meeting, open to >> >>> everyone in a big room, aimed at informing all civil society >> >>> and >> >>> individual participants of the opportunity to participate >> >>> through us. We >> >>> could just come up with a set of slides about what we did and >> >>> how you >> >>> can join, and do outreach. It could actually turn into a sort >> >>> of >> >>> "introduction to new participants to this process", a bit >> >>> like ICANN's >> >>> introduction at the beginning, and so it could actually be a >> >>> service to >> >>> the entire Forum. But then, this would require a big room on >> >>> the first >> >>> day, and I don't know whether that's feasible. On the other >> >>> hand, the >> >>> other, "internal" meeting could be moved out of the critical >> >>> path, for >> >>> example at dinner or just before it, after the Forum ends for >> >>> the first day. >> >>> >> >>>> Other things going on during lunch will be the new informal >> >>> plaza (and >> >>>> food.) >> >>> >> >>> And don't forget about food... people less crazy than us tend >> >>> to put it >> >>> as a high priority item :-) >> >>> -- >> >>> vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] >> >>> bertola.eu.org]<----- >> >>> http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>> >> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Tue Oct 17 06:54:30 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:54:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Athens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, > From: Adam Peake > We can go for 50 as Bill suggests, or a more formalized agenda as > Avri posted. I agree with Avri and would go for the more structured > event and I agree with the rough agenda she drafted. I do too, just didn't sense prior that there was the juice for this level of ambition. > So I suggest we ask for one of the workshop rooms, options: > > - Plato: 220, classroom-type seating arrangements, > - Kleoniki: 150, mixed classroom/theatre - type seating arrangements, > - Aphrodite: 100, mixed classroom/theatre - type seating arrangements. Larger might be justified if we a) get the event listed on the conference center's electronic bulletin board and on the IGF website space for "related events" (of course, being on the program would be better but presumably harder); b) print up some flyers to hand or lay around; and c) do outreach beyond the list. But someone would have to do these things. Otherwise we could be a smallish group in a cavernous hall, which is never good aesthetically or operationally. > Avri's agenda, looks good to me: Me too, except on question: > > At 9:43 AM +0200 10/17/06, Avri Doria wrote: >> Then I would recommend dedicating no more the 30 minutes to the WSIS >> review and Charter etc, leaving an hour for 1 or 2 other discussions >> of 30 minutes each. Wouldn't it be better to start with where we've been and are going as a group and then lead into views on the conference, rather than the reverse? Otherwise, if we fall behind schedule, we might run out of time before we can talk about the caucus per se. Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Tue Oct 17 07:53:25 2006 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:53:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Athens In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20061017125142.06599bb0@gn.apc.org> hi all just a question re dates - are we talking oct 30th? (we have a workshop - privacy, identity management, development) on 31st lunchtime.. would very much like to make igc meetibg, but 31st wouldn't be possible.. karen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Tue Oct 17 08:06:51 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:06:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Athens In-Reply-To: <45349401.6010209@bertola.eu.org> References: <45349401.6010209@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <4534C75B.5000406@wz-berlin.de> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Adam Peake ha scritto: >> Whoever considers themselves coordinators, get coordinating please :-) > > You know, that might be an empty set! :-) Anyway, I would suggest that, > if possible, we keep the two things parted. > > One might be a short and small coordination meeting among the current > caucus members, where we discuss practical issues such as the election > process (and candidates, if you like) and a possible process statement > to be given afterwards in the plenary (which should, anyway, be first > drafted and discussed on list). Hi, my experience with "short and small coordination meetings" of the caucus as part of a bigger event going on at the same time are not very good. The typical caucus members are between 30 and 60 minutes late or don't show up at all. Instead many curious newcomers attend who typically come only once. Between third and half of the meeting time is spent on introducing the people in the room. After that, some will leave again because of other commitments... The attendance of caucus meetings is rather unpredictable, the bigger the overall event, the less predictable it is. I don't meant to complain (or at least not anymore), I am just saying we should be realistic about our expectations. jeanette > > Another one might be a short but broader informational meeting, open to > everyone in a big room, aimed at informing all civil society and > individual participants of the opportunity to participate through us. We > could just come up with a set of slides about what we did and how you > can join, and do outreach. It could actually turn into a sort of > "introduction to new participants to this process", a bit like ICANN's > introduction at the beginning, and so it could actually be a service to > the entire Forum. But then, this would require a big room on the first > day, and I don't know whether that's feasible. On the other hand, the > other, "internal" meeting could be moved out of the critical path, for > example at dinner or just before it, after the Forum ends for the first > day. > >> Other things going on during lunch will be the new informal plaza (and >> food.) > > And don't forget about food... people less crazy than us tend to put it > as a high priority item :-) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Oct 17 08:12:25 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:12:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Athens In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20061017125142.06599bb0@gn.apc.org> References: <7.0.0.16.2.20061017125142.06599bb0@gn.apc.org> Message-ID: Monday 30th. The day when there are no workshops at lunch time. Meeting schedule as we know it to date. Bill you asked for more details of workshops: workshops organizers have been asked for the details you request!. The secretariat is waiting for answers. Arranging panelists for the main sessions is ongoing. Finding a balance from among people known to be attending is not easy. (Has to be from people known to be going, the secretariat has no cash to bring anyone.) Adam >hi all > >just a question re dates - are we talking oct 30th? (we have a >workshop - privacy, identity management, development) on 31st >lunchtime.. > >would very much like to make igc meetibg, but 31st wouldn't be possible.. > >karen > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Tue Oct 17 09:05:09 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:05:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Athens In-Reply-To: <4534C75B.5000406@wz-berlin.de> References: <45349401.6010209@bertola.eu.org> <4534C75B.5000406@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: Hi Jeanette, and all, As per the short and small coordination meeting among current caucus members, a.k.a. usual suspects, what about Sunday evening after the GigaNet symposium, i.e. starting from 18:30? I assume most people will already be in Athens. Of course, this proposal has nothing to do with the fact that I'm leaving Athens on Monday morning:) Then the bigger meeting on Monday luch time, with IGC outreach expectations, following Avri's proposed agenda. Best Meryem Le 17 oct. 06 à 14:06, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> Adam Peake ha scritto: >>> Whoever considers themselves coordinators, get coordinating >>> please :-) >> You know, that might be an empty set! :-) Anyway, I would suggest >> that, if possible, we keep the two things parted. >> One might be a short and small coordination meeting among the >> current caucus members, where we discuss practical issues such as >> the election process (and candidates, if you like) and a possible >> process statement to be given afterwards in the plenary (which >> should, anyway, be first drafted and discussed on list). > > Hi, my experience with "short and small coordination meetings" of > the caucus as part of a bigger event going on at the same time are > not very good. The typical caucus members are between 30 and 60 > minutes late or don't show up at all. Instead many curious > newcomers attend who typically come only once. Between third and > half of the meeting time is spent on introducing the people in the > room. After that, some will leave again because of other > commitments... > The attendance of caucus meetings is rather unpredictable, the > bigger the overall event, the less predictable it is. I don't meant > to complain (or at least not anymore), I am just saying we should > be realistic about our expectations. > > jeanette > > > > >> Another one might be a short but broader informational meeting, >> open to everyone in a big room, aimed at informing all civil >> society and individual participants of the opportunity to >> participate through us. We could just come up with a set of slides >> about what we did and how you can join, and do outreach. It could >> actually turn into a sort of "introduction to new participants to >> this process", a bit like ICANN's introduction at the beginning, >> and so it could actually be a service to the entire Forum. But >> then, this would require a big room on the first day, and I don't >> know whether that's feasible. On the other hand, the other, >> "internal" meeting could be moved out of the critical path, for >> example at dinner or just before it, after the Forum ends for the >> first day. >>> Other things going on during lunch will be the new informal plaza >>> (and food.) >> And don't forget about food... people less crazy than us tend to >> put it as a high priority item :-) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Tue Oct 17 09:59:05 2006 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:59:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Athens In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4534E1A9.1080207@zedat.fu-berlin.de> William Drake wrote: > Larger might be justified if we a) get the event listed on the > conference center's electronic bulletin board and on the IGF website > space for "related events" That should not be a problem. I guess Adam could do this for us? > b) print up some flyers to hand or lay around; No big deal, too. There will be a cyber cafe with printers, right? > do outreach beyond the list. Which would be: Having it announced on the IGF website, the IGFAthens website, and in the various blogs that have sprung up. Also, no big deal once we have agreed on the agenda. > Otherwise we could be a smallish group in a cavernous hall, which is > never good aesthetically or operationally. Don't underestimate the image civil society has managed to build up in the WSIS process. And especially the Internet Governance Caucus has a high reputation among many stakeholders now. And it is the caucus directly working on the IGF theme. Plus, it's the first day and people will be looking for orientation and introduction sessions. I'd expect around 100 people, maybe more. Ralf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Tue Oct 17 12:06:52 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:06:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Main sessions @ IGF In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.0.16.2.20061017125142.06599bb0@gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <4534FF9C.4050200@bertola.eu.org> Adam Peake ha scritto: > Arranging panelists for the main sessions is ongoing. Finding a balance > from among people known to be attending is not easy. (Has to be from > people known to be going, the secretariat has no cash to bring anyone.) I thought the question might be of interest to everyone: how are these sessions organized? A set of panelists picked by the AG, and then open discussion from the floor? Will there be a Chair's summary of the session? Should positions be in writing? Presented in advance? How does the average participant raise his/her own issues and gets them addressed, or at least reflected in the final summary of the IGF? From the floor? Or by finding a panelist that can mention them? Or - to be practical ;) - by lobbying the Secretariat? Sorry for the abundance of ?'s, I know this is a work in progress... but I'd hate to have been waiting for one year, come to Athens with a couple of "urgent issues that are not being dealt with elsewhere", and then fail to get them at least recorded in the proceedings, if not discussed. I think that civil society should at least have a way to flag issues for subsequent work in "dynamic coalitions". -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From edward at hasbrouck.org Tue Oct 17 12:41:07 2006 From: edward at hasbrouck.org (Edward Hasbrouck) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:41:07 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN seeks input on transparency and accountability Message-ID: <4534A533.5446.CD86EA9@edward.hasbrouck.org> ICANN has announced a new public comment forum and list of questions related to principles of transparency and accountability: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-16oct06.htm "Responses are sought by October 31, 2006. Based on the responses received and other research, a first draft of the principles will be published for community comment in November, 2006. It is hoped that the Management Operating Principles will be adopted by the Board as part of the Strategic Plan at the Sao Paulo meeting." Among the specific questions ICANN is asking is, "What standards of transparency are appropriate in ICANN operations and activity?" The obvious answer is that the appropriate standard of transparency is set by ICANN's Bylaws: "the maximum extent feasible". It's impossible to tell from the announcment if someone at ICANN wants to change that standard. It's odd that this is intended for inclusion in ICANN's Strategic Plan. The only non-spam comments submitted to ICANN's previous public forum on the draft Strategic Plan were mine, related to exactly this issue. But until now, ICANN has entirely ignored them: http://forum.icann.org/lists/stratplan-draft-comments/msg00000.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/stratplan-draft-comments/ Comments can be sent to , and can be viewed at . ------------------------------------ Edward Habrouck edward at hasbrouck.org http://hasbrouck.org/icann +1-415-824-0214 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Tue Oct 17 16:34:50 2006 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:34:50 -0700 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Athens In-Reply-To: <4534E1A9.1080207@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <4534E1A9.1080207@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: > There are over 1000 registered but 700 don't have hotel rooms confirmed I'm one of the 700. I couldn't get the IGF website to work, and booked directly with a hotel. My first reaction also was to expect around 50 people. And I think better standing-room than a too big room looking empty. Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kino at iris.se Tue Oct 17 18:27:00 2006 From: kino at iris.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:27:00 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] Main sessions @ IGF In-Reply-To: <4534FF9C.4050200@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F011E15B5@ensms02.iris.se> Dear all, I agree on this, but need to add that 650 Millions of Persons with disabilities also belong to the target group of need of ICT! For many of us, communication needs are the only disabling conditions, for example for blind, deafblind or deaf people! Warm regards Kicki Kicki Nordström World Blind Union (WBU) Immediate Past President Chair, WBU Working Group on UN Issues c/o SRF 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kino at iris.se -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu.org] Skickat: den 17 oktober 2006 18:07 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake Ämne: [governance] Main sessions @ IGF Adam Peake ha scritto: > Arranging panelists for the main sessions is ongoing. Finding a > balance from among people known to be attending is not easy. (Has to > be from people known to be going, the secretariat has no cash to bring > anyone.) I thought the question might be of interest to everyone: how are these sessions organized? A set of panelists picked by the AG, and then open discussion from the floor? Will there be a Chair's summary of the session? Should positions be in writing? Presented in advance? How does the average participant raise his/her own issues and gets them addressed, or at least reflected in the final summary of the IGF? From the floor? Or by finding a panelist that can mention them? Or - to be practical ;) - by lobbying the Secretariat? Sorry for the abundance of ?'s, I know this is a work in progress... but I'd hate to have been waiting for one year, come to Athens with a couple of "urgent issues that are not being dealt with elsewhere", and then fail to get them at least recorded in the proceedings, if not discussed. I think that civil society should at least have a way to flag issues for subsequent work in "dynamic coalitions". -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Oct 17 20:17:53 2006 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SV: [governance] Main sessions @ IGF Message-ID: <20061018001753.1873.qmail@web54112.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Kicki and everyone, This is something I raised in a forum at the Wellington ICANN meeting and something I've been conscious of for a while... and had been thinking of commenting on. The digital divide is not just about north and south, rich and poor, but also about the disabled and abled-bodied. In my other life I work for a charity that deals with people who are blind and vision impaired, and deafblind, and the access of our clients to the online world is quite restricted. Thanks for raising the issue Kicki, as it's a very important one, and a very ignored one. Cheers David Don't forget to check out http://technewsreview.com.au/ for updates and recent internet/technology news. ----- Original Message ---- From: Kicki Nordström To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola ; Adam Peake Sent: Wednesday, 18 October, 2006 8:27:00 AM Subject: SV: [governance] Main sessions @ IGF Dear all, I agree on this, but need to add that 650 Millions of Persons with disabilities also belong to the target group of need of ICT! For many of us, communication needs are the only disabling conditions, for example for blind, deafblind or deaf people! Warm regards Kicki Kicki Nordström World Blind Union (WBU) Immediate Past President Chair, WBU Working Group on UN Issues c/o SRF 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kino at iris.se -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu.org] Skickat: den 17 oktober 2006 18:07 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake Ämne: [governance] Main sessions @ IGF Adam Peake ha scritto: > Arranging panelists for the main sessions is ongoing. Finding a > balance from among people known to be attending is not easy. (Has to > be from people known to be going, the secretariat has no cash to bring > anyone.) I thought the question might be of interest to everyone: how are these sessions organized? A set of panelists picked by the AG, and then open discussion from the floor? Will there be a Chair's summary of the session? Should positions be in writing? Presented in advance? How does the average participant raise his/her own issues and gets them addressed, or at least reflected in the final summary of the IGF? From the floor? Or by finding a panelist that can mention them? Or - to be practical ;) - by lobbying the Secretariat? Sorry for the abundance of ?'s, I know this is a work in progress... but I'd hate to have been waiting for one year, come to Athens with a couple of "urgent issues that are not being dealt with elsewhere", and then fail to get them at least recorded in the proceedings, if not discussed. I think that civil society should at least have a way to flag issues for subsequent work in "dynamic coalitions". -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________ On Yahoo!7 Check back weekly for Trixi's new online adventures http://www.trixi.com.au ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Oct 18 06:00:49 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:00:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] Main sessions @ IGF In-Reply-To: <4534FF9C.4050200@bertola.eu.org> References: <7.0.0.16.2.20061017125142.06599bb0@gn.apc.org> <4534FF9C.4050200@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: At 6:06 PM +0200 10/17/06, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Adam Peake ha scritto: >>Arranging panelists for the main sessions is ongoing. Finding a >>balance from among people known to be attending is not easy. (Has >>to be from people known to be going, the secretariat has no cash to >>bring anyone.) > >I thought the question might be of interest to everyone: how are >these sessions organized? A set of panelists picked by the AG, and >then open discussion from the floor? Will there be a Chair's summary >of the session? Should positions be in writing? Presented in advance? > >How does the average participant raise his/her own issues and gets >them addressed, or at least reflected in the final summary of the >IGF? From the floor? Or by finding a panelist that can mention them? >Or - to be practical ;) - by lobbying the Secretariat? > >Sorry for the abundance of ?'s, I know this is a work in progress... >but I'd hate to have been waiting for one year, come to Athens with >a couple of "urgent issues that are not being dealt with elsewhere", >and then fail to get them at least recorded in the proceedings, if >not discussed. I think that civil society should at least have a way >to flag issues for subsequent work in "dynamic coalitions". Vittorio, It is a work in progress. A very hastily arranged, quite large and quite high level almost semi-UN conference, with no money, doing stuff that hasn't been tried before in quite the same way. So don't expect anything but a mess... right up until Monday 30 October when everything will be wonderful :-) I think some of what you ask is online in various places. I know the IGF site isn't perfectly designed (small staff busy doing other stuff), but there's really not so much there to click through. Starting on the second day (note, this is actually missing from current program) from 9 to 10 there will be recap and review before thematic sessions begin. This session will include an open mic. There will be remote access/participation (questions). There will be a "blogshpere" ... I think this means that the Internet will be monitored for comments and questions, and those will be brought into the relevant sessions (all sessions, not just re-cap). No prepared statements from the floor. Plan is to allow people to send prepared statements on video to be broadcast around the facility during the meeting. No news on this, if it will happen or not. I do not know if there will be facilities to record statements on site. But no statements from the floor is the rule, or every delegation will want their 4 minutes and we'll be back in a WSIS-like world. Panel sessions are intended to be as interactive as possible. Panelist will not make lengthy presentations. A few minutes to frame and issue or make a couple of points. They will be moderated by professional journalists, a talk show style. See Nominet's consultation for an example Kieren blogged the Nominet event and has put up sound files While audience participation is very much desired, I think the MAG is also concerned about how to manage this (I am concerned...) Long winded and out of context statements will mess things up. Some see a microphone and just feel the need to speak... whatever the subject. Civil society has a reputation from earlier consultations for being particularly guilty of this (perhaps unjustly?) If the room is full -- 800 or 1200 people, not everyone is going to be able to speak. Which is why we asked people to send comments long ago Asked many times. This caucus promised and did not deliver. Sessions. The four main themes Openness, Security, Diversity, Access were picked by the MAG (went through themes suggested through the public comment process and picked out the most common, also looked at WSIS discussions and Tunis Agenda.) We then broke the four themes into sub-topics we thought should be addressed and we'd need experts for, e.g. openness: Content production Access to Knowledge Human rights - freedom of expression (nothing new here, this is all on the IGF website... somewhere :-) The MAG members were asked to start suggesting names of people they thought would make good panelists covering these topics. Tried to keep in mind that there was no money to bring people, so we were all looking to people we knew would attend (and quite a few were coming for workshops etc.) It's very easy to suggest names, but a waste of time unless the person's going to be in Athens. No time for any formal consultation on this part of the process. I have been asking people privately, but mainly for ideas of people from developing nations (north is represented OK.) We are not sure of the number of panelists and structure. The panels are 3 hours sessions, so will need to keep things moving along. Panels should be multi-stakeholder. Geographically diverse. Development oriented. And know something about the subject that perhaps 1000 people would like to hear. The list of names is still draft. Not easy to balance geographic diversity, and to bring in enough experts from developing nations. And we're trying not to use MAG members on panels. May need to in the end, there are a few member who stand out as experts, and if we have gaps then we'd be harming the IGF for what otherwise is a very good/fair principle. That's where things are at the moment. We have a draft list of names for each session. The people themselves have not been told (so I can't tell the list.) We are looking to fill gaps. Things are looking OK. Adam >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Wed Oct 18 08:03:55 2006 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:03:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Main sessions @ IGF In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.0.16.2.20061017125142.06599bb0@gn.apc.org> <4534FF9C.4050200@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <4536182B.20509@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Thanks for clarifying, Adam. A few minor remarks, and two questions: Adam Peake wrote: > While audience participation is very much desired, This formulation could upset people, as they will consider themselves "participants", not "audience". > Long winded > and out of context statements will mess things up. Some see a microphone > and just feel the need to speak... whatever the subject. Ok, so people can actually speak, good to clarify this. I was afraid when I read "audience". Then it is up to the moderators to harshly cut off people who speak too long or out of context. I don't envy them... > Civil society > has a reputation from earlier consultations for being particularly > guilty of this (perhaps unjustly?) Justly, but only some folks from CS (which a lot of people generalize from...). > That's where things are at the moment. We have a draft list of names > for each session. The people themselves have not been told (so I can't > tell the list.) So two weeks before the event you have not asked people if they can sit on a major panel at a UN major conference? Wow. Good luck! Two more things I'm curious about: 1. Reports from the workshops: IIRC, in one of the older versions of the programme there was a "rapporteur session" on the last day. Now you only find a "chair's summing up" and a "taking stock" session there. As someone who is chairing a workshop, I'd love to know how to feed the outcomes back into the general discussion. 2. "Dynamic coalitions" emerging from Athens: Is there any planned mechanism for moving the discussions into this direction? It is one of the most important aspects of the IGF that can make it different from other conferences and ensure it becomes a process, not just an annual chatter. Thanks, Ralf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Wed Oct 18 08:11:57 2006 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:11:57 +0200 (CEST) Subject: SV: [governance] Main sessions @ IGF In-Reply-To: <20061018001753.1873.qmail@web54112.mail.yahoo.com> (message from David Goldstein on Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:17:53 -0700 (PDT)) References: <20061018001753.1873.qmail@web54112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061018121157.E191838E1A4@quill.bollow.ch> Kicki Nordstr�m wrote: > I agree on this, but need to add that 650 Millions of Persons with > disabilities also belong to the target group of need of ICT! Yes. I'm not sure how much awareness of this point there was when the theme "Internet Governance for Development" was chosen for the IGF, but I'd strongly advocate to interpret the IGF's theme so that it involves everything that can reasonably be done to bridge all kinds of digital divides, as well as preventing the creation of new digital divides (e.g. if it should happen that DRM systems become an integral component of office software, and text documents of business correspondence are often DRM-"protected", that'd create huge problems for persons with visual disabilities.) That said, I think the biggest threat to the success of the IGF isn't the risk of important concerns being overlooked. I've been getting the impression that there's a much greater risk in that the IGF could become co-opted into allowing most of the attention to go to pursuing various kinds of internet governance discussions without paying any real attention to the IGF's stated theme. If the IGF doesn't go significantly beyond merely paying lip-service to the needs of people with disabilities, people in developing countries, etc, I will consider the IGF a dismal failure no matter how pleasant an experience the conference might otherwise be. David Goldstein replied to Kicki > Thanks for raising the issue Kicki, as it's a very important one, > and a very ignored one. At least there's a worshop abou this topic (organized by W3C): "Equal Access on the Web" (11:30-13:00 on Wednesday, Workshop Room III) http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=69 Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Oct 18 08:25:02 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:25:02 +0800 Subject: [governance] Main sessions @ IGF In-Reply-To: <4536182B.20509@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <7.0.0.16.2.20061017125142.06599bb0@gn.apc.org> <4534FF9C.4050200@bertola.eu.org> <4536182B.20509@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <45361D1E.7030907@Malcolm.id.au> Ralf Bendrath wrote: > 2. "Dynamic coalitions" emerging from Athens: Is there any planned > mechanism for moving the discussions into this direction? It is one of > the most important aspects of the IGF that can make it different from > other conferences and ensure it becomes a process, not just an annual > chatter. For one thing, they should be formal working groups, arising out of successful workshops, rather than being dynamic coalitions, which would be less transparent and accountable and more prone to become oligopolistic. They should apply for recognition to the MAG and this should be ratified by the IGF meeting, and their output should also be formally tabled to the IGF in plenary and ratified. I have some notes on this, which I'm going to stand up at some point and talk about. It is premature for these matters to be set in stone before the meeting even starts though! There are IMHO real problems with the process by which the MAG was appointed and has been operating, and it will be up to the meeting to remedy this. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Oct 18 08:52:29 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:52:29 +0900 Subject: [governance] Main sessions @ IGF In-Reply-To: <4536182B.20509@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <7.0.0.16.2.20061017125142.06599bb0@gn.apc.org> <4534FF9C.4050200@bertola.eu.org> <4536182B.20509@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: >Thanks for clarifying, Adam. A few minor remarks, and two questions: > >Adam Peake wrote: >>While audience participation is very much desired, >This formulation could upset people, as they will consider >themselves "participants", not "audience". > >>Long winded and out of context statements will mess things up. Some >>see a microphone and just feel the need to speak... whatever the >>subject. >Ok, so people can actually speak, good to clarify this. I was afraid >when I read "audience". Then it is up to the moderators to harshly >cut off people who speak too long or out of context. I don't envy >them... I don't remember the size of the main room, it's either 800 or 1200 people. But 800/1200, can't really be anything other than an "audience". A few might say something, but not many. If 30-40 different people had the opportunity to speak in 3 hours, is that a good target? (to few, too many?) Workshops will hopefully offer some opportunity for people to get more involved. >>Civil society has a reputation from earlier consultations for being >>particularly guilty of this (perhaps unjustly?) >Justly, but only some folks from CS (which a lot of people >generalize from...). > >>That's where things are at the moment. We have a draft list of >>names for each session. The people themselves have not been told >>(so I can't tell the list.) >So two weeks before the event you have not asked people if they can >sit on a major panel at a UN major conference? Wow. Good luck! We know the people are going. Most will have been approached at some point and asked informally if they'd be willing to join a panel. Yes. Things are a little behind... But it will be perfect! >Two more things I'm curious about: > >1. Reports from the workshops: IIRC, in one of the older versions of >the programme there was a "rapporteur session" on the last day. Now >you only find a "chair's summing up" and a "taking stock" session >there. As someone who is chairing a workshop, I'd love to know how >to feed the outcomes back into the general discussion. I don't know. I will try to remember to ask. But as a workshop organizer you can and should be asking stuff like this. >2. "Dynamic coalitions" emerging from Athens: Is there any planned >mechanism for moving the discussions into this direction? It is one >of the most important aspects of the IGF that can make it different >from other conferences and ensure it becomes a process, not just an >annual chatter. I don't know. I hope the plaza space may help. I would like there to be a space where people organizing workshops could sit around "advertise" their event. be there so people who are interested in the workshop topic can chat (before and after the workshop's held.) And for people organizing workshop to get together among themselves. I think the people who have taken the effort to put something on are the most likely to take the "dynamic coalition" idea forward. Kind of self selection. Again, you as a workshop organizer putting time and resources into this should be telling the secretariat what you want from the event, and advising them on how to achieve it. Thanks, Adam >Thanks, > >Ralf >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Oct 18 10:04:05 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:04:05 +0800 Subject: [governance] Main sessions @ IGF In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.0.16.2.20061017125142.06599bb0@gn.apc.org> <4534FF9C.4050200@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <45363455.8040707@Malcolm.id.au> Adam Peake wrote: > No prepared statements from the floor. Plan is to allow people to send > prepared statements on video to be broadcast around the facility during > the meeting. No news on this, if it will happen or not. I do not know if > there will be facilities to record statements on site. A recent surreptitious change to http://www.intgovforum.org/athens_outline.htm (does anyone have a copy of what it used to say?) suggests that people are going to have to supply their own videos in MPEG4 format. That's going to exclude a lot of people. For my take, http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/secretariat-scales-down-its-promises. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kino at iris.se Wed Oct 18 11:23:13 2006 From: kino at iris.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:23:13 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [governance] Main sessions @ IGF In-Reply-To: <20061018001753.1873.qmail@web54112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01216115@ensms02.iris.se> Dear David, Thanks for your recognition of this underserved area of ICT! One of the most painful situations is that all extra software applications or adaptations persons with disabilities need for operate a normal computer, is many more times costly to the computer as such. This exclude many persons with disabilities totally from ICT service and possibilities. The ironic situation is that those who would need this most for communication and service, can not afford it and many can not even reach to an internet coffee due to an inaccessibility environment! We need your support! All the best Kicki Kicki Nordström World Blind Union (WBU) Immediate Past President Chair, WBU Working Group on UN Issues c/o SRF 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kino at iris.se -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: David Goldstein [mailto:goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au] Skickat: den 18 oktober 2006 02:18 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: Re: SV: [governance] Main sessions @ IGF Hi Kicki and everyone, This is something I raised in a forum at the Wellington ICANN meeting and something I've been conscious of for a while... and had been thinking of commenting on. The digital divide is not just about north and south, rich and poor, but also about the disabled and abled-bodied. In my other life I work for a charity that deals with people who are blind and vision impaired, and deafblind, and the access of our clients to the online world is quite restricted. Thanks for raising the issue Kicki, as it's a very important one, and a very ignored one. Cheers David Don't forget to check out http://technewsreview.com.au/ for updates and recent internet/technology news. ----- Original Message ---- From: Kicki Nordström To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola ; Adam Peake Sent: Wednesday, 18 October, 2006 8:27:00 AM Subject: SV: [governance] Main sessions @ IGF Dear all, I agree on this, but need to add that 650 Millions of Persons with disabilities also belong to the target group of need of ICT! For many of us, communication needs are the only disabling conditions, for example for blind, deafblind or deaf people! Warm regards Kicki Kicki Nordström World Blind Union (WBU) Immediate Past President Chair, WBU Working Group on UN Issues c/o SRF 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kino at iris.se -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu.org] Skickat: den 17 oktober 2006 18:07 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake Ämne: [governance] Main sessions @ IGF Adam Peake ha scritto: > Arranging panelists for the main sessions is ongoing. Finding a > balance from among people known to be attending is not easy. (Has to > be from people known to be going, the secretariat has no cash to bring > anyone.) I thought the question might be of interest to everyone: how are these sessions organized? A set of panelists picked by the AG, and then open discussion from the floor? Will there be a Chair's summary of the session? Should positions be in writing? Presented in advance? How does the average participant raise his/her own issues and gets them addressed, or at least reflected in the final summary of the IGF? From the floor? Or by finding a panelist that can mention them? Or - to be practical ;) - by lobbying the Secretariat? Sorry for the abundance of ?'s, I know this is a work in progress... but I'd hate to have been waiting for one year, come to Athens with a couple of "urgent issues that are not being dealt with elsewhere", and then fail to get them at least recorded in the proceedings, if not discussed. I think that civil society should at least have a way to flag issues for subsequent work in "dynamic coalitions". -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________ On Yahoo!7 Check back weekly for Trixi's new online adventures http://www.trixi.com.au ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kino at iris.se Wed Oct 18 13:20:11 2006 From: kino at iris.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:20:11 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [governance] Main sessions @ IGF In-Reply-To: <20061018121157.E191838E1A4@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01216124@ensms02.iris.se> Dear David, I wish I could be with you, but an important meeting of a total different kind has been scheduled at the same time and I have been more or less "forced" to attend that meeting. But I would be very happy if people have the 650 Million persons with disabilities in mind (among other things) then you meet in Athens! Warm regards and good luck with the meeting! Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström World Blind Union (WBU) Immediate Past President Chair, WBU Working Group on UN Issues c/o SRF 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kino at iris.se -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] Skickat: den 18 oktober 2006 14:12 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Kopia: goldstein_david at yahoo.com; Kicki Nordström Ämne: Re: SV: [governance] Main sessions @ IGF Kicki Nordström wrote: > I agree on this, but need to add that 650 Millions of Persons with > disabilities also belong to the target group of need of ICT! Yes. I'm not sure how much awareness of this point there was when the theme "Internet Governance for Development" was chosen for the IGF, but I'd strongly advocate to interpret the IGF's theme so that it involves everything that can reasonably be done to bridge all kinds of digital divides, as well as preventing the creation of new digital divides (e.g. if it should happen that DRM systems become an integral component of office software, and text documents of business correspondence are often DRM-"protected", that'd create huge problems for persons with visual disabilities.) That said, I think the biggest threat to the success of the IGF isn't the risk of important concerns being overlooked. I've been getting the impression that there's a much greater risk in that the IGF could become co-opted into allowing most of the attention to go to pursuing various kinds of internet governance discussions without paying any real attention to the IGF's stated theme. If the IGF doesn't go significantly beyond merely paying lip-service to the needs of people with disabilities, people in developing countries, etc, I will consider the IGF a dismal failure no matter how pleasant an experience the conference might otherwise be. David Goldstein replied to Kicki > Thanks for raising the issue Kicki, as it's a very important one, and > a very ignored one. At least there's a worshop abou this topic (organized by W3C): "Equal Access on the Web" (11:30-13:00 on Wednesday, Workshop Room III) http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=69 Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Wed Oct 18 15:33:14 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:33:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Main sessions @ IGF Message-ID: > Civil society > has a reputation from earlier consultations for being particularly > guilty of this (perhaps unjustly?) Very unjustly, in my opinion. There are some long-winded people there, true, but there are also long-winded government representatives. The impression I got at the first IGF consultation was that some governments got impatient because there was no "single" voice for "civil society." Which reminds me of a famous saying of Attila the Hun, who is said to have wished that humanity had a single neck so that he could cut it more easily. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 18:15:39 2006 From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:15:39 -0700 Subject: [governance] Main sessions @ IGF Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20061018151523.02cf68c0@peoplewho.org> On 10/18/06, Milton Mueller wrote: > > no "single" voice I hear established groups say this often when those new to the table want to participate. I hear it as regressive, wishing to maintain the status quo. Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 19 04:35:54 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:05:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [CS Bureau] Review of CSB bureau In-Reply-To: <20061019075928.46896.qmail@web60021.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061019083604.CC370DA99E@smtp3.electricembers.net> Dear All I think it is necessary to keep all kinds of CS engagements on at all levels, even if at times it is not like what we wish for, in matter of process and substance.... Because the issue is to create spaces, precedents, etc for CS involvement in global policy making. Having said this, there continues to be important issues of accountabilities that those actors who chose to associate with and sometimes use (for all good purposes, no doubt) the limited legitimacy that association with WSIS CS, and CS plenary list, like groups afford, must exercise For example, those who are recommended by this list and its associated groups to global policy bodies (especially having specifically sought such nominations) need to keep a good interaction with the list, represent the causes which are seen to be backed by the CS, collaborate internally among the CS nominees on each body (like IGF and GAID)on strategies, and reporting back to the CS from these spaces This doesn’t often happen, and this compromises the limited possibilities and avenues of viability of this group (CS plenary). Another important issue for the group’s viability is to go beyond process issues, and deal with substantive issues. Then alone can this group become relevant. It often happens that this group comes alive when a process issues – like nominations to GAID, or associating with the UNESCO process – comes up. However, many strong substantive issues which require the attention of anyone who considers oneself in any way associated with the WSIS or IS civil society come and go, and there is not a murmur on this list .. We need to gather ourselves around substantive issues for us to remain relevant, and that is important to remain viable. This imperative may also require reaching out to other CS constituencies and developing issues based alliances, and working on them Thanks, for all those who did all the work at Paris. Regards Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis- > cs.org] On Behalf Of djilali benamrane > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:29 PM > To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org > Cc: bureau at wsis-cs.org; Causus africa; smsi geneve; wsis- > finance at yahoogroupes.fr > Subject: RE : Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [CS Bureau] Review of > CSB bureau > > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the > entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses > intended for specific people] > > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic > translation of this message! > _______________________________________ > > In French bellow > Amir, > Thank you for your understanding.I really hope it stop > the discussion. > In Paris, and additionnaly to our effort to make, if > possible, more visible the Civile Society, colleagues > present at this meeting call for the reactivation of > the CSB as it was functionning during the Geneva and > Tunis process, even if certain members decided to stop > their participation. The idea is also that the CBS try > to make it sure that in May 2007, in Geneva we should > be able to renew democratly and in transparency the > CBS for the future, in cooperation with Regional and > Themathic Caucus existing or to be created. > Now that the Civile society thanks to the effort of > all is gaining a certain visibility and credibility > we are not going to show our limits to meet the > challenge. > Friendly > Djilali > Je remercie Amir pour son analyse et espère qu'elle > clarifie et clot le débat. > Quelques membres du Bureau de la Société Civile (CSB) > présent à l'UNESCo Paris, en plus des efforts pour > donner plus de visibilité à la société civile dans les > débats, ont oser faire un appel pour relancer et > réactiver le CSB tel qu'il a fonctionné durant la > phase Genève et Tunis du SMSI. La mission de cette > phase de relance serait aussi la préparation d'ici le > rendez vous de mai 2007 les modalités de renforcement > du CSB ou de son remplacement démocratiquement et dans > la transparence avec la participation active des > caucus existant ou qui viendront à ce créer d'ici là. > Maintenant que la société civile commence à jouir d'un > commencement de statut de partenaire nous allons pas > afficher nos limites et notre renoncement à relever le > défi. > Amitiés > Djilali > --- west a écrit : > > > Dear All, > > > > Sorry for not being very active on list, but still > > reading all messages. I wish to share my sympathy > > and support to what has been discussed in UNESCO, > > among some CSB members there and also very much > > support Robert's idea of a new election process. CSB > > has proved to be a useful tool and setup and I think > > it should continue to do so. Maybe some newcomers > > are not that much aware of the background history > > and many many discussions we had, but the rest of us > > agree in a way or another that our successful > > presence in the WSIS process was partly due to > > having structures such as committees, CSB and > > content and theme group plenary in place, don't > > forget it. > > > > Best > > > > Amir > > > > Tehran > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: CONGO - Philippe Dam > > To: plenary at wsis-cs.org > > Cc: bureau at wsis-cs.org > > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 1:58 AM > > Subject: RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [CS Bureau] > > Review of CSB bureau > > > > > > Robert, > > > > > > > > The two paragraphs I sent earlier today were the > > views expressed by members of the WSIS CSB during a > > lunchtime discussion - rather than during a > > consultation. Those discussing this issue have not > > asserted they were speaking _on behalf of_ the CSB. > > By memory, I think that Francis Muguet, Ann-Kristin > > Hakansson, Tijani Ben Jemaa and Djilali Benamrane > > were present during this lunchtime discussion. I was > > also there but I am not a CSB member as you know. > > > > > > > > And there is not at this time any negotiation > > process. The discussion we had today was actually > > encouraged by the recent significant comments > > brought on this list, considering it was relevant to > > use this space for dialogue among those present in > > Paris. > > > > > > > > To clarify in particular the second paragraph, > > sent earlier this evening, it goes without saying, > > in my understanding of the discussion, that final > > decision supporting the adaptation of the CSB or of > > any CSB-like structure in the following steps, > > expectedly in May 2007, should be taken by a CS > > Plenary. In such a reflection process, members of > > the WSIS CSB will therefore have a particular role > > in stimulating a discussion on this issue and to > > involve all other CS actors interested. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Philippe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org > > [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] De la part de > > Robert Guerra > > Envoyé : mardi 17 octobre 2006 19:19 > > À : bureau at wsis-cs.org > > Cc : plenary at wsis-cs.org; > > philippe.dam at ngocongo.org > > Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [CS Bureau] Review > > of CSB bureau > > > > > > > > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response > > goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual > > addresses for responses intended for specific > > people] > > > > > > > > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access > > automatic translation of this message! > > > > _______________________________________ > > > > > > > > Philippe: > > > > > > > > please do specify which members of the CSB were in > > fact consulted. I am > > > > on the CSB, and have received no communications on > > the matter. > > > > > > > > Again, the issue of transparency is an important > > one - please do provide > > > > details as to who is speaking on behalf of the CSB > > and what they are > > > > negotiating. > > > > > > > > regards > > > > > > > > Robert > > > > > > > > WSIS wrote: > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some members of the Civil Society Bureau to the > > World Summit on the > > > > > Information Society have informally discussed > > during lunchtime today, on > > > > > the occasion of the UNESCO lead Action Line > > Facilitation meetings taking > > > > > place in Paris. Since the question of civil > > society self-organising > > > > > mechanisms in the up coming WSIS implementation > > and follow-up processes > > > > > has been raised on this list, the general > > agreement among those > > > > > participating in the discussion was that CSB > > members who are still > > > > > committed and active in the process should > > continue to deal with > > > > > immediate support to CS inclusion in the up > > coming events, to fill the > > > > > existing needs and emerging expectations > > express! ed by CS entities, > > > > > Governments and intergovernmental partners. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The question of the adaptation of the CSB or of > > any CSB-like structure > > > > > in the following steps should be agreed by May > > 2007 at the occasion of > > > > > the expectedly wide CS gathering during the up > > coming cluster of WSIS > > > > > implementation and follow-up events. The > > discussion on the *future > > > > > composition*, and even most importantly on the > > *role* of this structure, > > > > > === message truncated === > > > Djilali Benamrane : dbenamrane at yahoo.com > Tel/fax : (227) 75 35 09 BP 11207 - Niamey - Niger > Tél/Fax : (331) 01 45 39 77 02 Paris - France > Page web sur le Sommet Mondial sur la Societe de > l'Information (SMSI) (mecanismes de financement) > http://www.wsis-finance.org et groupe de discussion : > http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/ > Page web sur l'Afrique et la globalisation : > http://www.multimania.com/djilalibenamrane/ > Groupe de discussion: > http://www.egroups.com/list/afriqueglobalization > > > > > > > _____________________________________________________________ > ______________ > Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes > vos questions ! > Demandez à ceux qui savent sur Yahoo! Questions/Réponses > http://fr.answers.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > Plenary mailing list > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From avri at acm.org Thu Oct 19 19:29:10 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 01:29:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF Message-ID: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> hi, As I understand it, Adma has procured a room for the IGC to have a session. There is little time to get an agenda out for the meeting in the lunch spot on the 30th. Here is my draft of that agenda. this is simlar to the ideas floated a few days ago. ---- Proposed Program for IGC at IGF This program is intended to introduce and reintroduce the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus to the participants at the IGF. We discuss the origins of the caucus, it current status and the work being done by caucus participant in planning and organizing the IGF meetings and workshops. - Setting the context: WSIS, the IGC and how we got to the IGF (15 minutes) Presented by former IGC coordinators Adam and Jeanette - Status of the IGC today (10 minutes) Presented by transition coordinator - Avri - Update from MAG and SAG members on IGF AG activities (10 minutes) One or two of those nominated by the IGC - Q&A with MAG/SAG members (20 minutes) Will try to get as may of them on stage for the Q&A - Brief overview of CS organized workshops and the goals for the workshops (2-5 minutes each) CS Workshop organizers --- A question about the last slot. Should this be restricted to the workshops that caucus participants have organized? Or should it be more open then that. Time is limited and the more speakers we have, the shorter the slice. I need to package this up a little more and submit it for the program listing. I have written a quick intro line, but it might be a bit lame. Edits and suggestions are welcome. I think I need to get this done in the next day or so - and if i don't hear in time, my text will end up the draft but could be replaced by better text as it evolves. Also, I have not started contacting the workshop organizers yet, and therefore ask those of you reading this list who are willing to stand up and say a few words about their workshop to let me know as soon as possible. I also ask the CS MAG/SAG membbrs to get in touch letting you about their willingness/availability to sit on the Q&A panel. thanks a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From pouzin at well.com Fri Oct 20 06:53:48 2006 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:53:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF Message-ID: <200610201053.k9KArl8l014987@ares.enst.fr> Avri, Here attached is a programme for the "Linguistic Diversity" workshop. There might be a few changes in speakers, as travel funding was iffy for some. Best - - On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 01:29:10 +0200, Avri Doria wrote: Also, I have not started contacting the workshop organizers yet, and therefore ask those of you reading this list who are willing to stand up and say a few words about their workshop to let me know as soon as possible. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF_ling_div_program_7.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 80584 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karenb at gn.apc.org Fri Oct 20 07:35:08 2006 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:35:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> hi >Proposed Program for IGC at IGF > >This program is intended to introduce and reintroduce the Civil >Society Internet Governance Caucus to the participants at the IGF. >We discuss the origins of the caucus, it current status and the work >being done by caucus participant in planning and organizing the IGF >meetings and workshops. sounds good.. >- Setting the context: WSIS, the IGC and how we got to the IGF (15 minutes) > Presented by former IGC coordinators Adam and Jeanette >- Status of the IGC today (10 minutes) > Presented by transition coordinator - Avri >- Update from MAG and SAG members on IGF AG activities (10 minutes) > One or two of those nominated by the IGC what is the SAG? special advisors group? and, what would this update focus on.. how the whole thing's worked? process, challenges etc? >- Q&A with MAG/SAG members (20 minutes) > Will try to get as may of them on stage for the Q&A there could be a lot of questions.. might it be worth gathering some before hand online so that the lucky seleted folk can prepare? might also help in preparing for the update above.. >- Brief overview of CS organized workshops and the goals for the >workshops (2-5 minutes each) > CS Workshop organizers hmm.. wondering if we really need to do that - considering time is short - and i imagine there will be a lot of workshops.. what about if we put together a document that contains brief overviews of all CS intiiated workshops, post it here, plenary - maybe it can go on the IGF website - and people can have that to hand when they come to the meeting? (well, if they print it out, which they should!) it would be good to hear from workshop organisers - but i think it would also be good to see if we can't draw out some issues that are of interest and priority to CS participants - that can be fed into the main sessions during audience participation etc? i've been struggling to think of ways we can co-ordinate a broader strategy (i mean, broader than just our individual workshop endeavours) - to hold everything together? i know's there a huge diversity of perspective and i am in no way suggesting that we try to come up with common points/issues for interventions etc. but, it would be nice to hear, in one place, what people might be taking into the open sessions, and what they hope to get out of workshops, potential collaboration/initiatives etc.. rather than focus on content of the workshops perse) sorry - a bit long-winded.. thanks for pulling it together avri karen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Fri Oct 20 08:02:56 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:02:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> On 20 okt 2006, at 13.35, karen banks wrote: > >> - Setting the context: WSIS, the IGC and how we got to the IGF (15 >> minutes) >> Presented by former IGC coordinators Adam and Jeanette >> - Status of the IGC today (10 minutes) >> Presented by transition coordinator - Avri >> - Update from MAG and SAG members on IGF AG activities (10 minutes) >> One or two of those nominated by the IGC > > what is the SAG? special advisors group? > yep. will spell it out. btw, keeping the draft on line at: http://www.igcaucus.org/agenda-igc-at-igf.html needed to have something on line so the room could get scheduled. will change it as it changes. > and, what would this update focus on.. how the whole thing's > worked? process, challenges etc? basically. why they did what they did? did they succeed at doing what they felt they should have done? I don't know. > >> - Q&A with MAG/SAG members (20 minutes) >> Will try to get as may of them on stage for the Q&A > > there could be a lot of questions.. might it be worth gathering > some before hand online so that the lucky seleted folk can prepare? > might also help in preparing for the update above.. could be. people can start posing them on line. though i expect a more impromptu sort of setting. and they should know the answers anyway. (my two questions are listed above) > >> - Brief overview of CS organized workshops and the goals for the >> workshops (2-5 minutes each) >> CS Workshop organizers > > hmm.. wondering if we really need to do that - considering time is > short - and i imagine there will be a lot of workshops.. not that many that are CS initiated. > > what about if we put together a document that contains brief > overviews of all CS intiiated workshops, post it here, plenary - > maybe it can go on the IGF website - and people can have that to > hand when they come to the meeting? (well, if they print it out, > which they should!) well if we list the workshops, they can get the official write-up - i will include the links in the agenda. > > it would be good to hear from workshop organisers - but i think it > would also be good to see if we can't draw out some issues that are > of interest and priority to CS participants - that can be fed into > the main sessions during audience participation etc? good idea. how do you propose we do that? > > i've been struggling to think of ways we can co-ordinate a broader > strategy (i mean, broader than just our individual workshop > endeavours) - to hold everything together? i really think this will come later - i.e., this is what we have to do after the meeting when everyone is trying to decide whether it was a success and trying to figure out where we go from here (there). > > i know's there a huge diversity of perspective and i am in no way > suggesting that we try to come up with common points/issues for > interventions etc. but, it would be nice to hear, in one place, > what people might be taking into the open sessions, and what they > hope to get out of workshops, potential collaboration/initiatives > etc.. rather than focus on content of the workshops perse) well if we only cover the CS initiated sessions, we may have time for some dialogue. > > sorry - a bit long-winded.. > > thanks for pulling it together avri thanks. once Adam mentioned asking for a room did not seem to be much choice other then to try and organize it. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Fri Oct 20 08:21:27 2006 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:21:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] Linguistic diversity (Was: Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <200610201053.k9KArl8l014987@ares.enst.fr> References: <200610201053.k9KArl8l014987@ares.enst.fr> Message-ID: <20061020122127.GA21225@nic.fr> On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 12:53:48PM +0200, Louis Pouzin wrote a message of 1825 lines which said: > Here attached is a programme for the "Linguistic Diversity" > workshop. The first sentence is already blatantly false. > Why a workshop on Linguistic Diversity Linguistic diversity in the > internet has been ignored till the 1st WSIS Summit in 2003. It is pure b...it ("connerie" in French). And it is an insult to the people who worked, for many years, on the internationalization of the Internet, from the techies at IETF (RFC 2070 in 1997, RFC 1766 in 1995, RFC 1652 in 1994, etc) to the content authors who put texts online, instead of attending expensive conferences (Wikipedia is a recent exemple but there have been many non-english content authors before). > The use of native languages in internet has been overlooked up until > the WSIS prepcom meetings, which created the first opportunity for > non english speaking countries to express their needs and > frustrations. Same remark. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri Oct 20 08:53:29 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 20:53:29 +0800 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> Message-ID: <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> Avri Doria wrote: > >>> - Update from MAG and SAG members on IGF AG activities (10 minutes) >>> One or two of those nominated by the IGC >> >> what is the SAG? special advisors group? > > yep. will spell it out. Still none the wiser. Is anyone else disturbed about the lack of transparency in the operations of the Secretariat and the MAG? I have been following IGF issues very closely for my PhD (well, as closely as I can from outside the MAG), and yet this is the first I have heard of any SAG. There is *no* information about it on the Web or in any mailing list archives I've seen. What is it? Why haven't we been told about it before? I think a more urgent topic than those in the provisional agenda for the IGC at IGF meeting is to talk about how the IGF's provisional structure needs to be reformed to make it more transparent and accountable - in fact, closer to the structure of the IGC itself. Some notes from me on this (email me if you want a PDF of the expanded version) are at http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/reform-of-the-internet-governance-forum. Does anyone else see this as an issue or is it just me? -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Fri Oct 20 09:16:09 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:16:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <731ECA0F-8DF5-4AD5-B8EB-2C4C7903FA82@acm.org> On 20 okt 2006, at 14.53, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Still none the wiser. Is anyone else disturbed about the lack of > transparency in the operations of the Secretariat and the MAG? I > have been following IGF issues very closely for my PhD (well, as > closely as I can from outside the MAG), and yet this is the first I > have heard of any SAG. There is *no* information about it on the > Web or in any mailing list archives I've seen. What is it? Why > haven't we been told about it before? not sure why you have not heard of it before. on the page describing the Advisory Group: http://www.intgovforum.org/ADG_members.htm The Chairman asked a number of special advisers to assist him in this process. He also invited the Regional Coordinators to attend the meeting as special invitees. the members are listed at: http://www.intgovforum.org/ADG_members_chairs_Adv.htm a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Oct 20 09:16:42 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:16:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: comment below On 10/20/06, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Avri Doria wrote: > > > >>> - Update from MAG and SAG members on IGF AG activities (10 minutes) > >>> One or two of those nominated by the IGC > >> > >> what is the SAG? special advisors group? > > > > yep. will spell it out. > > Still none the wiser. Is anyone else disturbed about the lack of > transparency in the operations of the Secretariat and the MAG? I have > been following IGF issues very closely for my PhD (well, as closely as I > can from outside the MAG), and yet this is the first I have heard of any > SAG. There is *no* information about it on the Web or in any mailing > list archives I've seen. What is it? Why haven't we been told about it > before? > scroll down "The Chairman asked a number of special advisers to assist him in this process. He also invited the Regional Coordinators to attend the meeting as special invitees." Good luck, Adam > I think a more urgent topic than those in the provisional agenda for the > IGC at IGF meeting is to talk about how the IGF's provisional structure > needs to be reformed to make it more transparent and accountable - in > fact, closer to the structure of the IGC itself. Some notes from me on > this (email me if you want a PDF of the expanded version) are at > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/reform-of-the-internet-governance-forum. > Does anyone else see this as an issue or is it just me? > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri Oct 20 10:08:08 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:08:08 +0800 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <4538D848.1000106@Malcolm.id.au> Adam Peake wrote: > "The Chairman asked a number of special advisers > to assist him > in this process. He also invited the Regional Coordinators to attend > the meeting as special invitees." Thanks Avri and Adam, but my main point was a broader one. The MAG: * Has conducted its proceedings behind closed doors, and on a mailing list which is neither open to non-members to join, nor to view its archives. * Has not (correct me if I'm wrong) made any plans to improve its own accountability to the broader IGF or to transition to a more democratic (see Tunis Agenda para 73) form. * There is no public register of nominees of positions on the MAG nor of the criteria pursuant to which the successful applicants were selected. * However, preferential treatment does seem to have been afforded to those (including the IGC and ISOC - no complaints there, but the principle remains) privately contacted by the Secretariat to put forward nominees. * And anyone who did not have the independent means to travel twice to Geneva was excluded from consideration (I think - correct me if I'm wrong). Comparing (as I am in my thesis) the IGF to the IETF, the discrepancy in accountability and transparency is stark. Now, I don't say that this is surprising, given the genesis of the IGF, but I do say that it cannot continue, and that: (a) if anyone is going to do something about it, it ought to spring from some of the people on this list; and (b) it has to happen NOW, before Athens is over and preparations for Rio begin in earnest. Yet nobody else seems to be concerned, or am I wrong? -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Oct 20 10:33:14 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:33:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> Message-ID: <4538DE2A.6020204@bertola.eu.org> Avri Doria ha scritto: > hi, > > As I understand it, Adma has procured a room for the IGC to have a session. > There is little time to get an agenda out for the meeting in the lunch > spot on the 30th. Here is my draft of that agenda. this is simlar to > the ideas floated a few days ago. This is fine to me. Perhaps I'd add somewhere a slot for discussing "what next", e.g. trying to exchange visions on what are the priority items and objectives that civil society should push at the meeting and for the follow-up between Athens and Rio (even if we'll have clearer ideas after the IGF, of course). That could perhaps be a matter of discussion in the Q&A, or we could turn the Q&A into an open discussion from the floor, depending on attendance (might do it on spot if we feel we can). But I'm also worried about stuffing too many points into the meeting. In any case, Robin and/or I will be glad to introduce our Bill of Rights workshop. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri Oct 20 10:35:13 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:35:13 +0800 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> <4538D848.1000106@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <4538DEA1.8090906@Malcolm.id.au> McTim wrote: > On 10/20/06, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Yet nobody else seems to be concerned, or am I wrong? > > I think you are correct, but I don't really care. > > I'd rather participate in the already existent IG structures that > actually make decisions that mean something. The bodies that I > participate in are already transparent in leadership section and > policy making, and they are open to all interested parties. Not having a go, Tim - I appreciate the feedback - but I know that you speak for a lot of others, and so I have to ask, do those other bodies you refer to make decisions about: * Freedom of expression on the Internet * Responding uniformly to cybercrime * Data protection and privacy rights online * Equity in interconnection costs * Consumer protection such as anti-phishing * etc, etc, etc Do you not care about these issues (fair enough), or do you think other bodies are dealing with them adequately, or do you think they are ungovernable? Because speaking for myself, I do care about them, I don't think any other body is dealing with them in a transnational and inclusive way, and I think that the IGF is our first, best chance to do so. But I am worried that the opportunity will be squandered and the IGF become just another intergovernmental body in which the non-state stakeholders serve no purpose but to feed input into independent governmental policy-making processes. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Oct 20 10:46:29 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:46:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <4538D848.1000106@Malcolm.id.au> References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> <4538D848.1000106@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <4538E145.6060408@bertola.eu.org> Jeremy Malcolm ha scritto: > Yet nobody else seems to be concerned, or am I wrong? Jeremy, I am as concerned as you about a number of possible shortcomings of the Forum. The forum was conceived by some of us (I remember the discussions in the WGIG, and the effort I put to frame certain sentences of its mandate that now are being ignored) to be a place where every person, no matter how "small" (even individuals), could have a venue in which any issue of importance could be raised, and he/she could get answers on where and how to get it addressed, or even try to spawn a multistakeholder working group on it. Apparently (and I might be utterly wrong), what is going to happen in Athens is that we are going to fly there to sit for four days as an "audience" to watch some journalists interviewing random experts on the matter. I could watch that on TV, there's no need for the UN to organize yet another talk shop! And I'll try to talk about this in Athens, assuming that I ever get a chance to speak in the appropriate session. However, the last thing I'd do is to blame other civil society people, or to use this as an argument in the everlasting "engineers versus the United Nations" feud. There clearly is a problem of expectations, a problem of funding and resources, and also a problem of size: perhaps it is conceptually wrong to call everyone in the same place to address all conceivable problems with the Internet, if the result is that many people are not going to have an opportunity to speak, because of sheer numbers. This is the first edition, perhaps it's going astray from what it was intended to be, or perhaps it is me who had such a different concept in mind; in any case, the final judgement will only happen after it ends. But I think that the right thing to do is to discuss and put forward constructive proposals on how to make it better for civil society next time, and how to make good use of the positive opportunities that are already there this time. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Oct 20 10:55:28 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:55:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <4538DEA1.8090906@Malcolm.id.au> References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> <4538D848.1000106@Malcolm.id.au> <4538DEA1.8090906@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: On 10/20/06, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Not having a go, Tim - I appreciate the feedback - but I know that you > speak for a lot of others, and so I have to ask, do those other bodies > you refer to make decisions about: I speak for myself, tho others may share my views. > > * Freedom of expression on the Internet > * Responding uniformly to cybercrime > * Data protection and privacy rights online > * Equity in interconnection costs > * Consumer protection such as anti-phishing > * etc, etc, etc not directly, but neither will the IGF. > > Do you not care about these issues (fair enough), or do you think other > bodies are dealing with them adequately, or do you think they are > ungovernable? Those issues will be dealt with in national laws and regulations. Not that that is a *good thing*, but that is the way it is. > > Because speaking for myself, I do care about them, I don't think any > other body is dealing with them in a transnational and inclusive way, > and I think that the IGF is our first, best chance to do so. > > But I am worried that the opportunity will be squandered and the IGF > become just another intergovernmental body in which the non-state > stakeholders serve no purpose but to feed input into independent > governmental policy-making processes. I'm not sure it will even do that! -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Oct 20 11:03:35 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:03:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <4538E145.6060408@bertola.eu.org> References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> <4538D848.1000106@Malcolm.id.au> <4538E145.6060408@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <4538E547.3090107@wz-berlin.de> Hi Vittorio, > > Apparently (and I might be utterly wrong), what is going to happen in > Athens is that we are going to fly there to sit for four days as an > "audience" to watch some journalists interviewing random experts on the > matter. I could watch that on TV, there's no need for the UN to organize > yet another talk shop! And I'll try to talk about this in Athens, > assuming that I ever get a chance to speak in the appropriate session. The structural problem is that at a forum with more than 1000 participants most people will act as the audience. I really don't see how this could be organized in a different way. The MAG's job is to discuss the agenda of the main sessions and to try to ensure a balanced set of speakers. As Adam has said before, the real issue is to find enough speakers for all sessions from developing countries. Things are much more flexible with regard to the workshops. One of the really good outcomes is that all workshop proposals got accepted. All workshops can take place. Many of them are organized by civil society people. This is the area where you won't be mere "audience". jeanette > > However, the last thing I'd do is to blame other civil society people, > or to use this as an argument in the everlasting "engineers versus the > United Nations" feud. There clearly is a problem of expectations, a > problem of funding and resources, and also a problem of size: perhaps it > is conceptually wrong to call everyone in the same place to address all > conceivable problems with the Internet, if the result is that many > people are not going to have an opportunity to speak, because of sheer > numbers. > > This is the first edition, perhaps it's going astray from what it was > intended to be, or perhaps it is me who had such a different concept in > mind; in any case, the final judgement will only happen after it ends. > But I think that the right thing to do is to discuss and put forward > constructive proposals on how to make it better for civil society next > time, and how to make good use of the positive opportunities that are > already there this time. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Oct 20 11:08:06 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:08:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Main sessions @ IGF In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.0.16.2.20061017125142.06599bb0@gn.apc.org> <4534FF9C.4050200@bertola.eu.org> <4536182B.20509@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <4538E656.5070303@bertola.eu.org> Adam Peake ha scritto: > I don't remember the size of the main room, it's either 800 or 1200 > people. But 800/1200, can't really be anything other than an > "audience". A few might say something, but not many. If 30-40 different > people had the opportunity to speak in 3 hours, is that a good target? > (to few, too many?) Personally, I'd be to let "ordinary" people speak as much as possible, and instead strongly limit their time (for example, with a giant visible countdown clock on the screen...) and perhaps also the topics. For example, you could accept two types of interventions: - questions or comments to the panel - flagging issues for subsequent discussion I think that the second part is important, even if there is no time to discuss everything in Athens, I should be able to pick the mike and say, hey, I have this issue, does anyone else have it? can we meet later and work together on it? perhaps through a "dynamic coalition"? People should at least be able to put their issues into a final, summarized list of "issues that were raised at the IGF". > Workshops will hopefully offer some opportunity for people to get more > involved. It might be a good idea, but then, they should be conceived as an integral part of the Forum. Which means, for example, that their conclusions should be part of the official Forum results... but then, you'll have the problem of all the people who could not attend that particular workshop and yet had an opinion on the matter. Not easy to solve. > We know the people are going. Most will have been approached at some > point and asked informally if they'd be willing to join a panel. > > Yes. Things are a little behind... But it will be perfect! Good luck :-) > I don't know. I will try to remember to ask. But as a workshop > organizer you can and should be asking stuff like this. I'm writing to Markus... >> 2. "Dynamic coalitions" emerging from Athens: Is there any planned >> mechanism for moving the discussions into this direction? It is one of >> the most important aspects of the IGF that can make it different from >> other conferences and ensure it becomes a process, not just an annual >> chatter. > > I don't know. I hope the plaza space may help. I would like there to be > a space where people organizing workshops could sit around "advertise" > their event. be there so people who are interested in the workshop > topic can chat (before and after the workshop's held.) And for people > organizing workshop to get together among themselves. I think the > people who have taken the effort to put something on are the most likely > to take the "dynamic coalition" idea forward. Kind of self selection. I agree. At the same time, as someone else was saying, there needs to be some kind of formal recognition of these efforts, otherwise it will just be wasted time, and otherwise it would just be enough to ignore them to make efforts on controversial matters fail. There were proposals on processes to create ongoing, online IGF WGs, one year ago (at least, I'm sure I had one). Sooner or later they should get out of the closet - sooner is better. Which is the appropriate session for this discussion? Monday afternoon? Thursday morning? -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Fri Oct 20 11:51:34 2006 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:51:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> <4538D848.1000106@Malcolm.id.au> <4538DEA1.8090906@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: All, I welcome McTim's response; it goes right to the heart of the matter. In my view, it highlights one of the unspoken and politically incorrect truths of the entire WSIS process, i.e. that many (the great majority in my opinion) of the issues under discussion with respect to the Internet are national and sub-national issues, not international issues. Raising them in an international context may allow governments to superficially abdicate their responsibility for dealing effectively with these issues at home. It could, however, have the beneficial effect of putting a spotlight on the issues, but this will only help if the responsibility for solving them is placed directly and explicitly on national governments, not on any international community. The ISOC and GIPI Access workshop, starting first thing Tuesday morning, will try to separate these issues with respect to access. My own organization, GIPI (www.internetpolicy.net) has been active in about 20 countries trying to influence national legislation and regulation in favor of the increased availability, access, and affordability of the Internet, and yes, with an emphasis upon consumer protection and confidentiality of information. Let me tell you that it is difficult work, requiring full time resources on a continued basis. Governments, especially those in non-democratic countries, to give up control. that is where the battles must occur. If you want to do something about non-transparency, let's start by working on the most blatant examples of it: governments such as North Korea, Myanmar and Kazakhstan, and quite a few more, not on institutions that are trying, even if only tangentially, to do something positive with respect to them. There clearly are issues that are international in scope that that are good candidates for intelligent discussion in international fora. It remains to be seen how much of that will occur at the IGF. Let's also stop accepting revisionist history as anything but an admission of ignorance or unwillingness to accept the truth. Good examples of this are contained in the recent Linguistic Diversity workshop outline. As Stephane Bortzmeyer points out, and as those of us who have worked in ICT for quite a few years know, linguistic diversity has been an issue of active concern since at least the 1970's. If workshops and other discussions are not based upon an accurate understanding of history and an accurate assessment of the nature of the problem and ongoing efforts to solve it, then their proceedings and conclusions will be ignored, and correctly so, as a silly waste of time by people who don't know any better. George Sadowsky ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 5:55 PM +0300 10/20/06, McTim wrote: >On 10/20/06, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> >>Not having a go, Tim - I appreciate the feedback - but I know that you >>speak for a lot of others, and so I have to ask, do those other bodies >>you refer to make decisions about: > >I speak for myself, tho others may share my views. > >> >>* Freedom of expression on the Internet >>* Responding uniformly to cybercrime >>* Data protection and privacy rights online >>* Equity in interconnection costs >>* Consumer protection such as anti-phishing >>* etc, etc, etc > >not directly, but neither will the IGF. > >> >>Do you not care about these issues (fair enough), or do you think other >>bodies are dealing with them adequately, or do you think they are >>ungovernable? > >Those issues will be dealt with in national laws and regulations. Not >that that is a *good thing*, but that is the way it is. > >> >>Because speaking for myself, I do care about them, I don't think any >>other body is dealing with them in a transnational and inclusive way, >>and I think that the IGF is our first, best chance to do so. >> >>But I am worried that the opportunity will be squandered and the IGF >>become just another intergovernmental body in which the non-state >>stakeholders serve no purpose but to feed input into independent >>governmental policy-making processes. > >I'm not sure it will even do that! > >-- >Cheers, > >McTim >$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Fri Oct 20 12:28:49 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:28:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi, There are now about a half dozen threads taking place under the same subject line, which makes things complicated. This is a message about ' Program for IGC at IGF'. Thanks Avri. Couple of questions and comments. > From: Avri Doria > - Setting the context: WSIS, the IGC and how we got to the IGF (15 > minutes) > Presented by former IGC coordinators Adam and Jeanette > - Status of the IGC today (10 minutes) > Presented by transition coordinator - Avri > - Update from MAG and SAG members on IGF AG activities (10 minutes) > One or two of those nominated by the IGC > - Q&A with MAG/SAG members (20 minutes) > Will try to get as may of them on stage for the Q&A > - Brief overview of CS organized workshops and the goals for the > workshops (2-5 minutes each) > CS Workshop organizers Personally, I'd rather we spent a bit less time listening to people brief us about the mAG process and workshops and spent more time talking together about the caucus---past, present, future. This is not to say that the mAG process and workshops aren't interesting and listening to panelists isn't fun, but time is really scarce, probably people will want opportunities to speak (particularly as these seem to be in short supply elsewhere), and there are some fundamental questions that might get short shrift unless we make more space for dialogue on them. For example, from the perspective of bringing newbies up to speed and reenergizing oldbies, it might be good under "Setting the context" to at least briefly overview some of the substantive positions the IGC took on key issues in documents submitted and interventions made during the WSIS and run-up to IGF, the internal problems we faced in terms of working methods, and to take stock of what was/wasn't accomplished in terms of impact, what worked or didn't. In " Status of the IGC today," I'd think we want some time for people to discuss collectively how they see the role and utility of the caucus now (particularly given the differences between WSIS and IGF), what they'd want out of it, etc. I can't see how we do that in a ten minute segment, a chunk of which would necessarily entail you describing the charter, voting, etc. Finally, it might be useful to have some space to discuss substantive issues and what if anything the caucus wishes to interject into the Athens discussion (the conversation on a position statement has trailed off....and it's not clear to me where we'd be able to do this in the program, given the 'audience' role) and what if anything we'd like to advocate vis IGF between now and Rio. Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Oct 20 10:19:05 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:19:05 +0300 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <4538D848.1000106@Malcolm.id.au> References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> <4538D848.1000106@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: On 10/20/06, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Comparing (as I am in my thesis) the IGF to the IETF, the discrepancy in > accountability and transparency is stark. Now, I don't say that this is > surprising, given the genesis of the IGF, but I do say that it cannot > continue, and that: > > (a) if anyone is going to do something about it, it ought to spring > from some of the people on this list; and > > (b) it has to happen NOW, before Athens is over and preparations > for Rio begin in earnest. > > Yet nobody else seems to be concerned, or am I wrong? I think you are correct, but I don't really care. I'd rather participate in the already existent IG structures that actually make decisions that mean something. The bodies that I participate in are already transparent in leadership section and policy making, and they are open to all interested parties. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Oct 20 15:19:00 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 04:19:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> <4538D848.1000106@Malcolm.id.au> <4538DEA1.8090906@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: The draft agenda is now linked from the related activities page of the IGF site 1:30PM to 3PM, Monday October 30, Kleoniki Room (B). That's the mid size workshop room. Takes about 150 people. I think the agenda avri drafted is a fine beginning. We've got to involve more people and a meeting on the first day, when I think we can expect a bunch of people who weren't involved in WSIS, WGIG and the rest, is an ideal opportunity to re-launch the caucus pretty much in the spirit of the new charter. We will have from 1:30 to 3PM. That is 90 minutes. It's not very much time. for what it's worth... In 9 days about 1000 people --government delegations with ministers, civil society, business, international organizations-- will join a major multi-stakeholder event. A brand new thing, not be tried before. Four days of meetings. Main sessions chatting on for three hours at a go, and for much of the time three parallel workshop sessions. How long has it taken to organize this large, not always wanted, pretty much unfunded, multi-stakeholder event? And the idea for it came from a few members of *this* Internet Governance Caucus. Be Happy. Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Oct 20 15:26:11 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:26:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <453922D3.6090600@wz-berlin.de> Hi Bill, Avri etc, I would recommend that we keep the agenda flexible and therefore a bit vague. We have no idea who and how many will show up and what specific interests they have. Lets keep it open to not bore or offend the "audience". jeanette William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > There are now about a half dozen threads taking place under the same subject > line, which makes things complicated. This is a message about ' Program for > IGC at IGF'. > > Thanks Avri. Couple of questions and comments. > >> From: Avri Doria > >> - Setting the context: WSIS, the IGC and how we got to the IGF (15 >> minutes) >> Presented by former IGC coordinators Adam and Jeanette >> - Status of the IGC today (10 minutes) >> Presented by transition coordinator - Avri >> - Update from MAG and SAG members on IGF AG activities (10 minutes) >> One or two of those nominated by the IGC >> - Q&A with MAG/SAG members (20 minutes) >> Will try to get as may of them on stage for the Q&A >> - Brief overview of CS organized workshops and the goals for the >> workshops (2-5 minutes each) >> CS Workshop organizers > > Personally, I'd rather we spent a bit less time listening to people brief us > about the mAG process and workshops and spent more time talking together > about the caucus---past, present, future. This is not to say that the mAG > process and workshops aren't interesting and listening to panelists isn't > fun, but time is really scarce, probably people will want opportunities to > speak (particularly as these seem to be in short supply elsewhere), and > there are some fundamental questions that might get short shrift unless we > make more space for dialogue on them. > > For example, from the perspective of bringing newbies up to speed and > reenergizing oldbies, it might be good under "Setting the context" to at > least briefly overview some of the substantive positions the IGC took on key > issues in documents submitted and interventions made during the WSIS and > run-up to IGF, the internal problems we faced in terms of working methods, > and to take stock of what was/wasn't accomplished in terms of impact, what > worked or didn't. In " Status of the IGC today," I'd think we want some > time for people to discuss collectively how they see the role and utility of > the caucus now (particularly given the differences between WSIS and IGF), > what they'd want out of it, etc. I can't see how we do that in a ten minute > segment, a chunk of which would necessarily entail you describing the > charter, voting, etc. Finally, it might be useful to have some space to > discuss substantive issues and what if anything the caucus wishes to > interject into the Athens discussion (the conversation on a position > statement has trailed off....and it's not clear to me where we'd be able to > do this in the program, given the 'audience' role) and what if anything we'd > like to advocate vis IGF between now and Rio. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From aizu at anr.org Fri Oct 20 15:43:37 2006 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 04:43:37 +0900 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: References: <453922D3.6090600@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: Hi, thanks Avri for putting this forward, Not having read all the lines of this thread, I still like to support what Jeanette wrote below. I was informed that I will likely to be one of the speakers at the workshop on infrastructure security organized by Verisign. I like to take the IGF meeting as a good opportunity to get inputs to the workshop I am going to participate/speak - what would be the civil society's roles (and responsibilities) on the infrastructure security? I like to *listen* for that matter from my colleagues. Of course I have my own ideas, but I also appreciate how collectively, IGC could make a difference at IGF by smartly using our limited time and resources, and and I think this IGC workshop is a good place for that. Thanks, and see you in Athens. izumi 2006/10/21, Jeanette Hofmann : > Hi Bill, Avri etc, > > I would recommend that we keep the agenda flexible and therefore a bit > vague. We have no idea who and how many will show up and what specific > interests they have. Lets keep it open to not bore or offend the > "audience". > > jeanette > > > William Drake wrote: > > Hi, > > > > There are now about a half dozen threads taking place under the same subject > > line, which makes things complicated. This is a message about ' Program for > > IGC at IGF'. > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Oct 20 15:53:24 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:53:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: References: <453922D3.6090600@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: On 20 okt 2006, at 21.43, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Not having read all the lines of this thread, I still like to support > what Jeanette wrote below. I was informed that I will likely to be one > of the speakers at the workshop on infrastructure security organized > by Verisign. i am sure I would support it too. but i don't understand what you guys mean. i see no reason not to be flexible. what does it mean to be flexible in this case? no agenda? i am fine with that too. and if someone wants to write up a replacement agenda that is flexible and the caucus agree to it, i will replace the one that is sitting in as a draft. i can't because i really don't understand what is wanted. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Oct 20 16:19:25 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:19:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: References: <453922D3.6090600@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <45392F4D.2060708@wz-berlin.de> Avri Doria wrote: > > On 20 okt 2006, at 21.43, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Not having read all the lines of this thread, I still like to support >> what Jeanette wrote below. I was informed that I will likely to be one >> of the speakers at the workshop on infrastructure security organized >> by Verisign. > > > i am sure I would support it too. but i don't understand what you guys > mean. > i see no reason not to be flexible. what does it mean to be flexible in > this case? > no agenda? i am fine with that too. Oh Avri, I love your agenda. It is very flexible. Please don't change it. jeanette > > and if someone wants to write up a replacement agenda that is flexible > and the caucus agree to it, i will replace the one that is sitting in as > a draft. i can't because i really don't understand what is wanted. > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Fri Oct 20 16:33:52 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:33:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF Message-ID: I agree with Karen that it would be more useful to explore common ground on possible interventions than to listen to Workshop promotions. I say this as someone involved in two workshops. ;-) >>> karenb at gn.apc.org 10/20/2006 7:35 AM >>> i've been struggling to think of ways we can co-ordinate a broader strategy (i mean, broader than just our individual workshop endeavours) - to hold everything together? i know's there a huge diversity of perspective and i am in no way suggesting that we try to come up with common points/issues for interventions etc. but, it would be nice to hear, in one place, what people might be taking into the open sessions, and what they hope to get out of workshops, potential collaboration/initiatives etc.. rather than focus on content of the workshops perse) sorry - a bit long-winded.. thanks for pulling it together avri karen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Fri Oct 20 16:41:27 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:41:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF Message-ID: Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au 10/20/2006 10:08 AM >>> >Yet nobody else seems to be concerned, or am I wrong? I'm concerned. But also aware that you are dealing with deeply ingrained attitudes and practices within the UN system. You will not get this changed, or probably even considered, before Athens. This is realism on my part, not approval. Let's talk about it in Athens. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Fri Oct 20 16:51:36 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:51:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF Message-ID: Are you being sarcastic here? I cant tell.... >>> jeanette at wz-berlin.de 10/20/2006 4:19 PM >>> Oh Avri, I love your agenda. It is very flexible. Please don't change it. jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Fri Oct 20 17:12:02 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:12:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] McTim on the status quo Message-ID: >>> dogwallah at gmail.com 10/20/2006 10:19 AM >>> >I'd rather participate in the already existent IG structures that >actually make decisions that mean something. The bodies that I >participate in are already transparent in leadership section and >policy making, and they are open to all interested parties. McTim, you have made this point many times. I would like to challenge your assertion about the transparency of existing IG mechanisms with a fact you may not be aware of. During the U.S. NTIA Notice of Inquiry proceeding in June, someone I know sent a message to the ARIN policy discussion list, which is supposedly open and unmoderated, asking quite innocuously what people there thought about the NTIA proceeding and whether they planned to file comments. The message never appeared on the list. It was blackholed, censorsed. Apparently, someone at ARIN didn't want to permit an open discussion of the relationship between ICANN (which delegates address space to ARIN) and the USG. While I am not aware of similar practices there, I participate extensively in ICANN-related matters. ICANN's transparency and accountability are still matters of considerable debate and discussion. The Forum is a good and needed meta-venue for raising such questions. I have participated extensively in both ICANN and domestic US legislative and policy issues. Nevertheless, I find the Forum a useful way to approach the global Internet governance issues from a holistic standpoint. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Fri Oct 20 17:25:25 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 23:25:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, On 20 okt 2006, at 22.33, Milton Mueller wrote: > I agree with Karen that it would be more useful to explore common > ground > on possible interventions than to listen to Workshop promotions. I say > this as someone involved in two workshops. ;-) As i mentioned to Karen I don't know how to organize this. And the more i think about it, the more i am nervous about it becoming one of the frequent IGC free for alls where nothing much gets done. I think it would be great if we wee spending a day together and could work our way through the differences and really discuss things. but even if we dedicated the entire 90 minutes to a discussion on common interventions, i just don't see it getting anywhere. The liability i see if we try this is that while it might be entertaining for some of us who enjoy revisiting the old incomplete arguments and frustrating for those who wish we could just come to some sort or agreement, which is bad enough, it would be baffling to anyone who was approaching civil society and the caucus, or the idea of the igf, for the first time. In a way, i think it depends on why we are doing this. Is it for orientation's sake or is to have a face to face IGC meeting? i though we were trying to do an orientation sort of thing. if we want to have a face to face - is 90 minutes enough? wouldn't we need an entire day? at least? a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Oct 20 17:46:32 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 23:46:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <453943B8.2060602@bertola.eu.org> Avri Doria ha scritto: > Is it for orientation's sake or is to have a face to face IGC meeting? > i though we were trying to do an orientation sort of thing. if we want > to have a face to face - is 90 minutes enough? wouldn't we need an > entire day? at least? I thought that the idea was to have this "public" and broad event on Monday lunchtime as an orientation for newcomers and CS in general, and to have a smaller face to face meeting among the active caucus members either on Sunday at dinner, or on Monday just after the forum ends. Also, I think we still want you to make a process-oriented intervention on behalf of the caucus in the appropriate plenary session, and in this case we'd better draft it here in advance, rather than face to face. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri Oct 20 20:02:24 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:02:24 +0800 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> <4538D848.1000106@Malcolm.id.au> <4538DEA1.8090906@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <45396390.507@Malcolm.id.au> McTim wrote: > On 10/20/06, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Those issues will be dealt with in national laws and regulations. Not > that that is a *good thing*, but that is the way it is. My take is that firstly, that is not necessarily true; there are public policy issues that can be dealt with elsewhere than in national laws and regulations, eg to a greater or lesser degree by market forces (eg interconnection), through norms (eg open source software) or through technical architecture (eg freedom of expression). In some cases, governments alone are in a worse position to do anything than these other mechanisms of governance, because of the problems of spillover where either the effects of regulation designed for one jurisdiction spill over into others (Yahoo!'s Nazi auctions, etc), or conduct regulated in one jurisdiction is simply pushed elsewhere (eg US online gambling). But secondly, and for the most part, although you are correct that national regulation is normally where the buck stops, that does not mean that public policy has to be developed in the domestic arena. Rather, a hybrid approach works best where policy is developed in a broader arena and implemented nationally. An analogy is co-regulation, in which the government provides the ultimate coercive force behind a code that is developed by industry. In the IGF's case, it is not industry but a network of stakeholders that can (if allowed to do so) develop public policy that can then be implemented through domestic law, or through markets, norms or architecture, or a combination of these four mechanisms (it becomes somewhat irrelevant which: more important is the policy behind it). -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Oct 21 02:10:33 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 09:10:33 +0300 Subject: [governance] McTim on the status quo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/21/06, Milton Mueller wrote: > > >>> dogwallah at gmail.com 10/20/2006 10:19 AM >>> > >I'd rather participate in the already existent IG structures that > >actually make decisions that mean something. The bodies that I > >participate in are already transparent in leadership section and > >policy making, and they are open to all interested parties. > > McTim, you have made this point many times. True, just because a point is repeated, doesn't mean it is less valid. > > I would like to challenge your assertion about the transparency of > existing IG mechanisms with a fact you may not be aware of. During the > U.S. NTIA Notice of Inquiry proceeding in June, someone I know sent a > message to the ARIN policy discussion list, which is supposedly open and > unmoderated, it is: http://arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html asking quite innocuously what people there thought about > the NTIA proceeding and whether they planned to file comments. > > The message never appeared on the list. It was blackholed, censorsed. I would suggest that this is not the case, perhaps the mail was sent to arin-discuss at arin.net which is open to ARIN mmebers only, or if sent to ppml at arin.net, then probaby not sent from an address that is subscribed to the list. I know that list is unmoderated. > Apparently, someone at ARIN didn't want to permit an open discussion of > the relationship between ICANN (which delegates address space to ARIN) > and the USG. Now that is a bit paranoid. To be pedantic, IANA allocates space to ARIN and other RIRs. > > While I am not aware of similar practices there, I participate > extensively in ICANN-related matters. ICANN's transparency and > accountability are still matters of considerable debate and discussion. Yes, further reform is needed at the top, but it's the bottom up that counts for me, as that is where policy is decided. > > > The Forum is a good and needed meta-venue for raising such questions. Perhaps, but my point is that it has no decision making abillity, nor is it transparent or bottom up. > > I have participated extensively in both ICANN and domestic US > legislative and policy issues. Nevertheless, I find the Forum a useful > way to approach the global Internet governance issues from a holistic > standpoint. > Again, your participation is at the top of the tree, go to the bottom, you'll get more bang for your buck! I'm on safari this weekend, perhaps Ray can shed more light on the mailing list issues. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Sat Oct 21 04:31:36 2006 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 10:31:36 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Transparency (was Re: Program for IGC@IGF) In-Reply-To: <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> (message from Jeremy Malcolm on Fri, 20 Oct 2006 20:53:29 +0800) References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <20061021083136.7C4864BC5D@quill.bollow.ch> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Still none the wiser. Is anyone else disturbed about the lack of > transparency in the operations of the Secretariat and the MAG? Yes, I also feel disturbed by this. On the other hand, I believe that the people who work in the IGF Secretariat and the MAG are already working at the limit of what is humanly possible in order to get at least the most critical aspects of their gigantic task done properly. I think that the way forward with respect to achieving good standards of transparency and accountability in internet governance is to create a small "light-weight" internet governance organization which should be in charge of only a small number of tasks (tasks which are not currently really worked on by any existing organization, and which are easier than organizing an Internet Governance Forum), and set up all processes of this new organization in exemplary ways to show how accountable transparent multistakeholder processes can be properly organized, and to learn what resources are needed for that. But it's simply not fair when a gigantic task is "dumped" on a small number of people without giving them adequate financial resources, and then these people get criticized for not being totally transparent in their struggles to get things done as well as they possibly can. I agree that transparency in the operations of the Secretariat and the MAG is lacking, but I don't see any individuals, groups of people, or organizations where criticism concerning this lack of transparency could be targeted with good conscience. Already in the Consultations in Geneva in February there was very little insistence on the importance of transparency. As long as requests and demands for transparency are not greatly increased, genuine transparency cannot plausibly be expected to be provided, except if we who care about transparency work together to create a little internet governance organization which does whatever it does in a genuinely transparent manner. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sat Oct 21 05:59:51 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 17:59:51 +0800 Subject: [governance] Transparency (was Re: Program for IGC@IGF) In-Reply-To: <20061021083136.7C4864BC5D@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> <20061021083136.7C4864BC5D@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4539EF97.8050309@Malcolm.id.au> Norbert Bollow wrote: > I think that the way forward with respect to achieving good > standards of transparency and accountability in internet > governance is to create a small "light-weight" internet > governance organization which should be in charge of only a > small number of tasks (tasks which are not currently really > worked on by any existing organization, and which are easier > than organizing an Internet Governance Forum), and set up all > processes of this new organization in exemplary ways to show > how accountable transparent multistakeholder processes can > be properly organized, and to learn what resources are > needed for that. Another one? It's been hard enough to get the first one where it is, hasn't it? Though, I do agree that a more light-weight organisation is required, which is why I have said that having an open multi-stakeholder Nominations Committee determine the composition of the Advisory Council would allow it to be reduced in size, because its legitimacy would not be derived from a claim to be representative on its own account, but rather from the consensus of all stakeholders. > Already in the Consultations in Geneva in February there was > very little insistence on the importance of transparency. As > long as requests and demands for transparency are not greatly > increased, genuine transparency cannot plausibly be expected > to be provided, except if we who care about transparency work > together to create a little internet governance organization > which does whatever it does in a genuinely transparent manner. Let's greatly increase those requests and demands, then. I've just submitted a five-minute video presentation in which I make my own call for the IGF to evolve more accountable and transparent structures and processes before Rio. How many others would like to join me? Of course it's a difficult ask, but how much more difficult would it be to create yet another organisation that would have the same buy-in from stakeholders as the IGF? -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3256 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sat Oct 21 06:18:46 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:18:46 +0800 Subject: [governance] Transparency (was Re: Program for IGC@IGF) In-Reply-To: <20061021083136.7C4864BC5D@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> <20061021083136.7C4864BC5D@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4539F406.70802@Malcolm.id.au> Sorry, I forgot not to digitally sign this so it would have come up blank. Resending. Norbert Bollow wrote: > I think that the way forward with respect to achieving good > standards of transparency and accountability in internet > governance is to create a small "light-weight" internet > governance organization which should be in charge of only a > small number of tasks (tasks which are not currently really > worked on by any existing organization, and which are easier > than organizing an Internet Governance Forum), and set up all > processes of this new organization in exemplary ways to show > how accountable transparent multistakeholder processes can > be properly organized, and to learn what resources are > needed for that. Another one? It's been hard enough to get the first one where it is, hasn't it? Though, I do agree that a more light-weight organisation is required, which is why I have said that having an open multi-stakeholder Nominations Committee determine the composition of the Advisory Council would allow it to be reduced in size, because its legitimacy would not be derived from a claim to be representative on its own account, but rather from the consensus of all stakeholders. > Already in the Consultations in Geneva in February there was > very little insistence on the importance of transparency. As > long as requests and demands for transparency are not greatly > increased, genuine transparency cannot plausibly be expected > to be provided, except if we who care about transparency work > together to create a little internet governance organization > which does whatever it does in a genuinely transparent manner. Let's greatly increase those requests and demands, then. I've just submitted a five-minute video presentation in which I make my own call for the IGF to evolve more accountable and transparent structures and processes before Rio. How many others would like to join me? Of course it's a difficult ask, but how much more difficult would it be to create yet another organisation that would have the same buy-in from stakeholders as the IGF? -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Sat Oct 21 06:47:08 2006 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 12:47:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Transparency (was Re: Program for IGC@IGF) In-Reply-To: <4539EF97.8050309@Malcolm.id.au> (message from Jeremy Malcolm on Sat, 21 Oct 2006 17:59:51 +0800) References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> <20061021083136.7C4864BC5D@quill.bollow.ch> <4539EF97.8050309@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <20061021104709.0104A4F3D3@quill.bollow.ch> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Norbert Bollow wrote: > > I think that the way forward with respect to achieving good > > standards of transparency and accountability in internet > > governance is to create a small "light-weight" internet > > governance organization which should be in charge of only a > > small number of tasks (tasks which are not currently really > > worked on by any existing organization, and which are easier > > than organizing an Internet Governance Forum), and set up all > > processes of this new organization in exemplary ways to show > > how accountable transparent multistakeholder processes can > > be properly organized, and to learn what resources are > > needed for that. > > Another one? It's been hard enough to get the first one where it is, > hasn't it? Yes, but how much can be expected from the IGF (or any other existing organization) with respect to going forward on issues like ICT accessibility for people with disabilities, privacy protection, net neutrality and anti-spam? Is there any reason to expect that from the currently-existing structure, effective action will result in a manner which puts the good principles of the Tunis Commitment into action (as opposed to merely paying lip-service to those principles)? If what needs to happen cannot reasonably be expected from the IGF and other existing structures, we who care about these matters should use the opportunity of the Athens meeting and launch a light-weight but accountable and transparent organizational process for making these things happen. When I propose "a new organization" I certainly didn't want to suggest a competitor to the IGF. Rather I'm talking about a multistakeholder process aimed at coordinating effective action, which I hope will emerge from the IGF. I'm thinking of something really lightweight organizationally, with one yearly face-to-face meeting for those who can make it to the IGF, plus interaction over the internet (the face-to-face meetings should allow full participation over the internet, and also during the rest of the year there should be interaction and decision-making via the internet). > > Already in the Consultations in Geneva in February there was > > very little insistence on the importance of transparency. As > > long as requests and demands for transparency are not greatly > > increased, genuine transparency cannot plausibly be expected > > to be provided, except if we who care about transparency work > > together to create a little internet governance organization > > which does whatever it does in a genuinely transparent manner. > > Let's greatly increase those requests and demands, then. I've just > submitted a five-minute video presentation in which I make my own call > for the IGF to evolve more accountable and transparent structures and > processes before Rio. How many others would like to join me? I'd be happy to, although I don't see how I could arrange for the recording of a video statement prior to my departure for Athens. Is someone taking a video camera (which allows the recording of such statements) to Athens? > Of course it's a difficult ask, but how much more difficult would it > be to create yet another organisation that would have the same > buy-in from stakeholders as the IGF? As soon as one actually wants to take action, and not just talk about the issues, that kind of large-scale stakeholder buy-in cannot realistically be expected anyway. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sat Oct 21 07:13:34 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:13:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Actually hacking the United Nations Message-ID: <453A00DE.3080500@bertola.eu.org> This is just to warn the list that the Web-form-based content management system for IGF workshop descriptions is quite insecure. I've hacked it without even thinking of doing it - just by reading the instructions, you can imagine a number of different ways to do it, and I'm too curious not to try. Workshop organizers should perhaps back up any relevant information while Markus (who's just got an email with all details) gets the bug fixed. I guess they didn't imagine that anyone would want to mess it up, and possibly no one will actually do so, but you shouldn't put authentication forms on the Internet if they don't authenticate... Apologies to Karen Banks and Matthew Shears - you'll find my test greetings in your workshop descriptions. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Sat Oct 21 07:23:30 2006 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:23:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Travel expenses of MAG members In-Reply-To: <4538D848.1000106@Malcolm.id.au> (message from Jeremy Malcolm on Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:08:08 +0800) References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> <4538D848.1000106@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <20061021112330.63CE84F3D3@quill.bollow.ch> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > * And anyone who did not have the independent means to travel twice > to Geneva was excluded from consideration (I think - correct me > if I'm wrong). All I know related to this is that at the reception following the Consultations in Frebruary, the Swiss government announced an offer to cover the travel expenses of MAG members from developing countries. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Sat Oct 21 07:38:55 2006 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:38:55 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] national vs international (was Re: Program for IGC@IGF) In-Reply-To: (message from McTim on Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:55:28 +0300) References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> <4538D848.1000106@Malcolm.id.au> <4538DEA1.8090906@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <20061021113855.4B9254F3D3@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > > * Freedom of expression on the Internet > > * Responding uniformly to cybercrime > > * Data protection and privacy rights online > > * Equity in interconnection costs > > * Consumer protection such as anti-phishing > > * etc, etc, etc > > not directly, but neither will the IGF. If the IGF will not address these issues in an effective manner, nor launch appropropriate multistakeholder processes of some kind which address these issues, the IGF will have failed to fulfil its mandate. > Those issues will be dealt with in national laws and regulations. Not > that that is a *good thing*, but that is the way it is. What is needed at the international level is accountable and transparent multistakeholder processes for international coordination of the various national efforts regarding these issues. The internet is by its very nature international. Any attempts to create national "internet governance" without international coordination will either fail or deny the residents of those countries full participation in what the internet really is. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sat Oct 21 08:18:24 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:18:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] national vs international (was Re: Program for IGC@IGF) In-Reply-To: <20061021113855.4B9254F3D3@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> <4538D848.1000106@Malcolm.id.au> <4538DEA1.8090906@Malcolm.id.au> <20061021113855.4B9254F3D3@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <453A1010.5080801@bertola.eu.org> Norbert Bollow ha scritto: >>Those issues will be dealt with in national laws and regulations. Not >>that that is a *good thing*, but that is the way it is. > > What is needed at the international level is accountable and > transparent multistakeholder processes for international > coordination of the various national efforts regarding these > issues. I agree. For example, in Italy there is a relatively strong movement - led by the original MP3 scientist, Prof. Chiariglione - to get the government to develop a "national DRM system" and force it into use by law. Just imagine if each country of the world developed its own regulation of DRMs, or even its own technical implementation, incompatible with the others... While each country has the right to make national policy as it likes, there is high value in getting to international agreement on best practices, so that most countries will naturally adapt to a globally agreed standard. It is the same principle by which the technical standards of the Internet - RFCs - get into use: none of them is formally binding, but just imagine if they weren't there. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Sat Oct 21 10:51:35 2006 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:51:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Transparency (was Re: Program for IGC@IGF) In-Reply-To: <20061021104709.0104A4F3D3@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> <20061021083136.7C4864BC5D@quill.bollow.ch> <4539EF97.8050309@Malcolm.id.au> <20061021104709.0104A4F3D3@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <453A33F7.7040804@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Norbert Bollow wrote: > how much can be expected from the IGF (or any other > existing organization) with respect to going forward on issues > like ICT accessibility for people with disabilities, privacy > protection, net neutrality and anti-spam? As someone who is co-organizing the two privacy workshops, I can assure you that we will try to establish some follow-up process and definitely hope to go forward somehow. Privacy is being dealt with in a diverse set of arenas, from the EU and the OECD to the Global Business Dialogue on e-Commerce and ISO. Not many of them are open or transparent, and many are driven by business interests. The IGF is a unique chance to have a discussion among all stakeholders on a level playing field and see how we can move forward together in a more inclusive way. (I prefer "inclusive" for "transparent", as transparency is something you can have even if you are just outside looking in through a window.) > Is there any reason to expect that from the currently-existing > structure, effective action will result in a manner which puts the > good principles of the Tunis Commitment into action (as opposed to > merely paying lip-service to those principles)? It depends on us as much as on anybody else. > If what needs to happen cannot reasonably be expected from the > IGF and other existing structures, we who care about these > matters should use the opportunity of the Athens meeting and > launch a light-weight but accountable and transparent organizational > process for making these things happen. I somehow have the feeling that "lightweight" and "accountable" do not always pull you into the same direction. > When I propose "a new organization" I certainly didn't want to suggest > a competitor to the IGF. Rather I'm talking about a multistakeholder > process aimed at coordinating effective action, which I hope will > emerge from the IGF. This is what we are planning for our privacy workshops. Are we the only ones? I always assumed that this would be the whole point of going to Athens - not having a talk show for 90 minutes. Not sure though how much these processes on the different themes must be coordinated. I know that there are horizontal issues, but these are much more relevant with regards to existing bodies that willingly or unwillingly do internet governance, like WTO or WIPO. And this is where much more transparency is needed. > I'm thinking of something really lightweight > organizationally, with one yearly face-to-face meeting for those who > can make it to the IGF, plus interaction over the internet (the > face-to-face meetings should allow full participation over the > internet, and also during the rest of the year there should be > interaction and decision-making via the internet). So you basically want to add a few mailing lists to the existing IGF structure? Well, fine with me. But government people are normally not really prepared to use this medium a lot. I think the biggest challenge at the moment is overcoming the differences of organizational and work-related cultures between CS, the business community, and governments. We are not anywhere near a point where decisions can be made by the IGF. [Jeremy] >>Of course it's a difficult ask, but how much more difficult would it >>be to create yet another organisation that would have the same >>buy-in from stakeholders as the IGF? Exactly. Best, Ralf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kino at iris.se Sat Oct 21 11:19:23 2006 From: kino at iris.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 17:19:23 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] Travel expenses of MAG members In-Reply-To: <20061021112330.63CE84F3D3@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F012166CE@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Norbert., This is a very nice offer, but sometimes some NGO's in industrial countries, like the disability movement, are as poor as developing countries in their organisational funding. Who is interested to support and fund Persons with Disabilities (PWD)? Who is interested in our participation? Who is interested in our contribution, knowledge and identified problems? It is now recognised by the UN that PWD are among the poorest of the poor in all countries! I have had, as a representative of the Disability community, a great support from the IG and I highly appreciate this support, in particular the personal support from Karen, and If we could have the same recognition for developing countries as to the disability world wide community, (despite where we come from) I would be very happy for the future work! Warmest regards Kicki Kicki Nordström World Blind Union (WBU) Immediate Past President Chair, WBU Working Group on UN Issues c/o SRF 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kino at iris.se -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] Skickat: den 21 oktober 2006 13:24 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: [governance] Travel expenses of MAG members Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > * And anyone who did not have the independent means to travel twice > to Geneva was excluded from consideration (I think - correct me > if I'm wrong). All I know related to this is that at the reception following the Consultations in Frebruary, the Swiss government announced an offer to cover the travel expenses of MAG members from developing countries. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From akigua at telia.com Sat Oct 21 12:13:14 2006 From: akigua at telia.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ann-Kristin_H=E5kansson?=) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:13:14 +0200 (MEST) Subject: SV: [governance] Travel expenses of MAG members Message-ID: <17763203.1161447194702.JavaMail.tomcat@pne-ps1-sn2> Kicki, I would say the same goes for Indigenous Peoples Ann-Kristin ----Ursprungligt meddelande---- Från: kino at iris.se Datum: Oct 21, 2006 5:19:23 PM Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Norbert Bollow Ärende: SV: [governance] Travel expenses of MAG members Dear Norbert., This is a very nice offer, but sometimes some NGO's in industrial countries, like the disability movement, are as poor as developing countries in their organisational funding. Who is interested to support and fund Persons with Disabilities (PWD)? Who is interested in our participation? Who is interested in our contribution, knowledge and identified problems? It is now recognised by the UN that PWD are among the poorest of the poor in all countries! I have had, as a representative of the Disability community, a great support from the IG and I highly appreciate this support, in particular the personal support from Karen, and If we could have the same recognition for developing countries as to the disability world wide community, (despite where we come from) I would be very happy for the future work! Warmest regards Kicki Kicki Nordström World Blind Union (WBU) Immediate Past President Chair, WBU Working Group on UN Issues c/o SRF 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kino at iris.se -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] Skickat: den 21 oktober 2006 13:24 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: [governance] Travel expenses of MAG members Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > * And anyone who did not have the independent means to travel twice > to Geneva was excluded from consideration (I think - correct me > if I'm wrong). All I know related to this is that at the reception following the Consultations in Frebruary, the Swiss government announced an offer to cover the travel expenses of MAG members from developing countries. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 21 12:30:01 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:00:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061021163032.49D1EDA8EB@smtp3.electricembers.net> > I welcome McTim's response; it goes right to the heart of the > matter. > In my view, it highlights one of the unspoken and politically > incorrect truths of the entire WSIS process, i.e. that many > (the > great majority in my opinion) of the issues under discussion > with > respect to the Internet are national and sub-national issues, > not > international issues. I really cant understand the implication Of Tim's And George's comments.... So they think there ARE'NT any, significant, public policy issues of global nature pertaining to the Internet... Now, if this is truly their belief I will like to know what is the nature of their interest in IGF. (And I see that George is also a SAG member). IGF was set up with good belief in importance of such issues. Are we getting national level stakeholders together just to tell them there isnt anything to be discussed and done at the global level, so go home and put your house in order (if you may)... Human rights, socio-economic rights, crime and terrorism, environment issues, development.... everything that way would be national issues - wonder why the world had been spending so much time holding global conference/ summits/ CS meetings etc over such issues..... Everyone knows the importance of dealing with these issues and national and sub-national levels, but the global is an increasingly important policy arena.. Such views have this intrinsic anti-public policy biases which I consider dangerous, especially in an increasingly globalized world. It does nothing other then provide space for rule of the 'invisible' dominant forces. Political power doesn't go away by not engaging with it. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] > Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 9:22 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim; Jeremy Malcolm > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Program for IGC at IGF > > All, > > I welcome McTim's response; it goes right to the heart of the > matter. > In my view, it highlights one of the unspoken and politically > incorrect truths of the entire WSIS process, i.e. that many > (the > great majority in my opinion) of the issues under discussion > with > respect to the Internet are national and sub-national issues, > not > international issues. Raising them in an international > context may > allow governments to superficially abdicate their > responsibility for > dealing effectively with these issues at home. It could, > however, > have the beneficial effect of putting a spotlight on the > issues, but > this will only help if the responsibility for solving them is > placed > directly and explicitly on national governments, not on any > international community. > > The ISOC and GIPI Access workshop, starting first thing > Tuesday > morning, will try to separate these issues with respect to > access. > My own organization, GIPI (www.internetpolicy.net) has been > active in > about 20 countries trying to influence national legislation > and > regulation in favor of the increased availability, access, > and > affordability of the Internet, and yes, with an emphasis upon > consumer protection and confidentiality of information. Let > me tell > you that it is difficult work, requiring full time resources > on a > continued basis. Governments, especially those in non- > democratic > countries, to give up control. that is where the battles > must occur. > > If you want to do something about non-transparency, let's > start by > working on the most blatant examples of it: governments such > as North > Korea, Myanmar and Kazakhstan, and quite a few more, not on > institutions that are trying, even if only tangentially, to > do > something positive with respect to them. > > There clearly are issues that are international in scope that > that > are good candidates for intelligent discussion in > international fora. > It remains to be seen how much of that will occur at the IGF. > > Let's also stop accepting revisionist history as anything but > an > admission of ignorance or unwillingness to accept the truth. > Good > examples of this are contained in the recent Linguistic > Diversity > workshop outline. As Stephane Bortzmeyer points out, and as > those of > us who have worked in ICT for quite a few years know, > linguistic > diversity has been an issue of active concern since at least > the > 1970's. If workshops and other discussions are not based > upon an > accurate understanding of history and an accurate assessment > of the > nature of the problem and ongoing efforts to solve it, then > their > proceedings and conclusions will be ignored, and correctly > so, as a > silly waste of time by people who don't know any better. > > George Sadowsky > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > At 5:55 PM +0300 10/20/06, McTim wrote: > >On 10/20/06, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > >> > >>Not having a go, Tim - I appreciate the feedback - but I > know that you > >>speak for a lot of others, and so I have to ask, do those > other bodies > >>you refer to make decisions about: > > > >I speak for myself, tho others may share my views. > > > >> > >>* Freedom of expression on the Internet > >>* Responding uniformly to cybercrime > >>* Data protection and privacy rights online > >>* Equity in interconnection costs > >>* Consumer protection such as anti-phishing > >>* etc, etc, etc > > > >not directly, but neither will the IGF. > > > >> > >>Do you not care about these issues (fair enough), or do you > think other > >>bodies are dealing with them adequately, or do you think > they are > >>ungovernable? > > > >Those issues will be dealt with in national laws and > regulations. Not > >that that is a *good thing*, but that is the way it is. > > > >> > >>Because speaking for myself, I do care about them, I don't > think any > >>other body is dealing with them in a transnational and > inclusive way, > >>and I think that the IGF is our first, best chance to do > so. > >> > >>But I am worried that the opportunity will be squandered > and the IGF > >>become just another intergovernmental body in which the > non-state > >>stakeholders serve no purpose but to feed input into > independent > >>governmental policy-making processes. > > > >I'm not sure it will even do that! > > > >-- > >Cheers, > > > >McTim > >$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Oct 21 13:29:52 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:59:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] national vs international (was Re: Program for IGC@IGF) In-Reply-To: <453A1010.5080801@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <20061021172954.971CEC9FEA@smtp1.electricembers.net> > While each country has the right to make national policy as > it likes, > there is high value in getting to international agreement on > best > practices, so that most countries will naturally adapt to a > globally > agreed standard. And such international agreements on best practices, and globally agreed standards, have worked in the pre-information society era - agreements on various kinds of rights, environment, labor practices, health issues, development priorities and means... the list is endless. These can only be more relevant in the 'information society' where the whole world is one shared space more than ever before... Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu.org] > Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 5:48 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow > Subject: Re: [governance] national vs international (was Re: > Program for IGC at IGF) > > Norbert Bollow ha scritto: > >>Those issues will be dealt with in national laws and > regulations. Not > >>that that is a *good thing*, but that is the way it is. > > > > What is needed at the international level is accountable > and > > transparent multistakeholder processes for international > > coordination of the various national efforts regarding > these > > issues. > > I agree. For example, in Italy there is a relatively strong > movement - > led by the original MP3 scientist, Prof. Chiariglione - to > get the > government to develop a "national DRM system" and force it > into use by > law. Just imagine if each country of the world developed its > own > regulation of DRMs, or even its own technical implementation, > incompatible with the others... > > While each country has the right to make national policy as > it likes, > there is high value in getting to international agreement on > best > practices, so that most countries will naturally adapt to a > globally > agreed standard. It is the same principle by which the > technical > standards of the Internet - RFCs - get into use: none of them > is > formally binding, but just imagine if they weren't there. > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] > bertola.eu.org]<----- > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kino at iris.se Sat Oct 21 14:34:39 2006 From: kino at iris.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:34:39 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] Travel expenses of MAG members In-Reply-To: <17763203.1161447194702.JavaMail.tomcat@pne-ps1-sn2> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F012166E4@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Ann-Kristin, I fully agree with you and this is why indigenous and disability communities must work much more closely together and in fact there are a few who represent both, but you can not be an expert on both at the same time! Warmest regards in support! Kicki Kicki Nordström World Blind Union (WBU) Immediate Past President Chair, WBU Working Group on UN Issues c/o SRF 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kino at iris.se -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Ann-Kristin Håkansson [mailto:akigua at telia.com] Skickat: den 21 oktober 2006 18:13 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: SV: [governance] Travel expenses of MAG members Kicki, I would say the same goes for Indigenous Peoples Ann-Kristin ----Ursprungligt meddelande---- Från: kino at iris.se Datum: Oct 21, 2006 5:19:23 PM Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Norbert Bollow Ärende: SV: [governance] Travel expenses of MAG members Dear Norbert., This is a very nice offer, but sometimes some NGO's in industrial countries, like the disability movement, are as poor as developing countries in their organisational funding. Who is interested to support and fund Persons with Disabilities (PWD)? Who is interested in our participation? Who is interested in our contribution, knowledge and identified problems? It is now recognised by the UN that PWD are among the poorest of the poor in all countries! I have had, as a representative of the Disability community, a great support from the IG and I highly appreciate this support, in particular the personal support from Karen, and If we could have the same recognition for developing countries as to the disability world wide community, (despite where we come from) I would be very happy for the future work! Warmest regards Kicki Kicki Nordström World Blind Union (WBU) Immediate Past President Chair, WBU Working Group on UN Issues c/o SRF 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kino at iris.se -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] Skickat: den 21 oktober 2006 13:24 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: [governance] Travel expenses of MAG members Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > * And anyone who did not have the independent means to travel twice > to Geneva was excluded from consideration (I think - correct me > if I'm wrong). All I know related to this is that at the reception following the Consultations in Frebruary, the Swiss government announced an offer to cover the travel expenses of MAG members from developing countries. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Sat Oct 21 15:11:29 2006 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:11:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF Message-ID: Parminder, You are absolutely right that there are significant and major issues that are international in scope and require international leadership to address. To name just two that will be discussed at the IGF, I note cybercrime and spam, and there are clearly others. What I am reacting to is what I observe is the conventional wisdom that I find faulty: that Internet governance and related Internet issues are essentially international in character, and that national issues are secondary. In almost all developing countries that I have worked in (and I've worked in over 50, although many before the Internet), national government policies have been the determining factor regarding the health of the ICT industry, the ability of people to gain access to computers and, of importance to us here, the ability of the Internet to spread in an accessible and affordable manner. So my post is essentially a reaction against the idea that the IGF, and the UN, and the ITU, and ... (choose your favorite cast of international characters) will be able to solve the issue of Internet governance and associated Internet issues. And if we go back to WSIS-2, I challenge you to make a list of the countries that wanted to emasculate ICANN that, in their own country, actively limit access to the Internet through monopoly control and/or high prices, disregard and violate confidentiality of communication, censor information, and punish people severely for attempting to create a free flow of information. I think the list would be long. Yet all of those countries implicitly or explicitly agreed with both the vision statement and the plan of action, both international documents created during WSIS-1. Talk is cheap; action is definitive. Now, if you wonder why the world has been spending so much time holding global conferences over such issues, I'm inclined to share that concern with you. The global arena is an important policy arena, but for those issues that can be influenced by global action. We may differ on exactly what issues are contained within that set. I do differ with your conclusion. Such views do not have anti-public policy biases. Rather, they reflect the desirability of taking action with respect to issues in appropriate venues. We probably generally share working toward the goals of making this world "a better place," but we may not share the same concept of the means to get there. I hope that these remarks have been helpful. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 10:00 PM +0530 10/21/06, Parminder wrote: > > > I welcome McTim's response; it goes right to the heart of the > > matter. > > In my view, it highlights one of the unspoken and politically > > incorrect truths of the entire WSIS process, i.e. that many > > (the > > great majority in my opinion) of the issues under discussion > > with > > respect to the Internet are national and sub-national issues, > > not > > international issues. > >I really cant understand the implication Of Tim's And George's comments.... > >So they think there ARE'NT any, significant, >public policy issues of global nature pertaining >to the Internet... > >Now, if this is truly their belief I will like >to know what is the nature of their interest in >IGF. (And I see that George is also a SAG >member). IGF was set up with good belief in >importance of such issuesŠ > >Are we getting national level stakeholders >together just to tell them there isnt anything >to be discussed and done at the global level, so >go home and put your house in order (if you >may)... > >Human rights, socio-economic rights, crime and >terrorism, environment issues, development.... >everything that way would be national issues - >wonder why the world had been spending so much >time holding global conference/ summits/ CS >meetings etc over such issues..... Everyone >knows the importance of dealing with these >issues and national and sub-national levels, but >the global is an increasingly important policy >arena.. > >Such views have this intrinsic anti-public >policy biases which I consider dangerous, >especially in an increasingly globalized world. >It does nothing other then provide space for >rule of the 'invisible' dominant forces. >Political power doesn't go away by not engaging >with itŠ > >Parminder >________________________________________________ >Parminder Jeet Singh >IT for Change, Bangalore >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >www.ITforChange.net > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] > > Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 9:22 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim; Jeremy Malcolm > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Program for IGC at IGF > > > > All, > > > > I welcome McTim's response; it goes right to the heart of the > > matter. > > In my view, it highlights one of the unspoken and politically > > incorrect truths of the entire WSIS process, i.e. that many > > (the > > great majority in my opinion) of the issues under discussion > > with > > respect to the Internet are national and sub-national issues, > > not > > international issues. Raising them in an international > > context may > > allow governments to superficially abdicate their > > responsibility for > > dealing effectively with these issues at home. It could, > > however, > > have the beneficial effect of putting a spotlight on the > > issues, but > > this will only help if the responsibility for solving them is > > placed > > directly and explicitly on national governments, not on any > > international community. > > > > The ISOC and GIPI Access workshop, starting first thing > > Tuesday > > morning, will try to separate these issues with respect to > > access. > > My own organization, GIPI (www.internetpolicy.net) has been > > active in > > about 20 countries trying to influence national legislation > > and > > regulation in favor of the increased availability, access, > > and > > affordability of the Internet, and yes, with an emphasis upon > > consumer protection and confidentiality of information. Let > > me tell > > you that it is difficult work, requiring full time resources > > on a > > continued basis. Governments, especially those in non- > > democratic > > countries, to give up control. that is where the battles > > must occur. > > > > If you want to do something about non-transparency, let's > > start by > > working on the most blatant examples of it: governments such > > as North > > Korea, Myanmar and Kazakhstan, and quite a few more, not on > > institutions that are trying, even if only tangentially, to > > do > > something positive with respect to them. > > > > There clearly are issues that are international in scope that > > that > > are good candidates for intelligent discussion in > > international fora. > > It remains to be seen how much of that will occur at the IGF. > > > > Let's also stop accepting revisionist history as anything but > > an > > admission of ignorance or unwillingness to accept the truth. > > Good > > examples of this are contained in the recent Linguistic > > Diversity > > workshop outline. As Stephane Bortzmeyer points out, and as > > those of > > us who have worked in ICT for quite a few years know, > > linguistic > > diversity has been an issue of active concern since at least > > the > > 1970's. If workshops and other discussions are not based > > upon an > > accurate understanding of history and an accurate assessment > > of the > > nature of the problem and ongoing efforts to solve it, then > > their > > proceedings and conclusions will be ignored, and correctly > > so, as a > > silly waste of time by people who don't know any better. > > > > George Sadowsky > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > At 5:55 PM +0300 10/20/06, McTim wrote: > > >On 10/20/06, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > > > >> > > >>Not having a go, Tim - I appreciate the feedback - but I > > know that you > > >>speak for a lot of others, and so I have to ask, do those > > other bodies > > >>you refer to make decisions about: > > > > > >I speak for myself, tho others may share my views. > > > > > >> > > >>* Freedom of expression on the Internet > > >>* Responding uniformly to cybercrime > > >>* Data protection and privacy rights online > > >>* Equity in interconnection costs > > >>* Consumer protection such as anti-phishing > > >>* etc, etc, etc > > > > > >not directly, but neither will the IGF. > > > > > >> > > >>Do you not care about these issues (fair enough), or do you > > think other > > >>bodies are dealing with them adequately, or do you think > > they are > > >>ungovernable? > > > > > >Those issues will be dealt with in national laws and > > regulations. Not > > >that that is a *good thing*, but that is the way it is. > > > > > >> > > >>Because speaking for myself, I do care about them, I don't > > think any > > >>other body is dealing with them in a transnational and > > inclusive way, > > >>and I think that the IGF is our first, best chance to do > > so. > > >> > > >>But I am worried that the opportunity will be squandered > > and the IGF > > >>become just another intergovernmental body in which the > > non-state > > >>stakeholders serve no purpose but to feed input into > > independent > > >>governmental policy-making processes. > > > > > >I'm not sure it will even do that! > > > > > >-- > > >Cheers, > > > > > >McTim > > >$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > > >____________________________________________________________ > > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From avri at psg.com Sat Oct 21 18:04:22 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:04:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <26ED93BB-EDF3-422B-A9B2-7645AC807522@psg.com> Hi, On 21 okt 2006, at 21.11, George Sadowsky wrote: > What I am reacting to is what I observe is the conventional wisdom > that I find faulty: that Internet governance and related Internet > issues are essentially international in character, I disagree. I think it is only on the international stage that governance and other Internet issues can be dealt. I don't believe that it is up to governments to do it though i do see them having some role. i don't believe there is is any right of nations to make policy vis a vis the Internet. They may do so, and they even get away with it at the moment, but i think we lose a major battle the second we start to believe that they have some _right_ to do so. I tend to view the IGF and other international, but not intergovernemental, organizations as a bulwark against the continuing nationalization of the Internet. > that wanted to emasculate ICANN interesting image, but i do not see what being masculine, or having masculine external attributes, has to do with being an effective international organization. not that i am prepared to argue that the current ICANN incarnation is particularly effective, though i think that has more to do with its form of governance and its lack of freedom from national and other government pressure. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dave at isoc-mu.org Sat Oct 21 18:32:34 2006 From: dave at isoc-mu.org (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 02:32:34 +0400 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <26ED93BB-EDF3-422B-A9B2-7645AC807522@psg.com> Message-ID: <002701c6f560$d0b53580$5500000f@TLFMDOM.local> Dear Avri, The success of an open internet accessible to all will depend a lot when there will be less and less involvement of Governments The Internet Community has helped a lot for the Internet to evolve to what we have now and I think that ONLY this community can assure the continued success of the Internet whether the Governments accept or not. Best regards Dave Kissoondoyal -----Original Message----- From: governance-owner+dave=isoc-mu.org at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-owner+dave=isoc-mu.org at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 2:04 AM To: Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Program for IGC at IGF Hi, On 21 okt 2006, at 21.11, George Sadowsky wrote: > What I am reacting to is what I observe is the conventional wisdom > that I find faulty: that Internet governance and related Internet > issues are essentially international in character, I disagree. I think it is only on the international stage that governance and other Internet issues can be dealt. I don't believe that it is up to governments to do it though i do see them having some role. i don't believe there is is any right of nations to make policy vis a vis the Internet. They may do so, and they even get away with it at the moment, but i think we lose a major battle the second we start to believe that they have some _right_ to do so. I tend to view the IGF and other international, but not intergovernemental, organizations as a bulwark against the continuing nationalization of the Internet. > that wanted to emasculate ICANN interesting image, but i do not see what being masculine, or having masculine external attributes, has to do with being an effective international organization. not that i am prepared to argue that the current ICANN incarnation is particularly effective, though i think that has more to do with its form of governance and its lack of freedom from national and other government pressure. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Oct 21 18:53:19 2006 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:53:19 +1000 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <002701c6f560$d0b53580$5500000f@TLFMDOM.local> Message-ID: <022e01c6f563$b6686460$4a02a8c0@IAN> Dave, let me beg to disagree on this. The future is about the appropriate involvement of governments, not less involvement. Much though a few old timers want to look for the golden age of an Internet run by technical people, that group had to bow to the involvement of commercial players, then end users with opinions on future directions. Both were resisted. And now to that slowest of all social institutions, governments. Government is just waking up to the fact that something important is happening in this space. It is struggling to understand it. Make no mistake, they have the power to make an awful mess of this and some of them already are. That just stresses to me the importance of appropriate engagement and international arrangements. No government roles around Internet are yet appropriate, either the US government engagement or the non engagement of most others. It really is important to figure this out rather than regard government as the enemy to be avoided. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Dave Kissoondoyal [mailto:dave at isoc-mu.org] Sent: 22 October 2006 08:33 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Avri Doria' Subject: RE: [governance] Program for IGC at IGF Dear Avri, The success of an open internet accessible to all will depend a lot when there will be less and less involvement of Governments The Internet Community has helped a lot for the Internet to evolve to what we have now and I think that ONLY this community can assure the continued success of the Internet whether the Governments accept or not. Best regards Dave Kissoondoyal -----Original Message----- From: governance-owner+dave=isoc-mu.org at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-owner+dave=isoc-mu.org at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 2:04 AM To: Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Program for IGC at IGF Hi, On 21 okt 2006, at 21.11, George Sadowsky wrote: > What I am reacting to is what I observe is the conventional wisdom > that I find faulty: that Internet governance and related Internet > issues are essentially international in character, I disagree. I think it is only on the international stage that governance and other Internet issues can be dealt. I don't believe that it is up to governments to do it though i do see them having some role. i don't believe there is is any right of nations to make policy vis a vis the Internet. They may do so, and they even get away with it at the moment, but i think we lose a major battle the second we start to believe that they have some _right_ to do so. I tend to view the IGF and other international, but not intergovernemental, organizations as a bulwark against the continuing nationalization of the Internet. > that wanted to emasculate ICANN interesting image, but i do not see what being masculine, or having masculine external attributes, has to do with being an effective international organization. not that i am prepared to argue that the current ICANN incarnation is particularly effective, though i think that has more to do with its form of governance and its lack of freedom from national and other government pressure. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.9/490 - Release Date: 20/10/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.9/490 - Release Date: 20/10/2006 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mpazello at oi.com.br Sat Oct 21 19:46:13 2006 From: mpazello at oi.com.br (mpazello at oi.com.br) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:46:13 -0200 Subject: [governance] FYI: UN Secretary-General Acceptance Speech References: <20061021182053.F2EBEC614@mail.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <3F8C52B6-05B9-478A-ACCD-9947F5DBF504@oi.com.br> Hi, I believe the file in attachment is of interesting. I would like to highlight the SG's comments below on Civil Society. The comments can be found on the page marked 009 in the acceptance speech enclosed. "I will be accessible and proactive in reaching out to all stakeholders. In particular, to bring the UN closer to the people, I will widely engage civil society in dialogue. I will actively seek the support and input of advocacy groups, businesses, and other constituents of the global citizenry for the good of the Organization." best, Magaly ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SG Acceptance Speech.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 368925 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sun Oct 22 04:11:52 2006 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Making the web accessible for all Message-ID: <20061022081152.15969.qmail@web54101.mail.yahoo.com> BBC's Click technology programme has a story on its website on called "Making the web accessible for all" looking at issues for people with disabilities accessing the web. I hope these issues are discussed prominently in Athens. See more below. Cheers David Making the web accessible for all Despite many efforts to move away from those most traditional interfaces - the ubiquitous computer keyboard and mouse - they remain the bedrock on which nearly all computer interfaces rest. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/6069106.stm --------- David Goldstein address: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home) "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery ____________________________________________________ On Yahoo!7 Messenger: Share up to 1GB of files in the IM window http://au.messenger.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Oct 22 06:18:46 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 15:48:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: <022e01c6f563$b6686460$4a02a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <20061022101904.81ECFDA833@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi everyone, There was some agreement on this list a few days back that IGC will do well to engage the IGF process by posing some issues/ questions, especially with respect to the mandate of the IGF given in the Tunis agenda vis-à-vis its present structure, activities, and future possibilities. I am not sure how we can interpose such a statement from the IGC into the IGF process, but assuming there should be some way to do it, I am proposing a draft of a few issues that I think are necessary to be raised. Some of these issues have been picked up form the list discussions – like funding developing country CS participants, transparency on IGF processes and easy availability of information, and possibility of setting up working groups around specific issues . Since, I assume any such position will be issued in form of a statement; I have also put these questions in a rough statement kind of a draft. It for everyone’s consideration. To repeat, it is a rough first draft, so that others can contribute and work collaboratively. Parminder Some Questions from the Internet Governance Civil Society Caucus to the Internet Governance Forum We consider the IGF as one of the most important outcomes of the WSIS process, and it promises to be an innovation in the arena of global governance. Quite appropriately, such an innovation is being tried in connection with the governance of a phenomenon, the Internet, that itself represents the greatest innovation of our times, and which promises to alter the very nature of global interactions, and therefore also global public policy spaces. It is also to be expected that such an innovation will go through elaborate rites of passage, and accompanying pains. We are all together in this process, and the IGC promise all the cooperation and assistance to the IGF process on behalf of the civil society constituencies that it represents. Since we are in the formative stages of this unique governance innovation, it is important that we often introspect on where are we headed and how close are we to our original intent and mandate. It is in this connection, and with an entirely constructive purpose, that we want to address the following issues to the IGF process. * What exactly constitutes the IGF? Is it only an open space, where everyone can come and express opinion? If so, how is this open space different from any other open space where free discussion can take place? What is the special UN character and legitimacy of the IGF? How is it (to be) expressed in practice? (This brings us to the earlier question – how is it different from any other discursive space, and if different, how is this ‘difference’ to be expressed in practice?) * If we look at the mandate of the IGF in paragraph 72 of the Tunis agenda some parts of this mandate, like part (a), (b) and (d), can adequately be fulfilled by IGF remaining just as an open discursive space. However, there are other parts of the mandate – like part (c) ‘ interface with appropriate institutions’; (e) ‘ .advice all stakeholder .’; (k) ‘ help find solutions ’ ; and most significantly, part (g) ‘ identify emerging issues .and make recommendations ’; all of which clearly bespeak an strong element of agency on the part of the IGF. We are not sure how IGF plans to meet these parts of its mandate, which is a point we request clarification on. For instance, in terms of part (c), what is IGF’s plan for and means of interface with, say, ICANN. * IGF will meet once a year. What happens to the periods in between? Internet is a fast changing terrain, and a number of public policy issues keep cropping up by the day. Some of these may be very urgent, and require some immediate response. How does IGF organize itself between the annual meetings? Other than the consideration of urgent issues coming up, it is in any case important to keep up some year round engagement and preparations for effective-ness of IGF’s annual meetings. There have been suggestions of forming ‘working groups’ in the IGF process around important issues and areas, and some precedent is found in other WSIS follow-up activities, including WSIS action line-wise follow up mechanisms. Will IGF explore such a mechanism of ‘working groups’ on different issues working, on an ongoing basis, through virtual as well as face-to-face means? * We also will like to see more transparency and inclusiveness in IGF processes. Information about the manner of MAG and SAG selections, their processes and outcomes should be made available more transparently, and efficiently. We are very concerned about the fact that while there may already be issues about representation of developing counties and other disadvantaged interests in IGF bodies – the MAG and the SAG – the situation is made worse by the fact that there are no provisions to cover the travel of the members from such groups to participate in various IGF deliberations. This makes the balance of ‘actual representation’ in the IGF even worse, and we will like to know what does IGF plan to do about this issue? A global public policy space where seats are acquired as per capacity to pay (or self-fund) is a dangerous proposition. This issue stands out even more strongly in the context of the fact that the IGF is mandated to ‘strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries’ (part f of paragraph 72 of the Tunis agenda). * Part (i) of paragraph 72 of the Tunis agenda mandates IGF to ‘promote and assess’ implementation of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. We will like to know how does IGF plan to do this? Paragraph 61, speaks of the ‘need to initiate ..a transparent, democratic, and multilateral process’ which could ‘envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanisms’ for IG. And paragraphs 69, 70 and 71 call for a process of ‘enhanced cooperation’ for development of ‘globally-applicable principles on public policy issues’, a process which should have been initiated by the first quarter of the 2006. We do not see any activity in this regard at all, which is a non-fulfillment of an express mandate given by the WSIS. How does IGF propose to engage with this issue? In this respect, it may be important to note that many people had expected some linkages between such new IG related global processes and the IGF, whereby IGF plays a facilitative role. Once again we express our strong appreciation for the value that the IGF brings to global policy arena, and we hope that its relevance is enhanced in keeping with the expectation of the WSIS from it. The above exercise is an attempt in that direction, and we commit ourselves to full cooperation with the IGF process. ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC's questions to the IGF.doc Type: application/msword Size: 37888 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Sun Oct 22 09:01:20 2006 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:01:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <26ED93BB-EDF3-422B-A9B2-7645AC807522@psg.com> References: <26ED93BB-EDF3-422B-A9B2-7645AC807522@psg.com> Message-ID: Avri, Let's look at access policy _within_ a country, e.g. licensing of ISPs, decisions with regard to ISP liability, monopoly telecomm carriers, not-level playing fields, licensing of ISPs, licensing of wireless frequencies and devices. etc. These are all issues of national policy. It may be that international best practices can provide good guidelines, but these are more likely to be de facto standards set by industry than the result of intergovernmental action. Perhaps we have different definitions of policy. George At 12:04 AM +0200 10/22/06, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, > >On 21 okt 2006, at 21.11, George Sadowsky wrote: > >>What I am reacting to is what I observe is the conventional wisdom >>that I find faulty: that Internet governance and related Internet >>issues are essentially international in character, > > >I disagree. I think it is only on the international stage that >governance and other Internet issues can be dealt. I don't believe >that it is up to governments to do it though i do see them having >some role. i don't believe there is is any right of nations to make >policy vis a vis the Internet. They may do so, and they even get >away with it at the moment, but i think we lose a major battle the >second we start to believe that they have some _right_ to do so. I >tend to view the IGF and other international, but not >intergovernemental, organizations as a bulwark against the >continuing nationalization of the Internet. > >>that wanted to emasculate ICANN > >interesting image, but i do not see what being masculine, or having >masculine external attributes, has to do with being an effective >international organization. not that i am prepared to argue that >the current ICANN incarnation is particularly effective, though i >think that has more to do with its form of governance and its lack >of freedom from national and other government pressure. > >a. >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sun Oct 22 09:28:35 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 15:28:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: References: <26ED93BB-EDF3-422B-A9B2-7645AC807522@psg.com> Message-ID: <453B7203.60409@bertola.eu.org> George Sadowsky ha scritto: > Avri, > > Let's look at access policy _within_ a country, e.g. licensing of ISPs, > decisions with regard to ISP liability, monopoly telecomm carriers, > not-level playing fields, licensing of ISPs, licensing of wireless > frequencies and devices. etc. These are all issues of national policy. > > It may be that international best practices can provide good guidelines, > but these are more likely to be de facto standards set by industry than > the result of intergovernmental action. > > Perhaps we have different definitions of policy. I think you are just looking at different parts of the story. For example, if I may add another one, the technologies of the Internet are global in nature, and they tend to be difficult to regulate at the national level. In some cases, things may happen outside of the national government's sphere of power (e.g. Yahoo and Nazi auctions in France, Whois and European privacy regulations, DRM-enforced consumer rules and so on). In these cases, either you have instruments for global harmonization that make everyone feel included in the determination of what happens, or local people - including the local government - will start to feel "colonized". Actually, most countries would rather break the Internet than accept de facto laws (of the type "code is law") on which they had no say, so if we as "global think-tank" can't suggest the proper ways to accommodate this need, the Internet is at serious risk, and no amount of anti-governmental and pro-market rhetorics will keep it together. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Sun Oct 22 09:29:56 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:29:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: References: <26ED93BB-EDF3-422B-A9B2-7645AC807522@psg.com> Message-ID: <200610221330.k9MDUEBt002111@mxr.isoc.bg> Definitely it's a difference on definitions. At 09:01 AM 22.10.2006 '?.'Ъ▄Ж -0400, you wrote: >Avri, > >Let's look at access policy _within_ a country, >e.g. licensing of ISPs, decisions with regard to >ISP liability, monopoly telecomm carriers, >not-level playing fields, licensing of ISPs, >licensing of wireless frequencies and >devices. etc. These are all issues of national policy. > >It may be that international best practices can >provide good guidelines, but these are more >likely to be de facto standards set by industry >than the result of intergovernmental action. > >Perhaps we have different definitions of policy. > >George > >At 12:04 AM +0200 10/22/06, Avri Doria wrote: >>Hi, >> >>On 21 okt 2006, at 21.11, George Sadowsky wrote: >> >>>What I am reacting to is what I observe is the >>>conventional wisdom that I find faulty: that >>>Internet governance and related Internet >>>issues are essentially international in character, >> >> >>I disagree. I think it is only on the >>international stage that governance and other >>Internet issues can be dealt. I don't believe >>that it is up to governments to do it though i >>do see them having some role. i don't believe >>there is is any right of nations to make policy >>vis a vis the Internet. They may do so, and >>they even get away with it at the moment, but i >>think we lose a major battle the second we >>start to believe that they have some _right_ to >>do so. I tend to view the IGF and other >>international, but not intergovernemental, >>organizations as a bulwark against the >>continuing nationalization of the Internet. >> >>>that wanted to emasculate ICANN >> >>interesting image, but i do not see what being >>masculine, or having masculine external >>attributes, has to do with being an effective >>international organization. not that i am >>prepared to argue that the current ICANN >>incarnation is particularly effective, though i >>think that has more to do with its form of >>governance and its lack of freedom from national and other government pressure. >> >>a. >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Sun Oct 22 09:34:35 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:34:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <453B7203.60409@bertola.eu.org> References: <26ED93BB-EDF3-422B-A9B2-7645AC807522@psg.com> <453B7203.60409@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <200610221333.k9MDXdV6002170@mxr.isoc.bg> At 03:28 PM 22.10.2006 '?.'Ъ▄Ж +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >George Sadowsky ha scritto: >>Avri, >>Let's look at access policy _within_ a country, >>e.g. licensing of ISPs, decisions with regard >>to ISP liability, monopoly telecomm carriers, >>not-level playing fields, licensing of ISPs, >>licensing of wireless frequencies and >>devices. etc. These are all issues of national policy. >>It may be that international best practices can >>provide good guidelines, but these are more >>likely to be de facto standards set by industry >>than the result of intergovernmental action. >>Perhaps we have different definitions of policy. > >I think you are just looking at different parts of the story. > >For example, if I may add another one, the >technologies of the Internet are global in >nature, and they tend to be difficult to >regulate at the national level. In some cases, >things may happen outside of the national >government's sphere of power (e.g. Yahoo and Nazi auctions in France, What exactly do you mean by this example? Which government are you referring here to? The US or the French? veni Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sun Oct 22 10:46:46 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 10:46:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] New French Govt ICANN GAC/ Governance Rep. Message-ID: <453B8456.1040302@lists.privaterra.org> Attending the (Canadian) Alternative Telecommunications Policy Forum in Ottawa this weekend I learned that our well known Bertrand de La Chapelle is now the new French government representative for the IGF, as well as the ICANN Government advisory committee (GAC). I don't recall an announcement being made here at all, but I do trust the authenticity of the news - as it was confirmed to me by several well reliable sources. I do wish Bertrand well in his new position. His contributions and engagement with many of us in Civil Society will be missed. regards Robert Ref: Alternative Telecommunications Policy Forum http://www3.fis.utoronto.ca/research/iprp/cracin/alttelecompolicyforum.ca/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Sun Oct 22 10:50:50 2006 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 10:50:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] New French Govt ICANN GAC/ Governance Rep. In-Reply-To: <453B8456.1040302@lists.privaterra.org> References: <453B8456.1040302@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <200610221449.k9MEnooM003442@mxr.isoc.bg> At 10:46 AM 22.10.2006 '?.'Ъ▄Ж -0400, Robert Guerra wrote: >I don't recall an announcement being made here at all, but I do trust >the authenticity of the news - as it was confirmed to me by several well >reliable sources. Yes, it's true. We all count he'll do a good job! Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sun Oct 22 10:54:02 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 10:54:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] New French Govt ICANN GAC/ Governance Rep. In-Reply-To: <200610221449.k9MEnooM003442@mxr.isoc.bg> References: <453B8456.1040302@lists.privaterra.org> <200610221449.k9MEnooM003442@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: <453B860A.2010307@lists.privaterra.org> Veni Markovski wrote: > At 10:46 AM 22.10.2006 '?.'Ъ▄Ж -0400, Robert Guerra wrote: > > >> I don't recall an announcement being made here at all, but I do trust >> the authenticity of the news - as it was confirmed to me by several well >> reliable sources. > > Yes, it's true. We all count he'll do a good job! > Veni: Thanks for confirming the fact. regards Robert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be Sun Oct 22 11:51:48 2006 From: jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be (Jacques Berleur) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 17:51:48 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [governance] New French Govt ICANN GAC/ Governance Rep. In-Reply-To: <453B8456.1040302@lists.privaterra.org> References: <453B8456.1040302@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <1161532308.453b93940cba0@webmail.fundp.ac.be> Bertrand is not only the French government representative for the IGF, but also for the follow up of all the WSIS. Good news. To see you in Athens, Jacques Berleur IFIP Rep En réponse à Robert Guerra : > > Attending the (Canadian) Alternative Telecommunications Policy Forum in > Ottawa this weekend I learned that our well known Bertrand de La > Chapelle is now the new French government representative for the IGF, > as > well as the ICANN Government advisory committee (GAC). > > > I don't recall an announcement being made here at all, but I do trust > the authenticity of the news - as it was confirmed to me by several > well > reliable sources. > > > I do wish Bertrand well in his new position. His contributions and > engagement with many of us in Civil Society will be missed. > > > regards > > Robert > > > > Ref: > > Alternative Telecommunications Policy Forum > http://www3.fis.utoronto.ca/research/iprp/cracin/alttelecompolicyforum.ca/ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Oct 22 16:05:43 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 16:05:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF Message-ID: This is an interesting discussion. I find myself agreeing with both Avri and George. The positions can be reconciled by noting that George is talking mainly about the relationship between Internet access and the physical layer (wireless, broadband and other forms of infrastructure development) whereas Avri is refrring to "the Internet" as a whole which is of course global in scope and a layer 3 issue. There is no doubt in my mind that the policies that affect the availability of physical infrastructure in a country are primarily national in development and application. And they are affected not only by national telecom policies, they are powerfully affected by national economic development policies, for if people have enough money to buy services lots of infrastructure development issues take care of themselves more readily, as the Chinese have learned. >>> george.sadowsky at attglobal.net 10/22/2006 9:01:20 AM >>> Avri, Let's look at access policy _within_ a country, e.g. licensing of ISPs, decisions with regard to ISP liability, monopoly telecomm carriers, not-level playing fields, licensing of ISPs, licensing of wireless frequencies and devices. etc. These are all issues of national policy. It may be that international best practices can provide good guidelines, but these are more likely to be de facto standards set by industry than the result of intergovernmental action. Perhaps we have different definitions of policy. George At 12:04 AM +0200 10/22/06, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, > >On 21 okt 2006, at 21.11, George Sadowsky wrote: > >>What I am reacting to is what I observe is the conventional wisdom >>that I find faulty: that Internet governance and related Internet >>issues are essentially international in character, > > >I disagree. I think it is only on the international stage that >governance and other Internet issues can be dealt. I don't believe >that it is up to governments to do it though i do see them having >some role. i don't believe there is is any right of nations to make >policy vis a vis the Internet. They may do so, and they even get >away with it at the moment, but i think we lose a major battle the >second we start to believe that they have some _right_ to do so. I >tend to view the IGF and other international, but not >intergovernemental, organizations as a bulwark against the >continuing nationalization of the Internet. > >>that wanted to emasculate ICANN > >interesting image, but i do not see what being masculine, or having >masculine external attributes, has to do with being an effective >international organization. not that i am prepared to argue that >the current ICANN incarnation is particularly effective, though i >think that has more to do with its form of governance and its lack >of freedom from national and other government pressure. > >a. >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Sun Oct 22 16:23:09 2006 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:23:09 -0700 Subject: [governance] Making the web accessible for all In-Reply-To: <20061022081152.15969.qmail@web54101.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061022081152.15969.qmail@web54101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I'll be in Athens and will report back to the disability community through the International Disability Alliance (an ongoing coalition of 8 global organizations) and the International Disability Caucus (a coalition of groups which have been working on the about to be passed UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD)). Sylvia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Sun Oct 22 16:58:16 2006 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 16:58:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Milton, I'm concerned with a slightly broader aspect, although my focus in this thread is clearly upon access, in a larger sense. I'm concerned about the economic health of the Internet industry in a country, and that's very much a function of the government's attitude toward competition, free enterprise, laissez-faire (or not), and transparency, in procurement, in giving licenses, in creating or destroying barriers to entry, etc.... The healthier and fairer that the industry is, the more prices to consumers of Internet services will reflect real costs and not monopoly status, the more customers are able to trust the access they have as being confidential, then the faster the Internet will grow and serve the developmental goals of the country. And, if the country has reasonable consumer protection legislation, it is likely to really benefit the growth of e-commerce on the net and not retard it. These are issues that are directly affected by national government policy, legislation and regulation. What I do disagree with is Avri's assertion that it is ONLY on the international stage that Internet issues can be dealt with. I do not disagree with the implication that there do exist issues that require international attention. Just trying to restore a sense of balance to the discussion ... Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 4:05 PM -0400 10/22/06, Milton Mueller wrote: >This is an interesting discussion. I find myself agreeing with both Avri >and George. The positions can be reconciled by noting that George is >talking mainly about the relationship between Internet access and the >physical layer (wireless, broadband and other forms of infrastructure >development) whereas Avri is refrring to "the Internet" as a whole which >is of course global in scope and a layer 3 issue. > >There is no doubt in my mind that the policies that affect the >availability of physical infrastructure in a country are primarily >national in development and application. And they are affected not only >by national telecom policies, they are powerfully affected by national >economic development policies, for if people have enough money to buy >services lots of infrastructure development issues take care of >themselves more readily, as the Chinese have learned. > > > >>>> george.sadowsky at attglobal.net 10/22/2006 9:01:20 AM >>> >Avri, > >Let's look at access policy _within_ a country, e.g. licensing of >ISPs, decisions with regard to ISP liability, monopoly telecomm >carriers, not-level playing fields, licensing of ISPs, licensing of >wireless frequencies and devices. etc. These are all issues of >national policy. > >It may be that international best practices can provide good >guidelines, but these are more likely to be de facto standards set by >industry than the result of intergovernmental action. > >Perhaps we have different definitions of policy. > >George > >At 12:04 AM +0200 10/22/06, Avri Doria wrote: >>Hi, >> >>On 21 okt 2006, at 21.11, George Sadowsky wrote: >> >>>What I am reacting to is what I observe is the conventional wisdom >>>that I find faulty: that Internet governance and related Internet >>>issues are essentially international in character, >> >> >>I disagree. I think it is only on the international stage that >>governance and other Internet issues can be dealt. I don't believe >>that it is up to governments to do it though i do see them having >>some role. i don't believe there is is any right of nations to make >>policy vis a vis the Internet. They may do so, and they even get >>away with it at the moment, but i think we lose a major battle the >>second we start to believe that they have some _right_ to do so. I >>tend to view the IGF and other international, but not >>intergovernemental, organizations as a bulwark against the >>continuing nationalization of the Internet. >> >>>that wanted to emasculate ICANN > > >>interesting image, but i do not see what being masculine, or having >>masculine external attributes, has to do with being an effective >>international organization. not that i am prepared to argue that >>the current ICANN incarnation is particularly effective, though i >>think that has more to do with its form of governance and its lack >>of freedom from national and other government pressure. >> >>a. >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Sun Oct 22 17:31:59 2006 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 23:31:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Athens IGF Privacy Workshops Message-ID: <453BE34F.1010404@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Dear all, attached find the combined programmes for the two privacy workshops at the Internet Governance Forum. They will take place on Tuesday, 31st October, and we hope to see many of you there. We are looking forward to fruitful workshops with a diverse range of perspectives. Please feel free to circulate this invitation further. Best, Ralf ------------------------- *United Nations* *Internet Governance Forum* *Athens* *Privacy Workshops* *31st October 2006* *Workshop 1* *"Privacy and Identity Matters"* 11:30-13:00 This workshop will show that privacy and security are not exclusive policy issues. We will look at the emerging digital identity infrastructures that to date have received little public scrutiny and attention. We will highlight the increasing importance of identity and authentication systems, and discuss the challenges and legal implications. Chair Gus Hosein Information Systems Group, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London - introduction and overview Speakers Jerry Fishenden Microsoft, UK National Technology Officer, London - privacy, security and identity Simon Davies Information Systems Group, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London - a view from the real policy world Christian Möller Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Office of the Representative on Freedom of the Media, Vienna - identity, anonymity and free expression Jan Schallaböck Independent Centre for Privacy Protection, Kiel - the European landscape and the work of the Privacy and Identity Management in Europe (PRIME) project Stephanie Perrin Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Ottawa - global issues and international standards *Workshop 2* *"Privacy, Development, and Globalisation"* 13:30-15:00 This workshop will address the issues surrounding cross-border data flows in a global information society. We will address the links between privacy, economic development, and good governance, and map out the likely landscape of future policy issues. Chair Ralf Bendrath University of Bremen; WSIS Privacy & Security Working Group - introduction and overview Speakers Cristos Velasco North American Consumer Project on Electronic Commerce, Mexico City - developing national privacy legislation under external constraints Michael Silber Internet Service Providers' Assiciation of South Africa, Johannesburg - privacy from the internet industry's perspective in the South David W. Maher Public Interest Registry, Chicago - ICANN, privacy issues, and global particpation Zoi Talidou Hellenic Data Protection Authority, Athens - international data flows and transnational privacy enforcement Anriette Esterhuysen The Association for Progressive Communication, Johannesburg - the challenge of linking privacy and development *Venue, Registration and Logistics* The venue of the Internet Governance Forum is DIVANI APOLLON PALACE & SPA 10 Agiou Nikolaou & Iliou, 166 71 Vouliagmeni tel. No + 30 210 8911100, fax : + 30 210 9658010 www.divanis.gr Register your participation at . This will also provide you with a code for getting the hotel discount rate. A list of hotels as well as more useful information can be found at . The Greece government is generously providing free transport from and to the airport for IGF participants. *Information about the Speakers* Ralf Bendrath is a political scientist and a researcher at the Collaborative Research Center "Transformations of the State" at the University of Bremen, Germany. He is currently working on the governance of privacy in the project “Regulation and Legitimacy on the Internet”. Before specializing in privacy issues, he has researched and published extensively on cyber-security, information warfare, international security policy, and peace research. From 2003 to 2005, Ralf Bendrath was chief editor of worldsummit2005.org, the leading civil society website on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). He is co-coordinator of the international "Privacy and Security" Working Group of WSIS Civil Society, and was a civil society member in the German government delegation to the WSIS summits in 2003 and 2005. He is a founding member of the German advocacy group 'Netzwerk Neue Medien' and also active in European Digital Rights (EDRi). Ralf Bendrath is a founding member of the Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet). Simon Davies is one of the world's leading figures in privacy and data protection and has worked in more than 30 countries on issues ranging from identity cards to military surveillance. His work in privacy, data protection, consumer rights, policy analysis and technology assessment has spanned more than twenty years. His role as founder and director of the watchdog group Privacy International has put him at the cutting edge of privacy across the full spectrum of issues. His expertise in identity and identity systems, in particular, has been called upon by many of the world's intergovernmental organisations and parliaments. The UK based Privacy International, now with members in more than 40 countries, was founded in 1990 and is a strong voice for privacy reform across the world. Simon Davies is also the founder of the Big Brother Awards, a prize now given internationally to organizations and individuals who commit particularly flagrant violations of the right to privacy. Since 1997 Simon Davies has been a Visiting Fellow in the Department of Information Systems of the London School of Economics. He has also been a consultant adviser to numerous government, professional and corporate bodies in Europe and North America. Anriette Esterhuysen is the Executive Director of the Association for Progressive Communications, an international nongovernmental organization that focuses on the use of information and communication technologies by civil society for social justice and development. She was Executive Director of SANGONET, an electronic information and communications service provider for the development sector in South Africa from 1993 to 2000. Mrs. Esterhuysen has a background in information and communications in the social justice and development sectors. She is also a founder of WomenNet in South Africa and served on the African Technical Advisory Committee of the Economic Commission for Africa's African Information Society Initiative. She was a member of the Social Science Research Council's Information Technology and International Cooperation Steering Committee and is a member of the High-level Advisory Board for the UN Global Alliance for ICT and Development. She serves on the governing boards of Isis Women's International Cross Cultural Exchange, Ungana-Afrika in Pretoria, and the Society for International Development. Jerry Fishenden is Microsoft UK's National Technology Officer and spokesman on the value and implications of present and future technological developments - and their impact on public policy. As NTO, Jerry is responsible for helping to develop Microsoft's vision around the use of IT for transforming the way we learn, live and work. Prior to joining Microsoft Jerry worked in a variety of senior positions in the public sector, including as head of business systems for the UK’s chief financial services regulator in the City of London; as an Officer of the House of Commons, establishing the Parliamentary Data and Video Network at the Houses of Parliament; and as a Director of IT in the National Health Service (NHS). Gus Hosein is a Senior Fellow at Privacy International where he directs the 'Terrorism and the Open Society' programme. At Privacy International he also co-ordinates the Policy Laundering Project in association with the American Civil Liberties Union and Statewatch. He is a Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics where he lectures on courses on data protection and the Information Society. He holds a PhD from the LSE and a B.Math from the University of Waterloo in Canada. David W. Maher is Senior Vice President - Law and Policy of Public Interest Registry, a nonprofit corporation responsible for management of the registry of the .ORG top level domain. From 1999 until 2002, he was Vice President - Public Policy of the Internet Society. Mr. Maher is a registered patent attorney with extensive experience in intellectual property and entertainment law. Mr. Maher was General Counsel to the Better Business Bureau of Chicago and Northern Illinois, Inc. for over 20 years and was the recipient of the Bureau’s Torch of Integrity Award in 1999. In 1996, as a well-regarded authority on Internet domain names, Mr. Maher was asked by the Internet Society to serve on the 11 member International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC). The IAHC developed proposals for dispute-resolution with "cyber-squatters", which were later adopted by WIPO and now form the nucleus of the ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, a global arbitration and mediation system for trademark-domain name disputes. Mr. Maher is a member of the WIPO Arbitration & Mediation Center Panel of Neutrals. Mr. Maher currently serves as a member of the Visiting Committee to the Divinity School at the University of Chicago. He is a member of the American Law Institute and has lectured and written articles on the Internet, intellectual property and communications law. Christian Möller is programme officer at the office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media in Vienna. He holds a Master's degree in Media and Literature Studies, German Language and Public Law from Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Germany, and is also researching on the influence of technical development on freedom of the media on the Internet. Before his employment at the OSCE, he worked for more than three years for the Unabhängige Landesanstalt für das Rundfunkwesen (ULR), one of Germany's federal media authorities. Stephanie Perrin is the Director of Strategic Policy and Research at the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. She is the former Chief Privacy Officer for Zero Knowledge Systems, a privacy-enhancing technology company that was active in pushing the boundaries of anonymity on the Internet during 2000-2002. During that time she was the Team Leader of an expert group reporting to CEN/ISSS on the benefits of standards in implementing the European Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data. Jan Schallaböck was a legal trainee at the German Federal Foreign Office before joining the Independent Centre for Privacy Protection in Kiel, Germany, to be working on the PRIME-project. His interests concern different matters of information society, focusing on privacy enhancement and questions of copyright regulation. He has worked with Heinrich-Böll-Foundation as an observer at the UN World Summit of the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunis and Geneva 2003 and 2005 and was a project coordinator at Technical University Berlin in project developing scenarios for, and researching social consequences of the use of Trusted Computing technologies. He majored in European and International Law. Michael Silber, BProc LLB (University of the Witwatersrand), is a practicing South African attorney and ICT specialist. He currently serves as regulatory advisor for the Internet Service Providers’ Association of South Africa, and as the senior adjudicator for the Wireless Applications Service Providers’ Association. He is a consultant with Michalsons Attorneys. Mr. Silber is a director of the .za domain name authority, and a founding member of ISOC-ZA, the South African chapter of the Internet Society. He was a voting member of ICANN’s Nominating Committee in both 2005 and 2006 (representative of the country code Names Supporting Organisation). Mr. Silber is a member of the executive committee of the Communications Users Association of South Africa. Previously, he was the general manager of the Trust Centre division of the South African Post Office Limited, responsible for its public key infrastructure and electronic signature project. Zoi Talidou is a lawyer, currently working as a legal auditor at the Hellenic Data Protection Authority. She holds specialization in the field data protection and new Technologies. She has an LL.M. in European Data Protection Law and a PhD with the topic Selfregulation in the Field of Data Protection, both from the University of Freiburg in Germany. She published a book in Germany with the Title "Regulated Selfregulation in the field of Data Protection". She gathered experience by working at the German Data Protection Authority and at the European Data Protection Supervisor. Mrs. Talidou has spoken and written on RFID and data protection legal issues as well as on the EU Data-Retention-Directive. She also worked on a research Project for the LEGAL-IST group. Cristos Velasco is a Mexican attorney with experience in international trade, telecommunications and Internet & e-commerce law. He holds specializations in Business Law from Instituto Tecnologico Autonomo de Mexico (ITAM), and International Trade Law from Universidad Panamericana (UP). He has an LL.M in International Trade Law from the University of Arizona in Tucson. Since 2002, he has been a researcher and lecturer on Internet and e-commerce law at Mexico City’s Instituto Tecnologico Autonomo de Mexico (ITAM). He is the founder and general director of the North American Consumer Project on Electronic Commerce (NACPEC) http://www.nacpec.org a website in charge of disseminating information on the regulation of the Internet and e-commerce consumer protection with the aim of facilitating research guidance and fostering education and awareness among policy makers, academia, consumer groups and civil society organizations. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Privacy-Workshops-combined.rtf Type: application/msword Size: 36967 bytes Desc: not available URL: From laurent.ferrali at malix.univ-paris1.fr Sun Oct 22 18:37:20 2006 From: laurent.ferrali at malix.univ-paris1.fr (Laurent Ferrali) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 00:37:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <453BF2A0.4090403@malix.univ-paris1.fr> Hi, I believe there are, at least, two different situations: I don't think LDCs have enough power to bind international companies working on their territory. In this case, these countries need some basic international rules to give them the opportunity to build their policy in these areas. In developped countries (with a stronger and a more complex economy). I guess regulation is the best way. Legislation process is to slow (compared to the market's variations) but useful to give some guidelines. Governments should provide the more effective tools to national commissions (FCC, etc) to get involved. Regards, Laurent George Sadowsky a écrit : > Milton, > > I'm concerned with a slightly broader aspect, although my focus in > this thread is clearly upon access, in a larger sense. I'm concerned > about the economic health of the Internet industry in a country, and > that's very much a function of the government's attitude toward > competition, free enterprise, laissez-faire (or not), and > transparency, in procurement, in giving licenses, in creating or > destroying barriers to entry, etc.... > > The healthier and fairer that the industry is, the more prices to > consumers of Internet services will reflect real costs and not > monopoly status, the more customers are able to trust the access they > have as being confidential, then the faster the Internet will grow and > serve the developmental goals of the country. And, if the country has > reasonable consumer protection legislation, it is likely to really > benefit the growth of e-commerce on the net and not retard it. These > are issues that are directly affected by national government policy, > legislation and regulation. > > What I do disagree with is Avri's assertion that it is ONLY on the > international stage that Internet issues can be dealt with. I do not > disagree with the implication that there do exist issues that require > international attention. > > Just trying to restore a sense of balance to the discussion ... > > Regards, > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > At 4:05 PM -0400 10/22/06, Milton Mueller wrote: >> This is an interesting discussion. I find myself agreeing with both Avri >> and George. The positions can be reconciled by noting that George is >> talking mainly about the relationship between Internet access and the >> physical layer (wireless, broadband and other forms of infrastructure >> development) whereas Avri is refrring to "the Internet" as a whole which >> is of course global in scope and a layer 3 issue. >> >> There is no doubt in my mind that the policies that affect the >> availability of physical infrastructure in a country are primarily >> national in development and application. And they are affected not only >> by national telecom policies, they are powerfully affected by national >> economic development policies, for if people have enough money to buy >> services lots of infrastructure development issues take care of >> themselves more readily, as the Chinese have learned. >> >> >> >>>>> george.sadowsky at attglobal.net 10/22/2006 9:01:20 AM >>> >> Avri, >> >> Let's look at access policy _within_ a country, e.g. licensing of >> ISPs, decisions with regard to ISP liability, monopoly telecomm >> carriers, not-level playing fields, licensing of ISPs, licensing of >> wireless frequencies and devices. etc. These are all issues of >> national policy. >> >> It may be that international best practices can provide good >> guidelines, but these are more likely to be de facto standards set by >> industry than the result of intergovernmental action. >> >> Perhaps we have different definitions of policy. >> >> George >> >> At 12:04 AM +0200 10/22/06, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 21 okt 2006, at 21.11, George Sadowsky wrote: >>> >>>> What I am reacting to is what I observe is the conventional wisdom >>>> that I find faulty: that Internet governance and related Internet >>>> issues are essentially international in character, >>> >>> >>> I disagree. I think it is only on the international stage that >>> governance and other Internet issues can be dealt. I don't believe >>> that it is up to governments to do it though i do see them having >>> some role. i don't believe there is is any right of nations to make >>> policy vis a vis the Internet. They may do so, and they even get >>> away with it at the moment, but i think we lose a major battle the >>> second we start to believe that they have some _right_ to do so. I >>> tend to view the IGF and other international, but not >>> intergovernemental, organizations as a bulwark against the >>> continuing nationalization of the Internet. >>> >>>> that wanted to emasculate ICANN >> > >>> interesting image, but i do not see what being masculine, or having >>> masculine external attributes, has to do with being an effective >>> international organization. not that i am prepared to argue that >>> the current ICANN incarnation is particularly effective, though i >>> think that has more to do with its form of governance and its lack >>> of freedom from national and other government pressure. >>> >>> a. >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sun Oct 22 20:11:18 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 08:11:18 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: <20061022101904.81ECFDA833@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20061022101904.81ECFDA833@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <453C08A6.7080909@Malcolm.id.au> Parminder wrote: > * What exactly constitutes the IGF? Is it only an open space, where > everyone can come and express opinion? If so, how is this open > space different from any other open space where free discussion > can take place? What is the special UN character and legitimacy > of the IGF? How is it (to be) expressed in practice? (This brings > us to the earlier question – how is it different from any other > discursive space, and if different, how is this ‘difference’ to be > expressed in practice?) Maybe "What is the special UN character" could instead be turned into a leading question, "Is it the open, multi-stakeholder composition of the IGF that gives it its special character and legitimacy?" I think all of the other questions are quite excellent, thank you Parminder. As to how best to put this before the IGF, I'm not sure unless it is as the output of a workshop. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3256 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sun Oct 22 20:25:50 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 08:25:50 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: <20061022101904.81ECFDA833@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20061022101904.81ECFDA833@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <453C0C0E.6020803@Malcolm.id.au> Sorry, I had digitally signed this again - I'll turn it off for good so it doesn't continue to happen. Parminder wrote: > * What exactly constitutes the IGF? Is it only an open space, where > everyone can come and express opinion? If so, how is this open > space different from any other open space where free discussion > can take place? What is the special UN character and legitimacy > of the IGF? How is it (to be) expressed in practice? (This brings > us to the earlier question – how is it different from any other > discursive space, and if different, how is this ‘difference’ to be > expressed in practice?) Maybe "What is the special UN character" could instead be turned into a leading question, "Is it the open, multi-stakeholder composition of the IGF that gives it its special character and legitimacy?" I think all of the other questions are quite excellent, thank you Parminder. As to how best to put this before the IGF, I'm not sure unless it is as the output of a workshop. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Sun Oct 22 22:31:50 2006 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 04:31:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: <20061022101904.81ECFDA833@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20061022101904.81ECFDA833@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <453C2996.2050102@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Parminder wrote: > *_Some Questions from the Internet Governance Civil Society Caucus to > the Internet Governance Forum _* Thanks a lot, this really helps moving forward. I don't want to comment on the details the possible fine-tuning, but am more concerned with the larger picture. It boils down to one simple meta-question: -> Who is supposed to answer these questions? A normal reflex would be to look at Markus Kummer, Nitin Desai, or Kofi Annan, as they got the task assigned from the WSIS. But they would just hand it over to the governments, as the decision came from there. You can imagine what their answer would be... Therefore I think we should answer them ourselves and just act *as if* they had been answered in the way we prefer. One example. A couple of times the list of questions says "what is IGF’s plan" or something in this direction, and you hit it directly in question 2 when you address the "agency" issue. This is the wrong way, as it sounds like we delegate the answer to someone else, whoever this may be. But if it is supposed to be a multistakeholder forum, we "are" the IGF as much as the governments and the other stakeholders are it. So, let's try to answer these things for ourselves - and convincingly enough or at least with some powerful support to make others even follow us. Of course, the tough part is then to come up with smart answers that we all think are a) feasable and b) legitimate. But this is our job. We very much missed out on developing a grand vision for the IGF beforehand that would live up to the expectations of the Tunis agenda. Maybe something to discuss at the IGC meeting? Pragmatically speaking, I would change the questions into statements. This will help facilitating a quick&dirty debate among ourselves on how we want to have the IGF develop itself. And it will give us some advantage to most of the other stakeholder groups who expect a conference and nothing else. If we leave it in the form of questions, we should at least be prepared to answer them in the debate. Best, Ralf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nhklein at gmx.net Sun Oct 22 20:46:53 2006 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:46:53 +0900 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <453C10FD.7040303@gmx.net> George, I am not sure if "our case" (Cambodia) is sufficiently covered. Where do the economics of scale come into play? Let me use two extreme examples: China and again Cambodia. I jump down some lines... George Sadowsky wrote: > Milton, > > I'm concerned with a slightly broader aspect, although my focus in > this thread is clearly upon access, in a larger sense. I'm concerned > about the economic health of the Internet industry in a country, and > that's very much a function of the government's attitude toward > competition, free enterprise, laissez-faire (or not), and > transparency, in procurement, in giving licenses, in creating or > destroying barriers to entry, etc.... Did the Internet development in China depend for its infrastructure development come from competition, free enterprise, laissez-faire, transparency in giving licenses etc.? We have a good deal of these things (that is why we have 8 telecom service providers, Cambodia was, some years ago, the first country with more mobile phones than wired ones, and if this figure is true I got a while ago, we have now 96% of all phones wireless. The wired infrastructure does not move ahead since some years, we have - as a country - very high Internet prices, and useful connectivity, exists mainly in the capital city and some of the bigger cities. It is also estimated that the electrical grid coverage reaches only 10% of the households. All this is not going to change easily by legislative decisions on the national level, and of course also not by any decision at IGF... But if there is any truth in the first paragraph of the Geneva Declaration of Principles, that "everybody" should be able to become an active member of the world wide information society - not only a consumer of information - the international community and its actions is extremely important. Norbert > > The healthier and fairer that the industry is, the more prices to > consumers of Internet services will reflect real costs and not > monopoly status, the more customers are able to trust the access they > have as being confidential, then the faster the Internet will grow and > serve the developmental goals of the country. And, if the country has > reasonable consumer protection legislation, it is likely to really > benefit the growth of e-commerce on the net and not retard it. These > are issues that are directly affected by national government policy, > legislation and regulation. > > What I do disagree with is Avri's assertion that it is ONLY on the > international stage that Internet issues can be dealt with. I do not > disagree with the implication that there do exist issues that require > international attention. > > Just trying to restore a sense of balance to the discussion ... > > Regards, > > George ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Oct 23 01:17:17 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:47:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: <453C2996.2050102@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <20061023052027.0D08F5C1B@smtp2.electricembers.net> Thanks Ralf (and Jeremy). I am sure we can improve on our strategy to get the best outcomes, and will invite other comments on this... one > simple > meta-question: > > -> Who is supposed to answer these questions? Yes, that is THE question. And I am deliberately engaging on that question. After all who or what is the IGF? We often are critical about it only being a 'talk shop' but then we often get caught in promoting that conception of the IGF. I think here there is a strategic political choice or trade-off to be made, and we need to make it now. One is the nature and quality/quantity of participation, openness, inclusiveness MSP-ness etc etc. and on the other hand is relevance, effectiveness, meaningfulness, outcome-orientation and such. All political institutions make that trade-off. We have democratic governments which function in a certain manner, and we aren't too happy about it, but we know it is better than not having a government at all or having a despotic government. And at the same time we keep engaging with the institutions of governance to make them more inclusive, transparent etc. Somewhat similar choice has to be made about the IGF. We have to sacrifice some participation, inclusiveness, openness etc to a 'system' which have some amount of 'representative-ness' - whereby it is able to act as an effective 'structure' which can have a body and agency, and can produce some outcomes. And we can keep engaging with it to improve the manner of its inclusive, transparency and openness. I know IGF isnt supposed to be a 'decision making' structure, but that doesn't take a non-talk-shop agency aspect completely away from it, as I have argued with reference to its WSIS mandate. > it is supposed to be a multistakeholder forum, we "are" the > IGF as much as > the governments and the other stakeholders are it. You know that it is only a part-myth, we would live to believe in and invest in. For example, I did not decide the format of the IGF, and am completely of a mind to have it very differently given a choice.. But, I accept that there is a 'system' or 'structure' which decided it, and which - though it doesn't work exactly as I would want it to - I am fine 'ceding' some power to for the sake of some effectiveness and outcomes. And if we really were the IGF - Id like to know how can I arrange an official interaction with the ICANN (72 c of the agenda) which bears the stamp of the UN-IGF and where I can ask some questions to it, and to which it is obliged to engage with (since ICANN seems to have some internal obligations to international law and organizations, and IGF is an official UN body). Obviously, only a clearly demarcated system or structure can do this, and so is also true of other things that I have listed in the IGF poser... So, my view is that we should invest in developing some 'structure' for the IGF - (so that everyone knows -> Who is supposed to answer these questions?) and then provisionally accept the shortcomings the system, knowing that it is still a big advance over purely governmental systems, and that we have some leverage inside the system, and keep engaging with the system to make is more inclusive and participatory. I remember that when MAG was formed, there was a debate on this list - and many opined that MAG should not decide this and this, and that IGF SHOULD DECIDE THESE THINGS. I at that time and argued for accepting some 'structurality' and representative-ness of the IGF as the only plausible way, and to engage with it. (Though I myself, as most of us, wasn't too happy with the MAG). Now that Nitin Desai has made clear that 'IGF has no members' and therefore it cannot decide anything (his words) id now like to know what those who were against MAG deciding IGF agenda etc have to say to this.. So lets be practical and pragmatic. because it appear no one else is bothered. > Pragmatically speaking, I would change the questions into > statements. This > will help facilitating a quick&dirty debate among ourselves > on how we want > to have the IGF develop itself. And it will give us some > advantage to most > of the other stakeholder groups who expect a conference and > nothing else. Though I am open to change in our strategy, I had posed it as questions precisely to provoke a quick and dirty debate. And also to call for answer-ability and accountability from those who expect it only as a conference (and therefore cited the WSIS mandate extensively) > If we leave it in the form of questions, we should at least > be prepared to > answer them in the debate. That we certainly should be ready to do.. > Maybe something to discuss at the IGC meeting? If we are really to put a joint position at the IGF in this regard, it is better to have a good exchange of views on the list, because time is short. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Ralf Bendrath [mailto:bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de] > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 8:02 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF > > Parminder wrote: > > *_Some Questions from the Internet Governance Civil Society > Caucus to > > the Internet Governance Forum _* > Thanks a lot, this really helps moving forward. > > I don't want to comment on the details the possible fine- > tuning, but am > more concerned with the larger picture. It boils down to one > simple > meta-question: > > -> Who is supposed to answer these questions? > > A normal reflex would be to look at Markus Kummer, Nitin > Desai, or Kofi > Annan, as they got the task assigned from the WSIS. But they > would just > hand it over to the governments, as the decision came from > there. You can > imagine what their answer would be... > > Therefore I think we should answer them ourselves and just > act *as if* > they had been answered in the way we prefer. > > One example. A couple of times the list of questions says > "what is IGF's > plan" or something in this direction, and you hit it directly > in question > 2 when you address the "agency" issue. This is the wrong way, > as it sounds > like we delegate the answer to someone else, whoever this may > be. But if > it is supposed to be a multistakeholder forum, we "are" the > IGF as much as > the governments and the other stakeholders are it. So, let's > try to answer > these things for ourselves - and convincingly enough or at > least with some > powerful support to make others even follow us. > > Of course, the tough part is then to come up with smart > answers that we > all think are a) feasable and b) legitimate. But this is our > job. We very > much missed out on developing a grand vision for the IGF > beforehand that > would live up to the expectations of the Tunis agenda. > > Maybe something to discuss at the IGC meeting? > > Pragmatically speaking, I would change the questions into > statements. This > will help facilitating a quick&dirty debate among ourselves > on how we want > to have the IGF develop itself. And it will give us some > advantage to most > of the other stakeholder groups who expect a conference and > nothing else. > If we leave it in the form of questions, we should at least > be prepared to > answer them in the debate. > > Best, Ralf > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Oct 23 02:25:46 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:55:46 +0530 Subject: FW: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF Message-ID: <20061023062602.37D2B5C26@smtp2.electricembers.net> George >I'm > concerned > about the economic health of the Internet industry in a > country, and > that's very much a function of the government's attitude > toward > competition, free enterprise, laissez-faire (or not), and > transparency, in procurement, in giving licenses, in creating > or > destroying barriers to entry, etc.... I know that is the dominant take on the issues, which we keep trying to challenge. I know pro-competition policies are important, but has it occurred to you that large scale public investment in ICT infrastructure (and ICT infrastructure, apart from telecom access, also includes software, hardware, localization, service delivery systems etc) plays an important role in reaching the benefits to all people - as it has done in case of all important infrastructure in the yesteryears in developed countries as well. Indian governments, for instance, are putting in a lot of public investments into this after they have seen that private investments really did not reach ICT benefits to all. But I notice that you speak of the 'economic health of the Internet industry' and not about socio-economic development of a country/ society, so you may to that extent be right in your partial view of things. This was however beside the point on the national versus international issues debate. But it does go to show that we all have a good view of the importance of national policy space (governmental or multistakeholder). So since we are on eve of an international forum, and the discussion started in that context, the onus is on whoever speaks that the 'international space is not significant' and not the other way around. In a similar way, if we were in a national policy space speaking exclusively of importance of issues that pertain to international spaces and cannot be taken up nationally will be an avoidable distraction. > Just trying to restore a sense of balance to the discussion > ... So, the balance, in the present context, lies in engaging with what is important from a global policy spaces perspective. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 2:28 AM > To: Milton Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Program for IGC at IGF > > Milton, > > I'm concerned with a slightly broader aspect, although my > focus in > this thread is clearly upon access, in a larger sense. I'm > concerned > about the economic health of the Internet industry in a > country, and > that's very much a function of the government's attitude > toward > competition, free enterprise, laissez-faire (or not), and > transparency, in procurement, in giving licenses, in creating > or > destroying barriers to entry, etc.... > > The healthier and fairer that the industry is, the more > prices to > consumers of Internet services will reflect real costs and > not > monopoly status, the more customers are able to trust the > access they > have as being confidential, then the faster the Internet will > grow > and serve the developmental goals of the country. And, if > the > country has reasonable consumer protection legislation, it is > likely > to really benefit the growth of e-commerce on the net and not > retard > it. These are issues that are directly affected by national > government policy, legislation and regulation. > > What I do disagree with is Avri's assertion that it is ONLY > on the > international stage that Internet issues can be dealt with. > I do not > disagree with the implication that there do exist issues that > require > international attention. > > Just trying to restore a sense of balance to the discussion > ... > > Regards, > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > At 4:05 PM -0400 10/22/06, Milton Mueller wrote: > >This is an interesting discussion. I find myself agreeing > with both Avri > >and George. The positions can be reconciled by noting that > George is > >talking mainly about the relationship between Internet > access and the > >physical layer (wireless, broadband and other forms of > infrastructure > >development) whereas Avri is refrring to "the Internet" as a > whole which > >is of course global in scope and a layer 3 issue. > > > >There is no doubt in my mind that the policies that affect > the > >availability of physical infrastructure in a country are > primarily > >national in development and application. And they are > affected not only > >by national telecom policies, they are powerfully affected > by national > >economic development policies, for if people have enough > money to buy > >services lots of infrastructure development issues take care > of > >themselves more readily, as the Chinese have learned. > > > > > > > >>>> george.sadowsky at attglobal.net 10/22/2006 9:01:20 AM >>> > >Avri, > > > >Let's look at access policy _within_ a country, e.g. > licensing of > >ISPs, decisions with regard to ISP liability, monopoly > telecomm > >carriers, not-level playing fields, licensing of ISPs, > licensing of > >wireless frequencies and devices. etc. These are all > issues of > >national policy. > > > >It may be that international best practices can provide good > >guidelines, but these are more likely to be de facto > standards set by > >industry than the result of intergovernmental action. > > > >Perhaps we have different definitions of policy. > > > >George > > > >At 12:04 AM +0200 10/22/06, Avri Doria wrote: > >>Hi, > >> > >>On 21 okt 2006, at 21.11, George Sadowsky wrote: > >> > >>>What I am reacting to is what I observe is the > conventional wisdom > >>>that I find faulty: that Internet governance and related > Internet > >>>issues are essentially international in character, > >> > >> > >>I disagree. I think it is only on the international stage > that > >>governance and other Internet issues can be dealt. I don't > believe > >>that it is up to governments to do it though i do see them > having > >>some role. i don't believe there is is any right of > nations to make > >>policy vis a vis the Internet. They may do so, and they > even get > >>away with it at the moment, but i think we lose a major > battle the > >>second we start to believe that they have some _right_ to > do so. I > >>tend to view the IGF and other international, but not > >>intergovernemental, organizations as a bulwark against the > >>continuing nationalization of the Internet. > >> > >>>that wanted to emasculate ICANN > > > > >>interesting image, but i do not see what being masculine, > or having > >>masculine external attributes, has to do with being an > effective > >>international organization. not that i am prepared to > argue that > >>the current ICANN incarnation is particularly effective, > though i > >>think that has more to do with its form of governance and > its lack > >>of freedom from national and other government pressure. > >> > >>a. > >>___________________________________________________________ > _ > >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >>For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Oct 23 03:21:54 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:21:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: <453C2996.2050102@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <20061022101904.81ECFDA833@smtp3.electricembers.net> <453C2996.2050102@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <453C6D92.30501@bertola.eu.org> Ralf Bendrath ha scritto: > Of course, the tough part is then to come up with smart answers that we > all think are a) feasable and b) legitimate. But this is our job. We > very much missed out on developing a grand vision for the IGF beforehand > that would live up to the expectations of the Tunis agenda. Well, actually I and the other people who worked out the Forum concept in the WGIG did have a grand vision for the IGF - one made of specialized online working groups elaborating non-binding recommendations that would be ratified and distributed to the appropriate entities, be them other institutions, national governments, industry consortia, NGOs, or the users in general. I have spoken many times of a IETF-like entity, with bottom-up working groups and with the AG acting as the IAB. Others might have slightly different opinions (especially on the role of the AG), but that's more or less the idea. I think that a model like that could have worked, but then the process (no offense meant for those involved and their hard work) got completely derailed into a sort of talk show, or a wannabe copy of the INET... (I guess that the replacement, when creating the first IGF AG, of 80% of the WGIG CS members with ICANN/ISOC people isn't unrelated to this outcome: different set of people and different backgrounds => different minds and different objectives.) > Pragmatically speaking, I would change the questions into statements. > This will help facilitating a quick&dirty debate among ourselves on how > we want to have the IGF develop itself. And it will give us some > advantage to most of the other stakeholder groups who expect a > conference and nothing else. Even more pragmatically, we are in the middle of a charter rework that doesn't allow us much space for substance statements as a caucus, but we could still work out a statement and get signatures under it. I would be careful about not looking as the usual overcritical bunch of subversives, but I would be very clear as for what we expect. We should call the IGF back to its mandate (since it is currently ignoring the best part of it) and propose practical ways to implement it. We should also ask that the next AG incorporates a reasonable amount of civil society people, rather than the 4-5 we have now (on a total of 46!). Not that I particularly mind about chairs, but I mind if it affects the outcome so much. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Mon Oct 23 03:34:47 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:34:47 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: <453C6D92.30501@bertola.eu.org> References: <20061022101904.81ECFDA833@smtp3.electricembers.net> <453C2996.2050102@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <453C6D92.30501@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <453C7097.4080801@Malcolm.id.au> Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> Pragmatically speaking, I would change the questions into statements. >> This will help facilitating a quick&dirty debate among ourselves on >> how we want to have the IGF develop itself. And it will give us some >> advantage to most of the other stakeholder groups who expect a >> conference and nothing else. > > Even more pragmatically, we are in the middle of a charter rework that > doesn't allow us much space for substance statements as a caucus, but we > could still work out a statement and get signatures under it. I would be > careful about not looking as the usual overcritical bunch of > subversives, but I would be very clear as for what we expect. Unless there are any workshop organisers who would like to make the statement part of the output of their workshop, another alternative would be to circulate it during the Plaza as a petition, and then arrange to table it during the final session. I have space booked in the Plaza and would be happy to host the petition there, if others agreed this was a good way to proceed. I could also very easily host an online petition in identical terms to accompany it. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Mon Oct 23 03:40:05 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:40:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Updated draft agenda for igc@igf Message-ID: <77C537FB-5D6F-495D-AD8D-9770C4F4250B@acm.org> Hi, given some of the comments made on the previous draft agenda, i have modified it to include a moderated discussion on the issues of interest and priority to participants instead of the workshop overview. since she suggested it, i have asked Karen to moderate this part of the session. i assume that participants can collect their own information on the agenda. i have no personal plan to create a compendium of workshop info and don't know if anyone else is planning to do so. the latest draft agenda can be found at: http://www.igcaucus.org/agenda-igc-at-igf.html as always, i welcome comments for further amendments. thanks for the comments so far. BTW, i don't know if we will get it, but i have requested another session for lunch during the last day (2 Nov) to allow the IGC to talk about where we go in the next year. Recommendations for the agenda are welcome, i have not gotten much further than: discussion on plans for 2007. thanks a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Oct 23 04:30:18 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:00:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: <453C6D92.30501@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <20061023083016.E72E0C96BA@smtp1.electricembers.net> > Even more pragmatically, we are in the middle of a charter > rework that > doesn't allow us much space for substance statements as a > caucus. But the charter stands adopted, and the only difference from its full blown application is that we have one coordinator instead of two (and well, not any appeals committee). But IGF comes once in a year, and this is the first and formative meeting of IGF. So it is important to catch the significance of the moment. It is different if we do not have the collective motivation and/ or energy to do it, but I don't think there are any strong process problems facing us now (any more than there shall always be). Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu.org] > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 12:52 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ralf Bendrath > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF > > Ralf Bendrath ha scritto: > > Of course, the tough part is then to come up with smart > answers that we > > all think are a) feasable and b) legitimate. But this is > our job. We > > very much missed out on developing a grand vision for the > IGF beforehand > > that would live up to the expectations of the Tunis agenda. > > Well, actually I and the other people who worked out the > Forum concept > in the WGIG did have a grand vision for the IGF - one made of > specialized online working groups elaborating non-binding > recommendations that would be ratified and distributed to the > appropriate entities, be them other institutions, national > governments, > industry consortia, NGOs, or the users in general. I have > spoken many > times of a IETF-like entity, with bottom-up working groups > and with the > AG acting as the IAB. Others might have slightly different > opinions > (especially on the role of the AG), but that's more or less > the idea. > > I think that a model like that could have worked, but then > the process > (no offense meant for those involved and their hard work) got > completely > derailed into a sort of talk show, or a wannabe copy of the > INET... (I > guess that the replacement, when creating the first IGF AG, > of 80% of > the WGIG CS members with ICANN/ISOC people isn't unrelated to > this > outcome: different set of people and different backgrounds => > different > minds and different objectives.) > > > Pragmatically speaking, I would change the questions into > statements. > > This will help facilitating a quick&dirty debate among > ourselves on how > > we want to have the IGF develop itself. And it will give us > some > > advantage to most of the other stakeholder groups who > expect a > > conference and nothing else. > > Even more pragmatically, we are in the middle of a charter > rework that > doesn't allow us much space for substance statements as a > caucus, but we > could still work out a statement and get signatures under it. > I would be > careful about not looking as the usual overcritical bunch of > subversives, but I would be very clear as for what we expect. > > We should call the IGF back to its mandate (since it is > currently > ignoring the best part of it) and propose practical ways to > implement > it. We should also ask that the next AG incorporates a > reasonable amount > of civil society people, rather than the 4-5 we have now (on > a total of > 46!). Not that I particularly mind about chairs, but I mind > if it > affects the outcome so much. > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] > bertola.eu.org]<----- > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Mon Oct 23 04:49:13 2006 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:49:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] national vs international (was Re: Program for IGC@IGF) In-Reply-To: (message from George Sadowsky on Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:11:29 -0400) References: Message-ID: <20061023084913.C31F14E16C@quill.bollow.ch> George Sadowsky wrote: > What I am reacting to is what I observe is the > conventional wisdom that I find faulty: that > Internet governance and related Internet issues > are essentially international in character, and > that national issues are secondary. In almost > all developing countries that I have worked in > (and I've worked in over 50, although many before > the Internet), national government policies have > been the determining factor regarding the health > of the ICT industry, the ability of people to > gain access to computers and, of importance to us > here, the ability of the Internet to spread in an > accessible and affordable manner. This phenomenon is not just limited to developing countries. The example that I know something about is that here in Switzerland, the Equality for People with Disabilities Act (a federal law which requires, among other matters, that all websites of government institutions must be made accessible to persons with disabilities) has inspired significant work in the area of websites accessibility for persons with disabilities, not limited to government websites. Do you have a reference for what you have observed in developing countries, something suitable for citing in a scientific paper? > Yet all of those countries implicitly or > explicitly agreed with both the vision statement > and the plan of action, both international > documents created during WSIS-1. Talk is cheap; > action is definitive. Yes, absolutely. The IGF is based on a broad consensus that talking with other stakeholders is important. But the actual work of making things happen always has to be done by a coalition of the willing. If such a coalition of stakeholders (who can agree on reasonable principles for addressing some set of important issues, and who are genuinely willing to take corresponding action) can emerge from the IGF, then I will consider the IGF to be a great success. > The global arena is an important policy arena, but for > those issues that can be influenced by global action. I believe that due to the international nature of the internet, this includes all internet-related issues. For those issues that can be significantly impacted, for better or worse, by national policy decisions, the global action that I feel should be done is to create an accountable and transparent international multistakeholder process for recognizing and coordinating good national efforts concerning these issues. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Mon Oct 23 04:53:01 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:53:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: <20061023083016.E72E0C96BA@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20061023083016.E72E0C96BA@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <75EA99EF-1143-4531-8F50-5EE8F5E8AEC3@psg.com> Hi, I would agree with that. I think the limitation is that it is difficult for anyone to call rough consensus. since I am not empowered to do so as a process-only coordinator and as there is not way to appeal it. On the other hand if a consensus is possible or if you got the way of the petition, then i do not see an issue with actually engage in in some substantive dialogue toward a stement. In fact I think that is a really good thing. a. PS: Speaking of real coordinators - so far only one person is in the candidate pool. We need at least 2 - though of course more choice is better (not meant as a criticism of the one). On 23 okt 2006, at 10.30, Parminder wrote: >> Even more pragmatically, we are in the middle of a charter >> rework that >> doesn't allow us much space for substance statements as a >> caucus. > > > But the charter stands adopted, and the only difference from its > full blown > application is that we have one coordinator instead of two (and > well, not > any appeals committee). But IGF comes once in a year, and this is > the first > and formative meeting of IGF. So it is important to catch the > significance > of the moment. > > It is different if we do not have the collective motivation and/ or > energy > to do it, but I don't think there are any strong process problems > facing us > now (any more than there shall always be). > > Parminder > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu.org] >> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 12:52 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ralf Bendrath >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF >> >> Ralf Bendrath ha scritto: >>> Of course, the tough part is then to come up with smart >> answers that we >>> all think are a) feasable and b) legitimate. But this is >> our job. We >>> very much missed out on developing a grand vision for the >> IGF beforehand >>> that would live up to the expectations of the Tunis agenda. >> >> Well, actually I and the other people who worked out the >> Forum concept >> in the WGIG did have a grand vision for the IGF - one made of >> specialized online working groups elaborating non-binding >> recommendations that would be ratified and distributed to the >> appropriate entities, be them other institutions, national >> governments, >> industry consortia, NGOs, or the users in general. I have >> spoken many >> times of a IETF-like entity, with bottom-up working groups >> and with the >> AG acting as the IAB. Others might have slightly different >> opinions >> (especially on the role of the AG), but that's more or less >> the idea. >> >> I think that a model like that could have worked, but then >> the process >> (no offense meant for those involved and their hard work) got >> completely >> derailed into a sort of talk show, or a wannabe copy of the >> INET... (I >> guess that the replacement, when creating the first IGF AG, >> of 80% of >> the WGIG CS members with ICANN/ISOC people isn't unrelated to >> this >> outcome: different set of people and different backgrounds => >> different >> minds and different objectives.) >> >>> Pragmatically speaking, I would change the questions into >> statements. >>> This will help facilitating a quick&dirty debate among >> ourselves on how >>> we want to have the IGF develop itself. And it will give us >> some >>> advantage to most of the other stakeholder groups who >> expect a >>> conference and nothing else. >> >> Even more pragmatically, we are in the middle of a charter >> rework that >> doesn't allow us much space for substance statements as a >> caucus, but we >> could still work out a statement and get signatures under it. >> I would be >> careful about not looking as the usual overcritical bunch of >> subversives, but I would be very clear as for what we expect. >> >> We should call the IGF back to its mandate (since it is >> currently >> ignoring the best part of it) and propose practical ways to >> implement >> it. We should also ask that the next AG incorporates a >> reasonable amount >> of civil society people, rather than the 4-5 we have now (on >> a total of >> 46!). Not that I particularly mind about chairs, but I mind >> if it >> affects the outcome so much. >> -- >> vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] >> bertola.eu.org]<----- >> http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Oct 23 05:02:55 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:02:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] Updated draft agenda for igc@igf In-Reply-To: <77C537FB-5D6F-495D-AD8D-9770C4F4250B@acm.org> References: <77C537FB-5D6F-495D-AD8D-9770C4F4250B@acm.org> Message-ID: Avri, Hi, I'd like you to withdraw that request for a room on the final day. At the moment the three workshop are rooms are free at lunch on Thursday November 2nd. Other than the opening day, this is only time when large space is available. If different stakeholder groups start asking for rooms, there won't be space left for other things. I think we would be better trying to get people together, all stakeholders, to discuss workshops (and panels and GigaNet for that matter) and to try and build momentum for ongoing discussion around those. The purpose of IGF is multi-stakeholder policy dialogue. Right now we are a week away from a 4 day conference that as someone suggested looks a bit like INET... not a bad achievement in itself in 5 months, but not what IGF is meant to be about. There is no mechanism identified for starting and maintaining dialogue between Athens and Brazil. Right now it's pretty much conference as normal. Be great for the caucus to be able to take stock and see where we're going after Athens, but I think we'd be better spending this only free time trying to push multi-stakeholder dialogue rather than talking among ourselves (with private sector in another room and government in another.) If it were up to me, I'd offer space in these rooms to any workshop organizer (there will be about 30 separate workshops in all.) They'd have a few tables and chairs set apart from others in the room so people who were interested in their workshop could drop by and chat about next steps. We need to start thinking of ways to use Athens to spark an ongoing dialogue. This is the best I can come up with. Thanks, Adam At 9:40 AM +0200 10/23/06, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, > >given some of the comments made on the previous draft agenda, i have >modified it to include a moderated discussion on the issues of >interest and priority to participants instead of the workshop >overview. since she suggested it, i have asked Karen to moderate >this part of the session. i assume that participants can collect >their own information on the agenda. i have no personal plan to >create a compendium of workshop info and don't know if anyone else >is planning to do so. > >the latest draft agenda can be found at: > >http://www.igcaucus.org/agenda-igc-at-igf.html > >as always, i welcome comments for further amendments. thanks for the >comments so far. > >BTW, i don't know if we will get it, but i have requested another >session for lunch during the last day (2 Nov) to allow the IGC to >talk about where we go in the next year. Recommendations for the >agenda are welcome, i have not gotten much further than: discussion >on plans for 2007. > >thanks > > >a. > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon Oct 23 05:24:44 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:24:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] national vs international (was Re: Program for IGC@IGF) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi George, > From: George Sadowsky > What I do disagree with is Avri's assertion that it is ONLY on the > international stage that Internet issues can be dealt with. I do not > disagree with the implication that there do exist issues that require > international attention. > > Just trying to restore a sense of balance to the discussion ... It might be that there's some talking past each other going on here, so please help me understand the thinking that started this thread: In what sense did you think that the discussion here has been unbalanced? It sounds like you thought that there's been a collective predilection to deny the existence and importance of national policies and to assert that literally all issues require international agreements. But in the cases you've expressed particular concern about, like censorship or national regulations and market structures affecting local access, there's been intermittent discussion over several years in which some of us have noted that there are no internationally applied rules per se and hence these issues are not currently the subject IG mechanisms as defined and negotiated in the WSIS and follow-up processes (although others have said there should be such mechanisms, which is a different argument). Avri's response came later, and I'm not clear whether she was saying everything requires actual international agreements or just international dialogue; the latter can of course be useful even in the case of issues that are primarily addressed nationally, e.g. in promoting collective learning, best practices, policy adjustments, etc. So what exactly is the imbalance you thought needed correction? Thanks, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Oct 23 05:35:22 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:35:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Updated draft agenda for igc@igf In-Reply-To: References: <77C537FB-5D6F-495D-AD8D-9770C4F4250B@acm.org> Message-ID: <453C8CDA.7040805@bertola.eu.org> Adam Peake ha scritto: > If it were up to me, I'd offer space in these rooms to any workshop > organizer (there will be about 30 separate workshops in all.) They'd > have a few tables and chairs set apart from others in the room so people > who were interested in their workshop could drop by and chat about next > steps. We need to start thinking of ways to use Athens to spark an > ongoing dialogue. This is the best I can come up with. Actually, you might try to orient workshops to that end. The secretariat could ask all workshop organizers to come up, after their workshop, with a suggestion on how to work on the matter between Athens and Rio. You could then use that session to give two minutes to each workshop organizer (2 * 30 = 60) to report on how the workshop went, and which steps forward are planned. You could even add more 2-minute reports on issues that weren't addressed at any workshops but on which people would like to start multistakeholder efforts (but you should ask people to request a slot by the day before, otherwise the floor line will fill up quickly). Then, all interested stakeholders could join the efforts they are interested in (or let the uninteresting ones die by resource starvation). Alternately, you could do all of this on Thursday afternoon, as the "emerging issues" session, if the youth one folds (I see no program yet). Another useful thing you could do in Athens (or we could do, if the secretariat doesn't), is to collect email addresses for subscription to a moderated announcements-only multistakeholder mailing list, meant to announce all initiatives for online work or offline meetings on specific matters between Athens and Rio. The point is that efforts are legitimate only if all stakeholders are invited to them. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Oct 23 05:35:29 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:35:29 +0900 Subject: [governance] Updated draft agenda for igc@igf In-Reply-To: References: <77C537FB-5D6F-495D-AD8D-9770C4F4250B@acm.org> Message-ID: >Avri, Hi, I'd like you to withdraw that request for a room on the final day. hold on... don't withdraw it, make it provisional. (or someone else will grab it.) Thanks, Adam >At the moment the three workshop are rooms are free at lunch on >Thursday November 2nd. Other than the opening day, this is only time >when large space is available. If different stakeholder groups >start asking for rooms, there won't be space left for other things. > >I think we would be better trying to get people together, all >stakeholders, to discuss workshops (and panels and GigaNet for that >matter) and to try and build momentum for ongoing discussion around >those. > >The purpose of IGF is multi-stakeholder policy dialogue. Right now >we are a week away from a 4 day conference that as someone suggested >looks a bit like INET... not a bad achievement in itself in 5 >months, but not what IGF is meant to be about. There is no >mechanism identified for starting and maintaining dialogue between >Athens and Brazil. Right now it's pretty much conference as normal. > >Be great for the caucus to be able to take stock and see where we're >going after Athens, but I think we'd be better spending this only >free time trying to push multi-stakeholder dialogue rather than >talking among ourselves (with private sector in another room and >government in another.) > >If it were up to me, I'd offer space in these rooms to any workshop >organizer (there will be about 30 separate workshops in all.) >They'd have a few tables and chairs set apart from others in the >room so people who were interested in their workshop could drop by >and chat about next steps. We need to start thinking of ways to use >Athens to spark an ongoing dialogue. This is the best I can come up >with. > >Thanks, > >Adam > > > > >At 9:40 AM +0200 10/23/06, Avri Doria wrote: >>Hi, >> >>given some of the comments made on the previous draft agenda, i >>have modified it to include a moderated discussion on the issues of >>interest and priority to participants instead of the workshop >>overview. since she suggested it, i have asked Karen to moderate >>this part of the session. i assume that participants can collect >>their own information on the agenda. i have no personal plan to >>create a compendium of workshop info and don't know if anyone else >>is planning to do so. >> >>the latest draft agenda can be found at: >> >>http://www.igcaucus.org/agenda-igc-at-igf.html >> >>as always, i welcome comments for further amendments. thanks for >>the comments so far. >> >>BTW, i don't know if we will get it, but i have requested another >>session for lunch during the last day (2 Nov) to allow the IGC to >>talk about where we go in the next year. Recommendations for the >>agenda are welcome, i have not gotten much further than: discussion >>on plans for 2007. >> >>thanks >> >> >>a. >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Oct 23 05:41:47 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:41:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: <453C6D92.30501@bertola.eu.org> References: <20061022101904.81ECFDA833@smtp3.electricembers.net> <453C2996.2050102@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <453C6D92.30501@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: There's a "setting the scene" session on the afternoon of the first day that might be a good time to ask some of these questions, and a "taking-stock and the way forward" session on the final day for others. We could submit them as questions from the caucus (if agreed). Or you can send them as individuals. Or I and I think other CS members of the MAG would be happy to deliver them. Or someone can send them in remotely, or blog them and Kieren might pick them up. IGF seems to be ignoring a large part of it's mandate () It would be good to ask why, but better to discuss how to we can start to address the overlooked issues. (does why matter as much as improving things?) The IGF is being "bootstrapped" as a conference. As soon as Greece offered to host a meeting it basically meant a conference had to be organized (that's not criticism, I think just fact). Questions (and answers) about how it can become a dialogue would be helpful. The role of the MAG after Athens should be discussed. Will it continue to act as (on paper anyway) advisors to the UN Secretary General and he continue to convene the IGF, or how can something be set up to replace it (more transparent, accountable etc.) But I think focus on process will bore the room and be a waste of time considering there are actually issues to discuss and we'll be doing it as equals with all other stakeholders. Bit if an opportunity to waste. Adam >Ralf Bendrath ha scritto: >>Of course, the tough part is then to come up with smart answers >>that we all think are a) feasable and b) legitimate. But this is >>our job. We very much missed out on developing a grand vision for >>the IGF beforehand that would live up to the expectations of the >>Tunis agenda. > >Well, actually I and the other people who worked out the Forum >concept in the WGIG did have a grand vision for the IGF - one made >of specialized online working groups elaborating non-binding >recommendations that would be ratified and distributed to the >appropriate entities, be them other institutions, national >governments, industry consortia, NGOs, or the users in general. I >have spoken many times of a IETF-like entity, with bottom-up working >groups and with the AG acting as the IAB. Others might have slightly >different opinions (especially on the role of the AG), but that's >more or less the idea. > >I think that a model like that could have worked, but then the >process (no offense meant for those involved and their hard work) >got completely derailed into a sort of talk show, or a wannabe copy >of the INET... (I guess that the replacement, when creating the >first IGF AG, of 80% of the WGIG CS members with ICANN/ISOC people >isn't unrelated to this outcome: different set of people and >different backgrounds => different minds and different objectives.) > >>Pragmatically speaking, I would change the questions into >>statements. This will help facilitating a quick&dirty debate among >>ourselves on how we want to have the IGF develop itself. And it >>will give us some advantage to most of the other stakeholder groups >>who expect a conference and nothing else. > >Even more pragmatically, we are in the middle of a charter rework >that doesn't allow us much space for substance statements as a >caucus, but we could still work out a statement and get signatures >under it. I would be careful about not looking as the usual >overcritical bunch of subversives, but I would be very clear as for >what we expect. > >We should call the IGF back to its mandate (since it is currently >ignoring the best part of it) and propose practical ways to >implement it. We should also ask that the next AG incorporates a >reasonable amount of civil society people, rather than the 4-5 we >have now (on a total of 46!). Not that I particularly mind about >chairs, but I mind if it affects the outcome so much. >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Mon Oct 23 05:53:45 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:53:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Updated draft agenda for igc@igf In-Reply-To: References: <77C537FB-5D6F-495D-AD8D-9770C4F4250B@acm.org> Message-ID: On 23 okt 2006, at 11.35, Adam Peake wrote: > hold on... don't withdraw it, make it provisional. (or someone > else will grab it.) it has not been approved, only requested. obviously if the secretariat and the igf-ag decide to do something else with that time, then we wont get it. or if there are too many other requests we not get it because we already had a spot or ... a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Mon Oct 23 06:40:50 2006 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:40:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: <453C7097.4080801@Malcolm.id.au> (message from Jeremy Malcolm on Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:34:47 +0800) References: <20061022101904.81ECFDA833@smtp3.electricembers.net> <453C2996.2050102@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <453C6D92.30501@bertola.eu.org> <453C7097.4080801@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <20061023104050.BE68B5102B@quill.bollow.ch> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > another alternative > would be to circulate it during the Plaza as a petition, and then > arrange to table it during the final session. I have space booked in > the Plaza and would be happy to host the petition there, if others > agreed this was a good way to proceed. I could also very easily host an > online petition in identical terms to accompany it. I support this idea wholeheartedly, and I trust that if a couple of IGC people create a petition text together, the result will be a good petition text that I will be happy to sign. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Mon Oct 23 07:36:21 2006 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 07:36:21 -0400 Subject: FW: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF Message-ID: Comments below. At 11:55 AM +0530 10/23/06, Parminder wrote: > >George > > >I'm > > concerned > > about the economic health of the Internet industry in a > > country, and > > that's very much a function of the government's attitude > > toward > > competition, free enterprise, laissez-faire (or not), and > > transparency, in procurement, in giving licenses, in creating > > or > > destroying barriers to entry, etc.... > >I know that is the dominant take on the issues, which we keep trying >to challenge. Why? Why not see your own vision as a complement to it? > I know pro-competition policies are important, but has it occurred >to you that large scale public investment in ICT infrastructure (and >ICT infrastructure, apart from telecom access, also includes >software, hardware, localization, service delivery systems etc) >plays an important role in reaching the benefits to all people - as >it has done in case of all important infrastructure in the >yesteryears in developed countries as well. Indian governments, for >instance, are putting in a lot of public investments into this after >they have seen that private investments really did not reach ICT >benefits to all. Yes, it has occurred to me. Check the writings in my bibliography. Look at: http://www.internetpolicy.net/ the project that I've been directing for the lpast 5 years. I want the Internet industries in each country to thrive because of what a strong Internet industry can do for social and economic development. And when the government engages in various kinds of subsidization to assist the industry by investing in local capacities of various kinds, so much the better. > >But I notice that you speak of the 'economic health of the Internet >industry' and not about socio-economic development of a country/ >society, so you may to that extent be right in your partial view of >things. Let's be clear. Internet is a means to various ends, open societies, pluralistic democracies, economic growth. One can concentrate upon the dynamics of the industry and still be very conscious that the reason why it's important lies beyond the industry itself. > >This was however beside the point on the national versus >international issues debate. But it does go to show that we all have >a good view of the importance of national policy space (governmental >or multistakeholder). > >So since we are on eve of an international forum, and the discussion >started in that context, the onus is on whoever speaks that the >'international space is not significant' and not the other way >around. In a similar way, if we were in a national policy space >speaking exclusively of importance of issues that pertain to >international spaces and cannot be taken up nationally will be an >avoidable distraction. > > > Just trying to restore a sense of balance to the discussion > > ... > >So, the balance, in the present context, lies in engaging with what >is important from a global policy spaces perspective. And in not misidentifying what is important in the global policy space. > > >Parminder > > > >________________________________________________ >Parminder Jeet Singh >IT for Change, Bangalore >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >www.ITforChange.net > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] > > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 2:28 AM > > To: Milton Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > > Subject: Re: [governance] Program for IGC at IGF > > > > Milton, > > > > I'm concerned with a slightly broader aspect, although my > > focus in > > this thread is clearly upon access, in a larger sense. I'm > > concerned > > about the economic health of the Internet industry in a > > country, and > > that's very much a function of the government's attitude > > toward > > competition, free enterprise, laissez-faire (or not), and > > transparency, in procurement, in giving licenses, in creating > > or > > destroying barriers to entry, etc.... > > > > The healthier and fairer that the industry is, the more > > prices to > > consumers of Internet services will reflect real costs and > > not > > monopoly status, the more customers are able to trust the > > access they > > have as being confidential, then the faster the Internet will > > grow > > and serve the developmental goals of the country. And, if > > the > > country has reasonable consumer protection legislation, it is > > likely > > to really benefit the growth of e-commerce on the net and not > > retard > > it. These are issues that are directly affected by national > > government policy, legislation and regulation. > > > > What I do disagree with is Avri's assertion that it is ONLY > > on the > > international stage that Internet issues can be dealt with. > > I do not > > disagree with the implication that there do exist issues that > > require > > international attention. > > > > Just trying to restore a sense of balance to the discussion > > ... > > > > Regards, > > > > George > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > At 4:05 PM -0400 10/22/06, Milton Mueller wrote: > > >This is an interesting discussion. I find myself agreeing > > with both Avri > > >and George. The positions can be reconciled by noting that > > George is > > >talking mainly about the relationship between Internet > > access and the > > >physical layer (wireless, broadband and other forms of > > infrastructure > > >development) whereas Avri is refrring to "the Internet" as a > > whole which > > >is of course global in scope and a layer 3 issue. > > > > > >There is no doubt in my mind that the policies that affect > > the > > >availability of physical infrastructure in a country are > > primarily > > >national in development and application. And they are > > affected not only > > >by national telecom policies, they are powerfully affected > > by national > > >economic development policies, for if people have enough > > money to buy > > >services lots of infrastructure development issues take care > > of > > >themselves more readily, as the Chinese have learned. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> george.sadowsky at attglobal.net 10/22/2006 9:01:20 AM >>> > > >Avri, > > > > > >Let's look at access policy _within_ a country, e.g. > > licensing of > > >ISPs, decisions with regard to ISP liability, monopoly > > telecomm > > >carriers, not-level playing fields, licensing of ISPs, > > licensing of > > >wireless frequencies and devices. etc. These are all > > issues of > > >national policy. > > > > > >It may be that international best practices can provide good > > >guidelines, but these are more likely to be de facto > > standards set by > > >industry than the result of intergovernmental action. > > > > > >Perhaps we have different definitions of policy. > > > > > >George > > > > > >At 12:04 AM +0200 10/22/06, Avri Doria wrote: > > >>Hi, > > >> > > >>On 21 okt 2006, at 21.11, George Sadowsky wrote: > > >> > > >>>What I am reacting to is what I observe is the > > conventional wisdom > > >>>that I find faulty: that Internet governance and related > > Internet > > >>>issues are essentially international in character, > > >> > > >> > > >>I disagree. I think it is only on the international stage > > that > > >>governance and other Internet issues can be dealt. I don't > > believe > > >>that it is up to governments to do it though i do see them > > having > > >>some role. i don't believe there is is any right of > > nations to make > > >>policy vis a vis the Internet. They may do so, and they > > even get > > >>away with it at the moment, but i think we lose a major > > battle the > > >>second we start to believe that they have some _right_ to > > do so. I > > >>tend to view the IGF and other international, but not > > >>intergovernemental, organizations as a bulwark against the > > >>continuing nationalization of the Internet. > > >> > > >>>that wanted to emasculate ICANN > > > > > > >>interesting image, but i do not see what being masculine, > > or having > > >>masculine external attributes, has to do with being an > > effective > > >>international organization. not that i am prepared to > > argue that > > >>the current ICANN incarnation is particularly effective, > > though i > > >>think that has more to do with its form of governance and > > its lack > > >>of freedom from national and other government pressure. > > >> > > >>a. > > >>___________________________________________________________ > > _ > > >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >>For all list information and functions, see: > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Mon Oct 23 07:26:14 2006 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 07:26:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <453C10FD.7040303@gmx.net> References: <453C10FD.7040303@gmx.net> Message-ID: Norbert, The WSIS Declaration of Principles is a normative document. It describes how things should be, just like the Bible, the Koran, and any number of other books and speeches. Countries are free to act on them or not as they see fit. It is true that over a longer period of time, some (but not all) such documents have a positive cumulative effect. With regard to China, obviously there are some very strong incentives to spread the Internet, otherwise in such a controlled society it would not have happened. It is true that economies of scale play a part in lowering costs and increasing competition, so one could argue that there is a floor imposed by lack of scale that a country cannot go below. this reflects the real costs of being involved in thin markets. I don't claim to be able to explain the behavior of the Internet industry in all countries, but I will claim that an unbiased competitive environment is generally essential, and government policy matters a lot in achieving it. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 9:46 AM +0900 10/23/06, Norbert Klein wrote: >George, > >I am not sure if "our case" (Cambodia) is sufficiently covered. Where do >the economics of scale come into play? Let me use two extreme examples: >China and again Cambodia. I jump down some lines... > >George Sadowsky wrote: >> Milton, >> >> I'm concerned with a slightly broader aspect, although my focus in >> this thread is clearly upon access, in a larger sense. I'm concerned >> about the economic health of the Internet industry in a country, and >> that's very much a function of the government's attitude toward >> competition, free enterprise, laissez-faire (or not), and >> transparency, in procurement, in giving licenses, in creating or >> destroying barriers to entry, etc.... >Did the Internet development in China depend for its infrastructure >development come from competition, free enterprise, laissez-faire, >transparency in giving licenses etc.? > >We have a good deal of these things (that is why we have 8 telecom >service providers, Cambodia was, some years ago, the first country with >more mobile phones than wired ones, and if this figure is true I got a >while ago, we have now 96% of all phones wireless. > >The wired infrastructure does not move ahead since some years, we have - >as a country - very high Internet prices, and useful connectivity, >exists mainly in the capital city and some of the bigger cities. > >It is also estimated that the electrical grid coverage reaches only 10% >of the households. > >All this is not going to change easily by legislative decisions on the >national level, and of course also not by any decision at IGF... > >But if there is any truth in the first paragraph of the Geneva >Declaration of Principles, that "everybody" should be able to become an >active member of the world wide information society - not only a >consumer of information - the international community and its actions is >extremely important. > > Norbert >> >> The healthier and fairer that the industry is, the more prices to >> consumers of Internet services will reflect real costs and not >> monopoly status, the more customers are able to trust the access they >> have as being confidential, then the faster the Internet will grow and >> serve the developmental goals of the country. And, if the country has >> reasonable consumer protection legislation, it is likely to really >> benefit the growth of e-commerce on the net and not retard it. These >> are issues that are directly affected by national government policy, >> legislation and regulation. >> >> What I do disagree with is Avri's assertion that it is ONLY on the >> international stage that Internet issues can be dealt with. I do not >> disagree with the implication that there do exist issues that require >> international attention. >> >> Just trying to restore a sense of balance to the discussion ... > > >> Regards, >> >> George ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Mon Oct 23 07:43:50 2006 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:43:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Transparency (was Re: Program for IGC@IGF) In-Reply-To: <453A33F7.7040804@zedat.fu-berlin.de> (message from Ralf Bendrath on Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:51:35 +0200) References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> <20061021083136.7C4864BC5D@quill.bollow.ch> <4539EF97.8050309@Malcolm.id.au> <20061021104709.0104A4F3D3@quill.bollow.ch> <453A33F7.7040804@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <20061023114351.108955102B@quill.bollow.ch> Ralf Bendrath wrote: > > If what needs to happen cannot reasonably be expected from the > > IGF and other existing structures, we who care about these > > matters should use the opportunity of the Athens meeting and > > launch a light-weight but accountable and transparent organizational > > process for making these things happen. > I somehow have the feeling that "lightweight" and "accountable" do not > always pull you into the same direction. Yes... in fact I suspect that the only way to get something that is at the same time lightweight and accountable will be to keep these objectives strongly in mind from the beginning, and design all processes accordingly. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Mon Oct 23 07:58:55 2006 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 07:58:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] national vs international (was Re: Program for IGC@IGF) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bill, I refer to my sense that much of the WSIS-2 process was a fight over the role of ICANN, and my feeling that many of the governments were concentrating only on that with respect to the utility of the Internet for whatever development (some social, some economic, some both) they would like to see the Internet bring to their country. To EXAGGERATE to make the point, why should a government look at internal reform when it can blame ICANN or other external forces of evil for deficiencies in how the Internet is run. I capitalize here to avoid being misquoted. In the long run, international dialogue helps to form a set of accepted standards, whether for concrete things like the shape of electrical plugs or for more abstract goals such as standards of individual respect and decency, e.g. the Geneva Convention, the right of law, etc. In the shorter run, I believe that local action is more effective and should not be dismissed, explicitly or implicitly. With respect to the Internet industry, you're right, there are no internationally applied rules. But, working back from civil society goals, if you're concerned about how the Internet furthers those goals, I think that you are led to the position that the more people who are on it, the better, and that leads to the issue of how to make it as accessible and affordable as possible for the greatest number of people. Other things weigh in her, such as privacy, consumer protection, liability issues here, but the important thing is affordable confidential access to information and communication. When we have achieved that in a country, it will act as an engine of progress in multiple dimensions. How that is achieved will be different in different countries. so if the IGF, and like-minded meetings put the spotlight on the role and importance of national practices as well as international issues, that's fine. Let's just not confuse the two. I really hadn't intended to start such a protracted discussion .... George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 11:24 AM +0200 10/23/06, William Drake wrote: >Hi George, > >> From: George Sadowsky > >> What I do disagree with is Avri's assertion that it is ONLY on the >> international stage that Internet issues can be dealt with. I do not >> disagree with the implication that there do exist issues that require >> international attention. >> >> Just trying to restore a sense of balance to the discussion ... > >It might be that there's some talking past each other going on here, so >please help me understand the thinking that started this thread: In what >sense did you think that the discussion here has been unbalanced? It sounds >like you thought that there's been a collective predilection to deny the >existence and importance of national policies and to assert that literally >all issues require international agreements. But in the cases you've >expressed particular concern about, like censorship or national regulations >and market structures affecting local access, there's been intermittent >discussion over several years in which some of us have noted that there are >no internationally applied rules per se and hence these issues are not >currently the subject IG mechanisms as defined and negotiated in the WSIS >and follow-up processes (although others have said there should be such >mechanisms, which is a different argument). Avri's response came later, >and I'm not clear whether she was saying everything requires actual >international agreements or just international dialogue; the latter can of >course be useful even in the case of issues that are primarily addressed >nationally, e.g. in promoting collective learning, best practices, policy >adjustments, etc. So what exactly is the imbalance you thought needed >correction? > >Thanks, > >Bill > > > > > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ George Sadowsky george.sadowsky at attglobal.net 64 Sweet Briar Road george.sadowsky at gmail.com Stamford, CT 06905-1514 http://www.georgesadowsky.com/ tel: +1.203.329.3288 GSM (int'l) mobile: +1.202.415.1933 Voice mail & fax: +1.203.547.6020 CDMA mobile: +1.203.219.8250 Shinkuro: sadowsky!shinkuro.com SKYPE: sadowsky ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Mon Oct 23 10:13:48 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:13:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ottawa Alternative Telecom policy forum Message-ID: <453CCE1C.1060301@lists.privaterra.org> Copy of the text from my recent blog posting on the topic. Please visit the URL below for details on the websites and/or blogs mentioned. http://wsis.civiblog.org/blog/_archives/2006/10/23/2439269.html I had the pleasure of chairing all of the sessions of the alt.telecom policy forum held in Ottawa this past weekend. It was a great meeting, and a multi-stakeholder meeting at that - having key people from Academia, civil society, Government, as well as the internet business sector. The conference proceedings were webcast and archived using KNET's Breeze application. Michael Lenczner , Alison Powell, Stephane Couture, Sascha Meinrath and Ross Rader blogged from the event. I do recommend reading their comments. The timing of the event couldn't have been better, coming days before the IGF. I will look for ways to bring ideas from the Ottawa event to Athens, and see what collaborations can be developed with key players. So all in all a great event, one that I hope people reading this list will want to know more about. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon Oct 23 10:44:59 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:44:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] national vs international (was Re: Program for IGC@IGF) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi George, > From: George Sadowsky > Bill, > > I refer to my sense that much of the WSIS-2 process was a fight over > the role of ICANN, and my feeling that many of the governments were > concentrating only on that with respect to the utility of the > Internet for whatever development (some social, some economic, some > both) they would like to see the Internet bring to their country. To > EXAGGERATE to make the point, why should a government look at > internal reform when it can blame ICANN or other external forces of > evil for deficiencies in how the Internet is run. I capitalize here > to avoid being misquoted. Ok, I thought this was probably your underlying concern, but then you framed it more broadly as a corrective to a collective presumption that everything's intrinsically global and IG, which I'd not seen at work here, so I thought I'd seek clarification. > In the long run, international dialogue helps to form a set of > accepted standards, whether for concrete things like the shape of > electrical plugs or for more abstract goals such as standards of > individual respect and decency, e.g. the Geneva Convention, the right > of law, etc. In the shorter run, I believe that local action is more > effective and should not be dismissed, explicitly or implicitly. I'd agree that for some issues, local action is more effective. But for others, international action is, or can be. And in either case, international dialogue can be useful, particularly if viewed as an opportunity rather than a threat. > With respect to the Internet industry, you're right, there are no > internationally applied rules. But, working back from civil society > goals, if you're concerned about how the Internet furthers those > goals, I think that you are led to the position that the more people > who are on it, the better, and that leads to the issue of how to make > it as accessible and affordable as possible for the greatest number > of people. Sure > Other things weigh in her, such as privacy, consumer protection, > liability issues here, but the important thing is affordable > confidential access to information and communication. When we have > achieved that in a country, it will act as an engine of progress in > multiple dimensions. Can one get to 'confidential' through purely national action, particularly when there's so much external pressure for surveillance coming from powerful governments and firms? > How that is achieved will be different in different countries. so if > the IGF, and like-minded meetings put the spotlight on the role and > importance of national practices as well as international issues, > that's fine. Let's just not confuse the two. Why don't you offer a taxonomy of which is which to help things along? > I really hadn't intended to start such a protracted discussion .... Then you posted to the wrong list;-) Cheers, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Mon Oct 23 11:04:34 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:04:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] New French Govt ICANN GAC/ Governance Rep. In-Reply-To: <453B8456.1040302@lists.privaterra.org> References: <453B8456.1040302@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <453CDA02.3020608@lists.privaterra.org> Further to my earlier message (below).... Bertrand's confirmed appointment as French Government representative for WSIS follow-up and ICANN creates thus, an opening now on the Civil society bureau (CSB) for the Internet Governance caucus (IGC). Looking at the recently adopted IG charter - i have a question. Will the caucus coordinators will server as representatives to the CSB , will a person need to be elected from within the caucus or will the IGC wish to decline serving on the CSB? Though i'd raise the issue - hope the IG caucus meeting over the next week or so can come up with a statement on what to do.. Regards Robert Robert Guerra wrote: > Attending the (Canadian) Alternative Telecommunications Policy Forum in > Ottawa this weekend I learned that our well known Bertrand de La > Chapelle is now the new French government representative for the IGF, as > well as the ICANN Government advisory committee (GAC). > > > I don't recall an announcement being made here at all, but I do trust > the authenticity of the news - as it was confirmed to me by several well > reliable sources. > > > I do wish Bertrand well in his new position. His contributions and > engagement with many of us in Civil Society will be missed. > > > regards > > Robert > > > > Ref: > > Alternative Telecommunications Policy Forum > http://www3.fis.utoronto.ca/research/iprp/cracin/alttelecompolicyforum.ca/ > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Oct 23 11:16:49 2006 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:16:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] My new appointment Message-ID: <954259bd0610230816j361b0363la8a58c50a57cb21a@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, As the Athens Forum approaches, I am looking forward to seeing you all again and continuing our debates and common endeavours. But before it takes place, I want to announce publicly on the list that things have evolved on my side recently and that I have just been appointed by the French government as its "Special Envoy for the Information Society", (in French : Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information) with the responsibility to cover the various aspects of the post-WSIS and related processes. I have decided to accept this offer to return to formal diplomatic service with the conviction that I can bring my past experiences in the business and civil society sectors to this new role and thus contribute further to the development of innovative multi-stakeholder processes, including those decided in Tunis. The present period is different from the summit years where the challenge was to get civil society accepted. Now, the multi-stakeholder principle is accepted - at least in theory - by all governements. I can therefore pursue the same vision in this new role as before : the challenge is to give life to multi-stakeholderism and make it work concretely for the benefit of the international community. I will participate in this new capacity in the upcoming Internet Governance Forum in Athens and am looking forward to seeing many of you there again and continue our interactions, including in the workshops. Best Bertrand -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon Oct 23 11:24:21 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:24:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, Responding to two of posts from Adam. > From: Adam Peake > IGF seems to be ignoring a large part of it's mandate > () It would be good to ask > why, but better to discuss how to we can start to address the > overlooked issues. (does why matter as much as improving things?) That's why I suggested a simple text asking how IGF participants intend to go about fulfilling the mandate governments set out in the TA. We're not going to get anywhere with a proposal to publicly dissect the forces that turned this www.intgovforum.org/mandate.htm into a UN-related INET. Simply asking for clarification as to whether there's any commitment to implement the agreement (and if so how) and a mandate for inter-conference WGs/dynamic coalitions would be enough to seed the clouds. And since the caucus endorsed the mandate previously, this presumably would not be a divisive or laborious effort. Parminder's questions hit the key points that have been raised but arguably are a bit longer (two pages) and more analytical than is desirable in a floor intervention; if we can prune a little and figure out how to determine rough consensus in the next couple of days, that'd be great. > If it were up to me, I'd offer space in these rooms to any workshop > organizer (there will be about 30 separate workshops in all.) They'd > have a few tables and chairs set apart from others in the room so > people who were interested in their workshop could drop by and chat > about next steps. We need to start thinking of ways to use Athens to > spark an ongoing dialogue. This is the best I can come up with. A BOF/dynamic coalition space would be good, except that I wouldn't necessarily limit this to topics covered in Athens workshops. People might want to launch groupings on other topics as well, e.g. implementation of the WSIS principles, fulfilling the IGF mandate, whatever. Maybe people could propose topics, Nitin could list from the podium so everyone knows the menu, and then people gravitate to whichever is of interest? Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Oct 23 11:36:13 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:36:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: References: <453C10FD.7040303@gmx.net> Message-ID: <453CE16D.3040907@bertola.eu.org> George Sadowsky ha scritto: > I don't claim to be able to explain the behavior of the Internet > industry in all countries, but I will claim that an unbiased competitive > environment is generally essential, and government policy matters a lot > in achieving it. I agree, but the competitive environment has proved not to be able to solve a number of problems alone - for example, thanks to the very competitive environment, our mountain and countryside villages here in Italy are not getting even reasonably stable dialup Internet connections, let alone broadband. Competition alone might not solve all problems, and policy should not just be concerned with ensuring competition. Also, we should acknowledge that in many cases it is the Internet industry itself that does a lot to prevent competition and deploy policies and technologies that thwart it: see Microsoft for operating systems, see net neutrality issues, see DRMs and trusted computing, etc. I think that some people are oversensitive to the market & competition buzzwords just because sometimes they are used to deny aspects like these, and that's why some eyebrows were raised. But no one here advocates the birth of the Global Emperor of the Internet. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Oct 23 11:59:38 2006 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:59:38 -0300 Subject: [governance] My new appointment In-Reply-To: <954259bd0610230816j361b0363la8a58c50a57cb21a@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0610230816j361b0363la8a58c50a57cb21a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <453CE6EA.9080607@rits.org.br> Congratulations, compa Bertrand! I look forward to a continuing and very fruitful dialogue. fraternal regards --c.a. Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear all, > > As the Athens Forum approaches, I am looking forward to seeing you > all again and continuing our debates and common endeavours. > > But before it takes place, I want to announce publicly on the list > that things have evolved on my side recently and that I have just > been appointed by the French government as its "Special Envoy for the > Information Society", (in French : Délégué Spécial pour la Société de > l'Information) with the responsibility to cover the various aspects > of the post-WSIS and related processes. I have decided to accept this > offer to return to formal diplomatic service with the conviction that > I can bring my past experiences in the business and civil society > sectors to this new role and thus contribute further to the > development of innovative multi-stakeholder processes, including > those decided in Tunis. > > The present period is different from the summit years where the > challenge was to get civil society accepted. Now, the > multi-stakeholder principle is accepted - at least in theory - by all > governements. I can therefore pursue the same vision in this new role > as before : the challenge is to give life to multi-stakeholderism and > make it work concretely for the benefit of the international > community. > > I will participate in this new capacity in the upcoming Internet > Governance Forum in Athens and am looking forward to seeing many of > you there again and continue our interactions, including in the > workshops. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor *************************************************************** Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br *************************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kino at iris.se Mon Oct 23 12:12:07 2006 From: kino at iris.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:12:07 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] Making the web accessible for all In-Reply-To: <20061022081152.15969.qmail@web54101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01216A37@ensms02.iris.se> Dear David, Thanks for this note. I will pass it on to others as well. Kind regards Kicki Kicki Nordström World Blind Union (WBU) Immediate Past President Chair, WBU Working Group on UN Issues c/o SRF 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kino at iris.se -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: David Goldstein [mailto:goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au] Skickat: den 22 oktober 2006 10:12 Till: Governance Mailing List Ämne: [governance] Making the web accessible for all BBC's Click technology programme has a story on its website on called "Making the web accessible for all" looking at issues for people with disabilities accessing the web. I hope these issues are discussed prominently in Athens. See more below. Cheers David Making the web accessible for all Despite many efforts to move away from those most traditional interfaces - the ubiquitous computer keyboard and mouse - they remain the bedrock on which nearly all computer interfaces rest. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/6069106.stm --------- David Goldstein address: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home) "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery ____________________________________________________ On Yahoo!7 Messenger: Share up to 1GB of files in the IM window http://au.messenger.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Oct 23 12:19:36 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:49:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061023161937.BA255DA8F0@smtp3.electricembers.net> > Parminder's questions hit the key points that have been > raised but arguably > are a bit longer (two pages) and more analytical than is > desirable in a > floor intervention; if we can prune a little and figure out > how to determine > rough consensus in the next couple of days, that'd be great. Bill, Since there is less than a week to the IGF, it will be good if someone (you??) took a go at the points to put them in a more presentable form... Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 8:54 PM > To: Peake, Adam; Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF > > Hi, > > Responding to two of posts from Adam. > > > From: Adam Peake > > > IGF seems to be ignoring a large part of it's mandate > > () It would be > good to ask > > why, but better to discuss how to we can start to address > the > > overlooked issues. (does why matter as much as improving > things?) > > That's why I suggested a simple text asking how IGF > participants intend to > go about fulfilling the mandate governments set out in the > TA. We're not > going to get anywhere with a proposal to publicly dissect the > forces that > turned this www.intgovforum.org/mandate.htm into a UN-related > INET. Simply > asking for clarification as to whether there's any commitment > to implement > the agreement (and if so how) and a mandate for inter- > conference WGs/dynamic > coalitions would be enough to seed the clouds. And since the > caucus endorsed > the mandate previously, this presumably would not be a > divisive or laborious > effort. > > Parminder's questions hit the key points that have been > raised but arguably > are a bit longer (two pages) and more analytical than is > desirable in a > floor intervention; if we can prune a little and figure out > how to determine > rough consensus in the next couple of days, that'd be great. > > > If it were up to me, I'd offer space in these rooms to any > workshop > > organizer (there will be about 30 separate workshops in > all.) They'd > > have a few tables and chairs set apart from others in the > room so > > people who were interested in their workshop could drop by > and chat > > about next steps. We need to start thinking of ways to use > Athens to > > spark an ongoing dialogue. This is the best I can come up > with. > > A BOF/dynamic coalition space would be good, except that I > wouldn't > necessarily limit this to topics covered in Athens workshops. > People might > want to launch groupings on other topics as well, e.g. > implementation of the > WSIS principles, fulfilling the IGF mandate, whatever. Maybe > people could > propose topics, Nitin could list from the podium so everyone > knows the menu, > and then people gravitate to whichever is of interest? > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Mon Oct 23 12:26:15 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:26:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] New French Govt ICANN GAC/ Governance Rep. In-Reply-To: <453CDA02.3020608@lists.privaterra.org> References: <453B8456.1040302@lists.privaterra.org> <453CDA02.3020608@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: On 23 okt 2006, at 17.04, Robert Guerra wrote: > Looking at the recently adopted IG charter - i have a question. > Will the > caucus coordinators will server as representatives to the CSB , will a > person need to be elected from within the caucus or will the IGC > wish to > decline serving on the CSB? My interpretation would be that it would be selected by a nomcom. but that take time. i would suggest asking the nomcom that selects the appeals team to also select this person. this will take time however. i have yet to find a volunteer to chair the nomcom (none of this with the charter will work without volunteers). My question, what is the bureau doing these days and how important is that we get someone on the bureau quickly? i tend to believe that if there is a bureau and it is doing something, then someone should represent the IGC. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Mon Oct 23 12:57:18 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:57:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] New French Govt ICANN GAC/ Governance Rep. In-Reply-To: References: <453B8456.1040302@lists.privaterra.org> <453CDA02.3020608@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <453CF46E.6030501@lists.privaterra.org> Avri: To be honest, i don't really know what - if anything - the CSB is doing these days. Personally, i think it's a defunct body that needs to be killed and reconstituted with a new mandate given the new reality of the post-wsis environment we find ourselves currently in. I've called for that process to start - but, entrenched CSB members seem to be content in keeping a platform to use for their own personal agendas. So what to do? What to recommend to the governance caucus... well, first it should vote on if the CSB is a valid structure to participate in, and if that vote turns out positive, then, and only then start a nomcom process. Thus the question - what is the mechanism that needs to triggered to start a discussion on the IGC position on the CSB... regards Robert Avri Doria wrote: > > On 23 okt 2006, at 17.04, Robert Guerra wrote: > >> Looking at the recently adopted IG charter - i have a question. Will the >> caucus coordinators will server as representatives to the CSB , will a >> person need to be elected from within the caucus or will the IGC wish to >> decline serving on the CSB? > > My interpretation would be that it would be selected by a nomcom. but > that take time. i would suggest asking the nomcom that selects the > appeals team to also select this person. this will take time however. > i have yet to find a volunteer to chair the nomcom (none of this with > the charter will work without volunteers). > > My question, what is the bureau doing these days and how important is > that we get someone on the bureau quickly? i tend to believe that if > there is a bureau and it is doing something, then someone should > represent the IGC. > > a. > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Oct 23 13:12:19 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:12:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] New French Govt ICANN GAC/ Governance Rep. In-Reply-To: References: <453B8456.1040302@lists.privaterra.org> <453CDA02.3020608@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <453CF7F3.1070507@bertola.eu.org> Avri Doria ha scritto: > My question, what is the bureau doing these days and how important is > that we get someone on the bureau quickly? i tend to believe that if > there is a bureau and it is doing something, then someone should > represent the IGC. I agree - in general, I would require the CSB to do the same "laundry" that we did, chartering itself in a bottom-up consensus manner, before restarting to operate. Especially given the recurring debates in the past, there needs to be a clear role for the CSB, and also a clear mechanism to define who is member, who is represented etc. Otherwise it becomes just a group of self-appointed people. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From pouzin at well.com Mon Oct 23 14:04:56 2006 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:04:56 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF Message-ID: <200610231804.k9NI4ug4002562@ares.enst.fr> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:51:34 -0400, George Sadowsky wrote: [..] >Let's also stop accepting revisionist history as anything but an admission of ignorance or unwillingness to accept the truth. Good examples of this are contained in the recent Linguistic Diversity workshop outline. As Stephane Bortzmeyer points out, and as those of us who have worked in ICT for quite a few years know, linguistic diversity has been an issue of active concern since at least the 1970's. If workshops and other discussions are not based upon an accurate understanding of history and an accurate assessment of the nature of the problem and ongoing efforts to solve it, then their proceedings and conclusions will be ignored, and correctly so, as a silly waste of time by people who don't know any better. [..] - - - Hi George, Can't you be more specific instead of resorting to insinuations. Let's recap history. My opinion on the progress of linguistic diversity in the internet is already on record: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/multilingual/papers/s9paper-pouzin.pdf There is no need to restate it entirely here, a summary should do. An early mail format (RFC733) was defined in 1977. It was ok, that is, for sending strictly ascii text. All commercial computers at this time featured 8-bit characters. Interestingly the internet format was based on 7-bit characters, thereby excluding non ascii alphabets, even though there were already ISO standards for some 8-bit alphabets. But an RFC is not a magic wand, just a milestone. A revised format (RFC822) was defined in 1982, still keeping 7 bits. Several years passed before mailers and net infrastructure became available on an operational scale. Users, actually a happy few enjoying internet access, could exchange ascii text, no more. Word processors at that time allowed to produce documents more or less in the user's own language. Stored files used 8-bit characters, but not the mail. Then users resorted to a flurry of freeware, such as BinHex, Stuffit, uuencode, to turn their documents into ascii and mail them. All that required a certain amount of manual hacking, and a minimum of technical skill, restricting the use of internet to computerese. Gradually the market became fragmented into a variety of incompatible proprietary mail packages. How long did this situation last ? TWENTY years. There was no technical roadblock. It was just a matter of picking a standard replacing a battery of similar cottage tools. Eventually, in 1991 the web was born. Not in the internet milieu, but as an internal CERN project. It was not intended for outside use. Somehow it spilled into Caltech, and from there invaded the net. Standardization in W3C was speedy and timely. Web users mushroomed, attracted by the interface simplicity. Not being computerese they needed friendly tools for exchanging documents. There was no more escape. Making a new mail standard had become unavoidable. At last a mail format (RFC1521 et al) was defined in 1993. It allowed to attach binary files in mail. Its deployment took well till the end of the 90's. It was a substantial improvement indeed. But up until today users can only write their mail name in ascii, after 35 years of internet. What else ? IDN, in 2003 ? This piece of history is just beginning. Now, may I requote you George ? >Let's also stop accepting revisionist history as anything but an admission of ignorance or unwillingness to accept the truth. Do you think the unilateral control of the internet by a single english speaking country has been fair to other languages ? Anyway, we have a lot of other important topics to study in the Linguistic Diversity workshop. Issues of alphabet formats are in ICANN turf. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Mon Oct 23 15:20:05 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:20:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] national vs international (was Re: Program for IGC@IGF) Message-ID: From: George Sadowsky > To > EXAGGERATE to make the point, why should a government look at > internal reform when it can blame ICANN or other external forces of > evil for deficiencies in how the Internet is run. I capitalize here > to avoid being misquoted. This is certainly true of some governments. But, so is the reverse: people who want to divert attention from ICANN may use national policy issues as a way to do so. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Oct 23 16:23:37 2006 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:23:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] History of multilinguism on the Internet (Was: Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <200610231804.k9NI4ug4002562@ares.enst.fr> References: <200610231804.k9NI4ug4002562@ares.enst.fr> Message-ID: <20061023202337.GA5091@sources.org> On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 08:04:56PM +0200, Louis Pouzin wrote a message of 42 lines which said: > Let's recap history. Nice. Interesting. As we say in french, some people will say that the glass is half-empty, others will say that it is half-full. And both are right. Your data is correct, for the most part, but mine was, too. You say that it took a long time to be able to be multilingual on the Internet and it is correct (and it is not over). And I insist that saying that there was no attempt on internationalization on the Internet before the WSIS is ridiculous. Let's see the details. > My opinion on the progress of linguistic diversity in the internet > is already on record: With a lot of exaggerations. Saying that "The internet was only for the happy few who could write their name in English." neglects the fact that many languages which use the Latin alphabet can be written, in a degraded form, in US-ASCII. I wrote many texts in French with ASCII, not waiting for the WSIS to do something! This was not perfect but it was possible. There are also some blatant lies, such as saying that MIME was triggered by the pressure of the Web while the first RFC on MIME was published on june 1992, more than a year before the release of Mosaic (http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/News/MosaicHistory/) and when few people besides Tim Berners-Lee have heard about the Web (the trendy thing was Gopher at this time). > All commercial computers at this time featured 8-bit characters. But there was no standard to interpret them. ISO-8859 was not defined at this time (and of course no Unicode). http://tronweb.super-nova.co.jp/characcodehist.html > Interestingly the internet format was based on 7-bit characters, There was never an "Internet format". this limit was only for email (which had to be very limited because it encompassed much more than the Internet!). Telnet and FTP never had this 7-bit limit. > Word processors at that time allowed to produce documents more or > less in the user's own language. Stored files used 8-bit characters, > but not the mail. This is again revisionism. At this time, in France, the most common way to encode composed characters was called "Extended ASCII" and was 7-bits, with the most common composed characters replacing "useless" characters like { or }. Printing a C source file always created nice surprises! > Then users resorted to a flurry of freeware, such as BinHex, > Stuffit, uuencode, to turn their documents into ascii and mail > them. All that required a certain amount of manual hacking, and a > minimum of technical skill, restricting the use of internet to > computerese. That was a general state of the Internet (and of computing in general) at this time. It was not multilingual-specific. MS-DOS command-line was regarded as user-friendly at this time. > How long did this situation last ? TWENTY years. Welcome to the real world. That's the time it takes to deploy new technologies. For instance, the In-Reply-To header was specified in RFC 822, TWENTY-FOUR YEARS ago and your mailer still does not use it and you just broke the thread and started a new one. > There was no technical roadblock. It was just a matter of picking a > standard replacing a battery of similar cottage tools. I participated in the "internationalization" of the email infrastructure in France. A small role, people like Jean-Luc Archimbauld, Serge Aumont or Pierre David were more important. But it allowed me to measure what it takes to change the world. Time and patience. Handwaving does not help. > Eventually, in 1991 the web was born. Not in the internet milieu, > but as an internal CERN project. This is also quite ridiculous. What was CERN if not part of the "Internet milieu", like all reasearch centers were? > Web users mushroomed, attracted by the interface simplicity. This is simply journalistic propaganda. Web interfaces at the beginning were complicated. Mosaic did not appear until 1994. Eudora was out before, and introduced many email users to the world of client-server software and graphical interfaces. > Do you think the unilateral control of the internet by a single > english speaking country has been fair to other languages ? Do you think that the difficulties of technical internationalization of the Internet have *anything* to do with the ISOC or ICANN? ICANN did nothing for the internationalization of the Internet, true. But it also did not take active steps against it. So, yes, it is unfair that the root of the DNS is controlled by the puppet of a specific government. But it has very little connection with the multilinguism on the Internet. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Oct 23 16:40:32 2006 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:40:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Some national, some international (Was: Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: References: <51D236B0-643B-412C-A12C-84EC2D81B011@acm.org> <7.0.0.16.2.20061020122115.033184e0@gn.apc.org> <4572EF23-998D-4A69-AC37-5BBD8FD8A92D@acm.org> <4538C6C9.9010108@Malcolm.id.au> <4538D848.1000106@Malcolm.id.au> <4538DEA1.8090906@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <20061023204032.GB10177@sources.org> On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 11:51:34AM -0400, George Sadowsky wrote a message of 115 lines which said: > that many (the great majority in my opinion) of the issues under > discussion with respect to the Internet are national and > sub-national issues, not international issues. There is no sense in saying that every issue depends on ICANN, but there is also none in saying that ICANN does not exist and that everything stays at the national level. Actually, some issues are unequivocally international in nature (management of the DNS root zone file being a typical example) and should be treated as such. I wish that the IGF concentrates on these issues. Multilinguism, for instance, is typically a non-international matter (apart from the technical standardization, which is mostly done, and a few details like IDN.IDN). It may seem a paradox but today, there is not much to ask ICANN about multilinguism (except to shut up about IDN, which would avoid many of the mistakes they made). The multilinguism now depend mostly on users (content authors, software authors, etc). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Mon Oct 23 20:53:40 2006 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:53:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] History of multilinguism on the Internet (Was: Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <20061023202337.GA5091@sources.org> References: <200610231804.k9NI4ug4002562@ares.enst.fr> <20061023202337.GA5091@sources.org> Message-ID: <453D6414.6090207@cynikal.net> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >are right. Your data is correct, for the most part, but mine was, >too. You say that it took a long time to be able to be multilingual on >the Internet and it is correct (and it is not over). And I insist that > > You can't both be correct. Louis has been around longer. His historic perspective is probably more correct then yours. Nes pas? regards joe baptista ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Mon Oct 23 23:07:20 2006 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 05:07:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] History of multilinguism on the Internet (Was: Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <453D6414.6090207@cynikal.net> References: <200610231804.k9NI4ug4002562@ares.enst.fr> <20061023202337.GA5091@sources.org> <453D6414.6090207@cynikal.net> Message-ID: <453D8368.7000704@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Joe Baptista wrote: >> it took a long time to be able to be multilingual on the Internet and >> it is correct (and it is not over). And I insist that So, can we conclude that we all are looking forward to an intersting discussion on the multilingual internet at http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=53 http://info.intgovforum.org/wksp57.php http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=59 ? Online and offline, that is. Best, Ralf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Mon Oct 23 23:53:30 2006 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 06:53:30 +0300 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <200610231804.k9NI4ug4002562@ares.enst.fr> References: <200610231804.k9NI4ug4002562@ares.enst.fr> Message-ID: <20061024035330.GA6313@tapani.tarvainen.info> On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 08:04:56PM +0200, Louis Pouzin (pouzin at well.com) wrote: > Let's recap history. Being old enough to remember the period in question, a few observations: > An early mail format (RFC733) was defined in 1977. It was ok, that > is, for sending strictly ascii text. All commercial computers at > this time featured 8-bit characters. Interestingly the internet > format was based on 7-bit characters, thereby excluding non ascii > alphabets, even though there were already ISO standards for some > 8-bit alphabets. There were solid technical reasons for the 7-bit restriction - notably, many communication channels (some still in 1990s) used the 8th bit for parity. Also, there were attempts to support some non-English languages with 7-bit characters (like ISO-646 and preceding national standards), although admittedly mostly limited to latin-based character sets. I remember only too well how long it took us to move from ISO646 to ISO8859, how hard it was, and transition to Unicode that is going on at the very moment appears to be even harder. >From my (admittedly limited) viewpoint, ASCII-ISO646-ISO8859-Unicode sequence has been rather amazingly fast considering all the hurdles in the way, barely leaving time to get used to one standard before next one comes. Thirty years is a short time. > Do you think the unilateral control of the internet by a single > english speaking country has been fair to other languages ? No, but life is not fair. Internet was born (as indeed computer) in an English-speaking country, which gives it an unfair advantage. Had it been born in some other language region, that language would now have the unfair advantage. I see no point in trying to blame anyone for history here. Let's instead concentrate on trying to make things better in the future. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Tue Oct 24 01:18:28 2006 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 01:18:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] History of multilinguism on the Internet (Was: Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <453D8368.7000704@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <200610231804.k9NI4ug4002562@ares.enst.fr> <20061023202337.GA5091@sources.org> <453D6414.6090207@cynikal.net> <453D8368.7000704@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <453DA224.8080706@cynikal.net> Ralf Bendrath wrote: > Joe Baptista wrote: > >>> it took a long time to be able to be multilingual on the Internet and >>> it is correct (and it is not over). And I insist that >> Ralf - be careful when you quote people. I ss not write the above quote you alledge to me. cheers joe > So, can we conclude that we all are looking forward to an intersting > discussion on the multilingual internet at > > http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=53 > http://info.intgovforum.org/wksp57.php > http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=59 > > ? > > Online and offline, that is. > > Best, Ralf > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 24 02:02:57 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:32:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <453CE16D.3040907@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <20061024060315.4783BDA86B@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi Vittorio, > I think that some people are oversensitive to the market & > competition > buzzwords just because sometimes they are used to deny > aspects like > these, and that's why some eyebrows were raised. Not over-sensitive, just sensitive. And for good reason. The dominant discourse and the marginalized discourse have a power relationship which I request you to understand and appreciate. For example, in my email to George, I did say - while "I know pro-competition policies are important' but... However, those of the dominant discourse don't feel the need to say the rider like - public investments too have an important role.. And then still I can be told - why do you challenge the dominant discourse, 'Why not see your own vision as a complement to it?" . while I was the one who put the sub-clause accepting the other vision . And then you can say that some people are 'over-sensitive'. It is also pertinent to note that when there is such a strong monopoly of some views and visions in some spaces - that they take the hue of being 'natural' and default - then one has to speak louder to be heard. And one may not be able afford too nuanced a balancing, which will make the main point being missed altogether. We ourselves work in field projects, in real conditions, and we know that money and private enterprise is basic to organizing any human/social activity. And that market is the key institution, and fair competition the key value, for this purpose. And in nitpicking on this issue of being labeled 'over-sensitive' I do not mean to be argumentative. I could have easily let it go by (because after all you had made strong points defending my position) but I hate an environment where anyone wanting to put this kind of position has to do it with some amount of defensiveness. If anything the onus of balance is on the other side, and also the onus of over-exploitation of the virtues of the market in manner that hurts the interests of the disadvantaged (and that there in any case is a strong business lobby to promote these issues), and therefore, if anything, the other side needs to be defensive. regards Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu.org] > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:06 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; George Sadowsky > Subject: Re: [governance] Program for IGC at IGF > > George Sadowsky ha scritto: > > I don't claim to be able to explain the behavior of the > Internet > > industry in all countries, but I will claim that an > unbiased competitive > > environment is generally essential, and government policy > matters a lot > > in achieving it. > > I agree, but the competitive environment has proved not to be > able to > solve a number of problems alone - for example, thanks to the > very > competitive environment, our mountain and countryside > villages here in > Italy are not getting even reasonably stable dialup Internet > connections, let alone broadband. Competition alone might not > solve all > problems, and policy should not just be concerned with > ensuring competition. > > Also, we should acknowledge that in many cases it is the > Internet > industry itself that does a lot to prevent competition and > deploy > policies and technologies that thwart it: see Microsoft for > operating > systems, see net neutrality issues, see DRMs and trusted > computing, etc. > > I think that some people are oversensitive to the market & > competition > buzzwords just because sometimes they are used to deny > aspects like > these, and that's why some eyebrows were raised. But no one > here > advocates the birth of the Global Emperor of the Internet. > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] > bertola.eu.org]<----- > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From avri at psg.com Tue Oct 24 02:06:15 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 08:06:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] National vs. International was Re: Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5CF48435-9DD6-4664-A9B0-7AAAEA9049CA@psg.com> Hi, On 22 okt 2006, at 22.58, George Sadowsky wrote: > Milton, > > I'm concerned with a slightly broader aspect, although my focus in > this thread is clearly upon access, in a larger sense. While many countries have made laws regarding access, this does not mean that there is any inherent right in the notions of the State to indicate that they have this right. Certainly they grabbed it at some point in history, but to perpetuate that right into the Internet age, is at best a misfortune. Yes, many countries have wrapped themselves in the rhetoric of sovereignty to claim control over communications in their countries, but i see nothing that supports such a claim of control, other then people's acquiescence and that acquiescence is bolstered by the notion that these things should be under national control. > I'm concerned about the economic health of the Internet industry in > a country, and that's very much a function of the government's > attitude toward competition, free enterprise, laissez-faire (or > not), and transparency, in procurement, in giving licenses, in > creating or destroying barriers to entry, etc.... > I do not disagree that nations have something to say about monopolies or fair trade with their borders, but these are general issues and not specifically related to the internet. Just as the issue of cyber- crime is really the issue of crime. And yet even these issues, given the nature of the internet have a tendency to be cross border issues. This is certainly the case with crime. so as time goes on, the role of nation is minimized while the role on international cooperation is increased. Now, i am not arguing against the influence of the locale. Certainly different peoples have different cultures, understandings and needs and these determine the methods in which they participate in the Internet and in Internet governance - based on the form of what a people is able to do and able to accept at a certain point in time. But this localization is not dependent on nationalization, and in most cases is suppressed by the dominant national force. > The healthier and fairer that the industry is, the more prices to > consumers of Internet services will reflect real costs and not > monopoly status, the more customers are able to trust the access > they have as being confidential, then the faster the Internet will > grow and serve the developmental goals of the country. I understand that many subscribe to this business oriented article of faith. I have not been convinced. And I have not seen any systematic studies that show this to be the case. Anecdotally it seems to me that in many localities, the cheapest access, is that provided by the community for free. This has certainly been the case in those communities that, despite the harassment by "free and fair business", have created local networks that are made available to the community either for free or at locally controlled utility level costs. > And, if the country has reasonable consumer protection legislation, > it is likely to really benefit the growth of e-commerce on the net > and not retard it. These are issues that are directly affected by > national government policy, legislation and regulation. E-commerce is certainly an International issue with agreement necessary to prevent nationalists from creating trade barriers. > > What I do disagree with is Avri's assertion that it is ONLY on the > international stage that Internet issues can be dealt with. I do > not disagree with the implication that there do exist issues that > require international attention. To the extent that nation needs to remove the regulations they have created that stiffle the growth of the internet and other ICTs, i agree, there is a role for the nations. However, i do not beleive any of them will give up their greed, corruption or nationalist interests without the pressure that can only be generated internationally. Mind you i am not arguing for intergovernmental action, though that will be an essential ingredient for the foreseeable future in international action. I am arguing that it is only with international multistakeholder intervention and pressure that things will change. > > Just trying to restore a sense of balance to the discussion ... I tend to think that you are tilting that balance very much in the business oriented direction. I am looking for a point of mulltistakeholder balance that does not favor one economic faith over another. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Tue Oct 24 02:39:48 2006 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 08:39:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] National vs. International was Re: Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <5CF48435-9DD6-4664-A9B0-7AAAEA9049CA@psg.com> References: <5CF48435-9DD6-4664-A9B0-7AAAEA9049CA@psg.com> Message-ID: <453DB534.1030708@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Avri Doria wrote: > in many localities, the cheapest access, is that provided by the > community for free. Touché. How can we feed this in the access session of the IGF? > i do not beleive any > of them will give up their greed, corruption or nationalist interests > without the pressure that can only be generated internationally. Question (not rethorically, not meant to defend national regulation): How do we fend off greed, corruption or particularist interests on the international level? > I tend to think that you are tilting that balance very much in the > business oriented direction. To you as well as to Parminder for his last post: I love to see these kind of views views on this list. It's really refreshing. R. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Oct 24 03:04:18 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:04:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] National vs. International was Re: Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <453DB534.1030708@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <5CF48435-9DD6-4664-A9B0-7AAAEA9049CA@psg.com> <453DB534.1030708@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <14761CB8-15DF-4C6E-BE2B-ED8281AD4CC6@psg.com> On 24 okt 2006, at 08.39, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > Avri Doria wrote: >> in many localities, the cheapest access, is that provided by the >> community for free. > Touché. > How can we feed this in the access session of the IGF? Not sure. but we make sure people talk about it. Business forces have certainly been fighting this trend with every weapon possible. It might be good to get together a document that list all the place where business and national government have colluded to make this more difficult or even impossible. > >> i do not beleive any of them will give up their greed, corruption >> or nationalist interests without the pressure that can only be >> generated internationally. > Question (not rethorically, not meant to defend national regulation): > How do we fend off greed, corruption or particularist interests on > the international level? I think that transparency goes a long way here. In the national setting it is very easy for the government to stifle the press and even the net. On the international stage it is more difficult, especially if groups like this keep up the pressure. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Tue Oct 24 03:44:02 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:44:02 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: <20061023161937.BA255DA8F0@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20061023161937.BA255DA8F0@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <453DC442.7090807@Malcolm.id.au> Parminder wrote: >> Parminder's questions hit the key points that have been >> raised but arguably >> are a bit longer (two pages) and more analytical than is >> desirable in a >> floor intervention; if we can prune a little and figure out >> how to determine >> rough consensus in the next couple of days, that'd be great. > > Bill, Since there is less than a week to the IGF, it will be good if someone > (you??) took a go at the points to put them in a more presentable form... Here is my attempt, based loosely on Parminder's draft but shortened and simplified and rephrased in the form of a petition. Comments, improvements? I have much less experience in intergovernmental fora than most of you so Parminder's original may be closer to what is required. Personally I would ask for more than what this petition calls for, but I am mindful of the need to foster the broadest possible consensus and I think in its present form it should be reasonably acceptable to most on this list. --- begins --- TO the Secretary-General of the United Nations AND TO the Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) CONSIDERING the IGF as one of the most important outcomes of the WSIS process, which promises to be an innovation in the arena of global governance; EXPRESSING our strong appreciation for the value that the IGF brings to global policy arena and for the work of the Secretariat and the Advisory Group to date; AND COMMITTED to our to full cooperation with an IGF process that embodies multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent principles; BUT CONCERNED that these principles not be left behind in the unavoidable haste of all parties to convene and successfully conclude the IGF's inaugural meeting in Athens; WE THE UNDERSIGNED hereby call upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations to request the Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum to fulfil its mandate to convene the IGF as a forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue in an open and inclusive process by: 1. AFFIRMING that the IGF as not merely an open space in which free discussion can take place, but rather a deliberative body whose legitimacy to occupy this role stems from its special character as a network of equal stakeholders. 2. FACILITATING the development of structures and processes within the IGF within which for such deliberation to take place, and thus enabling the IGF to fulfil its mandate given in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, including sub-paragraphs (c), (e), (g) and (k), all of which clearly bespeak an strong element of agency on the part of the IGF. 3. DEVELOPING in an open and collaborative process a structure of Working Groups for the IGF around important issues and areas, which would work on an ongoing basis, through virtual as well as face-to-face means, and would report and be accountable to the IGF at large. 4. INCREASING the transparency and inclusiveness of IGF processes, including the release of information about the manner of Advisory Group selections, their processes and outcomes, and opening these processes to receive the input of all stakeholders. 5. CONSIDERING the need for provision for the travel expenses of members from developing counties and other disadvantaged groups wishing to participate effectively in IGF deliberations, and for ensuring that the contributions of remote participants are accorded equal weight and authority as those of participants present in person. 6. INITIATING a process of enhanced cooperation for development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues, as called for by paragraphs 69, 70 and 71 of the Tunis Agenda, to be conducted within the framework of the IGF. Sincerely submitted by the undersigned, --- ends --- Amendments, additions, deletions, comments? I am leaving for Athens on Thursday so please don't delay providing feedback! If I don't receive any in time, I will print out some copies of the draft and take them with me in case they are of use as-is. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 24 03:58:16 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:28:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061024075835.4CFE15CDD@smtp2.electricembers.net> > There is no doubt in my mind that the policies that affect > the > availability of physical infrastructure in a country are > primarily > national in development and application. And they are > affected not only > by national telecom policies, they are powerfully affected by > national > economic development policies, for if people have enough > money to buy > services lots of infrastructure development issues take care > of > themselves more readily, as the Chinese have learned. Milton, One, I will prefer to make the connection to social and economic development policies and not to economic policies alone. Two, and perhaps more importantly, I think to say if people had money access problem will be solved, is a very problematic perspective from a public policy point of view (while the assertion is of course factually true). Because we see Internet access not only a thing people should be able to afford after they have become sufficiently rich (or non-poor), but we want to 'use' internet access to pull them out of poverty and other kinds of disempowerments. We need to use internet to enable them to get empowering information, to have access to public and other services etc. And all this needs to start before they 'have enough> money to buy> services'... As for the Chinese, they sure have done it wonderfully well. But you may be undermining the role of social polices that they have used. And yes, you may not approve of all of them either.. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 1:36 AM > To: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org; > Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Program for IGC at IGF > > This is an interesting discussion. I find myself agreeing > with both Avri > and George. The positions can be reconciled by noting that > George is > talking mainly about the relationship between Internet access > and the > physical layer (wireless, broadband and other forms of > infrastructure > development) whereas Avri is refrring to "the Internet" as a > whole which > is of course global in scope and a layer 3 issue. > > There is no doubt in my mind that the policies that affect > the > availability of physical infrastructure in a country are > primarily > national in development and application. And they are > affected not only > by national telecom policies, they are powerfully affected by > national > economic development policies, for if people have enough > money to buy > services lots of infrastructure development issues take care > of > themselves more readily, as the Chinese have learned. > > > > >>> george.sadowsky at attglobal.net 10/22/2006 9:01:20 AM >>> > Avri, > > Let's look at access policy _within_ a country, e.g. > licensing of > ISPs, decisions with regard to ISP liability, monopoly > telecomm > carriers, not-level playing fields, licensing of ISPs, > licensing of > wireless frequencies and devices. etc. These are all issues > of > national policy. > > It may be that international best practices can provide good > guidelines, but these are more likely to be de facto > standards set by > industry than the result of intergovernmental action. > > Perhaps we have different definitions of policy. > > George > > At 12:04 AM +0200 10/22/06, Avri Doria wrote: > >Hi, > > > >On 21 okt 2006, at 21.11, George Sadowsky wrote: > > > >>What I am reacting to is what I observe is the conventional > wisdom > >>that I find faulty: that Internet governance and related > Internet > >>issues are essentially international in character, > > > > > >I disagree. I think it is only on the international stage > that > >governance and other Internet issues can be dealt. I don't > believe > >that it is up to governments to do it though i do see them > having > >some role. i don't believe there is is any right of nations > to make > >policy vis a vis the Internet. They may do so, and they > even get > >away with it at the moment, but i think we lose a major > battle the > >second we start to believe that they have some _right_ to do > so. I > >tend to view the IGF and other international, but not > >intergovernemental, organizations as a bulwark against the > >continuing nationalization of the Internet. > > > >>that wanted to emasculate ICANN > > > >interesting image, but i do not see what being masculine, or > having > >masculine external attributes, has to do with being an > effective > >international organization. not that i am prepared to argue > that > >the current ICANN incarnation is particularly effective, > though i > >think that has more to do with its form of governance and > its lack > >of freedom from national and other government pressure. > > > >a. > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nb at bollow.ch Tue Oct 24 04:52:20 2006 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:52:20 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] National vs. International was Re: Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <14761CB8-15DF-4C6E-BE2B-ED8281AD4CC6@psg.com> (message from Avri Doria on Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:04:18 +0200) References: <5CF48435-9DD6-4664-A9B0-7AAAEA9049CA@psg.com> <453DB534.1030708@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <14761CB8-15DF-4C6E-BE2B-ED8281AD4CC6@psg.com> Message-ID: <20061024085220.585014B827@quill.bollow.ch> Avri Doria wrote: > On 24 okt 2006, at 08.39, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > > How do we fend off greed, corruption or particularist interests on > > the international level? > > I think that transparency goes a long way here. Strongly agreed. > In the national setting it is very easy for the government to stifle > the press and even the net. On the international stage it is more > difficult, especially if groups like this keep up the pressure. My observation here in Central Europe is that the influence of greedy particularist interests seems to be much stronger for policy decisions which are coordinated internationally than for those which are only discussed nationally. The reason seems to be that at the national level, there are well-established democratic traditions with free, independent media, well-defined rules for transparency, checks and balances, and accountability of governments to national parliaments. Much of this is not yet so well-developed at the international level, resulting in an increased success likelihood of the lobbying efforts of greedy monopolistic companies. For an ICT-related example in the EU, see http://NoBananaUnion.com/en/swpat-directive Here in Switzerland, a very similar process of political-ideological manipulation is at work related to the current revision process of the copyright law, where e.g. the attempt is made to manipulate politicians as well as the general public into thinking that we have to adopt legal protection for DRM systems because of "international standards". Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Tue Oct 24 06:08:01 2006 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:08:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] My new appointment In-Reply-To: <453CE6EA.9080607@rits.org.br> References: <954259bd0610230816j361b0363la8a58c50a57cb21a@mail.gmail.com> <453CE6EA.9080607@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Congratulations Bertrand. Responsible Governments always acknowledge talents, so, yours is a responsible government. More greese to your elbows Aaron On 10/23/06, Carlos Afonso wrote: > Congratulations, compa Bertrand! I look forward to a continuing and very > fruitful dialogue. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > As the Athens Forum approaches, I am looking forward to seeing you > > all again and continuing our debates and common endeavours. > > > > But before it takes place, I want to announce publicly on the list > > that things have evolved on my side recently and that I have just > > been appointed by the French government as its "Special Envoy for the > > Information Society", (in French : Délégué Spécial pour la Société de > > l'Information) with the responsibility to cover the various aspects > > of the post-WSIS and related processes. I have decided to accept this > > offer to return to formal diplomatic service with the conviction that > > I can bring my past experiences in the business and civil society > > sectors to this new role and thus contribute further to the > > development of innovative multi-stakeholder processes, including > > those decided in Tunis. > > > > The present period is different from the summit years where the > > challenge was to get civil society accepted. Now, the > > multi-stakeholder principle is accepted - at least in theory - by all > > governements. I can therefore pursue the same vision in this new role > > as before : the challenge is to give life to multi-stakeholderism and > > make it work concretely for the benefit of the international > > community. > > > > I will participate in this new capacity in the upcoming Internet > > Governance Forum in Athens and am looking forward to seeing many of > > you there again and continue our interactions, including in the > > workshops. > > > > Best > > > > Bertrand > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You > > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > diretor de planejamento > Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor > *************************************************************** > Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital > com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o > Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: > www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br > *************************************************************** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President ASAFE Tel. 237 337 50 22 Fax. 237 342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Tue Oct 24 07:06:20 2006 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 07:06:20 -0400 Subject: FW: [governance] Effective participation .... Message-ID: Interesting and useful discussion overall but I guess I'm a bit troubled by the dog that isn't barking... Nana made an effective case that those from LDC's and particularly Africa won't be able to participate in the IGF for financial reasons and Anriette and McTim moved that discussion along discussing some of the perhaps deeper reasons for a lack of participation from Africa (and elsewhere I would say). What troubles me though is a lack of discussion of what exactly those who are planning to go expect to get out of the trip (and I understand that roughly 1000 people, not including myself) are going to be there? My guess is a fairly large number of those attending are expecting that some of the activities and outputs of the Forum will have some sort of influence over the medium and longer (maybe even short term but no one seems to be expecting that) on Internet Governance issues globally, and possibly even (directly or indirectly) telecom regulatory issues and so on and so on. That having been said then the question now becomes is this an appropriate venue/are these the appropriate actors to be involved in these processes (as for example "creating consensus around xyz"). Also, is this not part of an on-going but truly unseemly process of privatizing public policy making (in this case at the global level). Notably as in this instance with self-selected actors--with no visible accountability to anyone apart from themselves and whoever is paying their travel bills--taking (or sharing) responsibility for creating policy/policy consensus/policy frameworks for everyone else (recognizing that most of the "everyone else" will never have an opportunity either directly, indirectly or even peripherally to influence these discussions as for example, through elected representatives or spokespeople with some degree of accountability to a real constituency). I'm thinking quite specifically here for example, of what appears to be the almost complete absence of those who might benefit most from let's call it ICT 4 all and some of whom at least are currently engaged in attempting to create that reality for themselves. Given already noted resource constraints, lack of awareness or knowledge of how the issues might impact, an overall lack of human resources, and so on, the participation from those beyond the relatively small circle of usual suspects will be minimal. I guess the lack of concern around these issues and of the absence of any effort to ensure that there is broader inclusion outside of the immediate circle of those previously involved is a symptom of something that should be (but evidently is not) of deep concern to those with an interest in or commitment to "civil society". So I have to ask the question again... What do people expect to be achieved in Athens? Insofar as anything is achieved then I'm very curious as to how this can be legitimated within any overall concept of democratic participation and decision making. If nothing is achieved then enjoy the skiing/whoops snorkelling. On to Davos, MG ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Tue Oct 24 08:06:33 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:06:33 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: <453DC442.7090807@Malcolm.id.au> References: <20061023161937.BA255DA8F0@smtp3.electricembers.net> <453DC442.7090807@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <453E01C9.1060207@Malcolm.id.au> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Parminder wrote: >> Bill, Since there is less than a week to the IGF, it will be good if >> someone >> (you??) took a go at the points to put them in a more presentable form... > > Here is my attempt, based loosely on Parminder's draft but shortened and > simplified and rephrased in the form of a petition. Here, just as a proof of concept for now (there are no links to it yet, pending comments from the list) is an online version of the petition: http://igfwatch.org/petition The text is identical to the version I sent to the list (except I noticed I had two "within"s close together so I changed one of them). -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Oct 24 08:35:11 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:35:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] Caucus Contribution to IGF "Synthesis Papers"? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: IGF Secretariat has published a synthesis paper of comments received on IGF -- see top of the page Available in UN languages. Adam >> >>> From: "Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp)" >>> Reply-To: , "Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp)" >>> >>> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:48:51 +0900 >>> To: >>> Cc: Robin Gross >>> Subject: Re: [governance] IP Justice Call for Participation at UN Internet >>> Governance Forum: 15 July Deadline for Contribution to IGF >>>"Synthesis Papers" >>> >>> Robin, thanks for posting this. >> > >>> Just a couple of days to the deadline for paper -- July 15. Would be >>> a shame if the caucus didn't submit something. >>> >>> These papers will be made available on the IGF website, will be >> > summarized by the secretariat and the summary translated into UN >>> languages. They will be the main written contributions to the IGF >>> Athens meeting. I don't know how many have been received so far, but >>> I have a feeling not too many. >>> >>> Think it would be particularly helpful to see comments on the WSIS >>> principles, strengthening of participation in Internet governance >>> mechanisms, etc i.e. issues covered in para 72 of the Tunis Agenda. >>> We've written a lot on this before, it's pretty much agreed text so >>> long as edited carefully and no one tries to squeeze in something too >>> new... >>> >>> The Advisory Group has focused on other thematic issues, the para 72 >>> stuff not well covered. We have a lot of old text on this, both from >>> caucus and members (Bill and I think Wolfgang in particular.) If few >>> papers are received then anything sent could have an impact. >>> >>> Comments on the nature of IGF --multi-stakeholder, working groups, etc >>> etc -- could also be a useful contribution. Again, we've plenty of >>> text on this. >>> >>> Please don't miss this opportunity. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Tue Oct 24 08:41:31 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:41:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: <453DC442.7090807@Malcolm.id.au> References: <20061023161937.BA255DA8F0@smtp3.electricembers.net> <453DC442.7090807@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <453E09FB.7050507@bertola.eu.org> Jeremy Malcolm ha scritto: > Here is my attempt, based loosely on Parminder's draft but shortened and > simplified and rephrased in the form of a petition. Comments, First of all, I don't like the "intimidating" style, with premises, lists and capitalized words... I would do something less formal, for example in the form of a letter. Something like: "We consider the IGF as one... and express... We are committed to... . However, we are concerned that..." As for the substance: > TO the Secretary-General of the United Nations > AND TO the Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) > > CONSIDERING the IGF as one of the most important outcomes of the WSIS > process, which promises to be an innovation in the arena of global > governance; > > EXPRESSING our strong appreciation for the value that the IGF brings to > global policy arena and for the work of the Secretariat and the Advisory > Group to date; > > AND COMMITTED to our to full cooperation with an IGF process that > embodies multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent > principles; > > BUT CONCERNED that these principles not be left behind in the > unavoidable haste of all parties to convene and successfully conclude > the IGF's inaugural meeting in Athens; > > WE THE UNDERSIGNED hereby call upon the Secretary-General of the United > Nations to request the Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum to > fulfil its mandate to convene the IGF as a forum for multi-stakeholder > policy dialogue in an open and inclusive process by: > > 1. AFFIRMING that the IGF as not merely an open space in which free > discussion can take place, For what we see until now, it is not even that. "Free discussion" means that any interested person can have a chance to talk, which is not what is going to happen in Athens - not by anyone's fault, but for the formula that was chosen. Let me give it a try: "The first instance of the IGF has apparently been conceived on the model of an international conference, with pre-arranged panelists instructing the audience on pre-defined themes, and limited opportunities for participants to express their views, or to raise other issues. While we appreciate the effort, we would like to ensure that any stakeholder has sufficient opportunities to express views, raise issues of concern, gather interest in them, and get them addressed at the IGF or forwarded to the appropriate venue. In other words, we would like to stress the importance of replacing top-down organizational models with bottom-up procedures, where a sufficient number of participants can put issues on the agenda and start working on them." (too long?) > but rather a deliberative body whose > legitimacy to occupy this role stems from its special character as a > network of equal stakeholders. Rather than "deliberative" (that usually implies some power and scares anti-regulatory people), I would say something like "We see the IGF as a body that can promote and confirm consensus on non-binding policy recommendations, as per part (g) of its mandate, given the legitimacy stemming from the Tunis agreements and from its special character as a network of equal stakeholders." > 2. FACILITATING the development of structures and processes within the > IGF within which for such deliberation to take place, and thus enabling > the IGF to fulfil its mandate given in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, > including sub-paragraphs (c), (e), (g) and (k), all of which clearly > bespeak an strong element of agency on the part of the IGF. > > 3. DEVELOPING in an open and collaborative process a structure of > Working Groups for the IGF around important issues and areas, which > would work on an ongoing basis, through virtual as well as face-to-face > means, and would report and be accountable to the IGF at large. > > 4. INCREASING the transparency and inclusiveness of IGF processes, > including the release of information about the manner of Advisory Group > selections, their processes and outcomes, and opening these processes to > receive the input of all stakeholders. I would rather state a revolutionary (in the UN environment) but very important principle: that civil society representatives in the AG and any other groups should be self-selected by civil society itself, under transparent and accountable procedures. I would add that the IGC has chartered itself to ensure such procedures for what pertains to its own participation. I would also add that we are dissatisfied with the very limited representation of civil society (excluding the technical & academic community, which was eventually treated as a fourth group and is actually much better represented than us) in the current AG, only 4-5 individuals on 46. We should perhaps even say that we expect one fourth of the group to come from CS. > 5. CONSIDERING the need for provision for the travel expenses of members > from developing counties and other disadvantaged groups wishing to > participate effectively in IGF deliberations, and for ensuring that the > contributions of remote participants are accorded equal weight and > authority as those of participants present in person. > > 6. INITIATING a process of enhanced cooperation for development of > globally-applicable principles on public policy issues, as called for by > paragraphs 69, 70 and 71 of the Tunis Agenda, to be conducted within > the framework of the IGF. > > Sincerely submitted by the undersigned, In the overall, I think it's a good petition. But I'd like to understand whether there's consensus on it - even if, I guess, we could get a lot of signatories during the meeting (especially if we don't make it too radical) and thus we should deliver it on the last day. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Oct 24 09:05:56 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:05:56 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: <453E09FB.7050507@bertola.eu.org> References: <20061023161937.BA255DA8F0@smtp3.electricembers.net> <453DC442.7090807@Malcolm.id.au> <453E09FB.7050507@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: On 10/24/06, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Jeremy Malcolm ha scritto: > > Here is my attempt, based loosely on Parminder's draft but shortened and > > simplified and rephrased in the form of a petition. Comments, > "The first instance of the IGF has apparently been conceived on the > model of an international conference, with pre-arranged panelists > instructing the audience on pre-defined themes, and limited > opportunities for participants to express their views, or to raise other > issues. While we appreciate the effort, we would like to ensure that any > stakeholder has sufficient opportunities to express views, raise issues > of concern, gather interest in them, and get them addressed at the IGF > or forwarded to the appropriate venue. In other words, we would like to > stress the importance of replacing top-down organizational models with > bottom-up procedures, where a sufficient number of participants can put > issues on the agenda and start working on them." > > (too long?) > > > but rather a deliberative body whose > > legitimacy to occupy this role stems from its special character as a > > network of equal stakeholders. > > Rather than "deliberative" (that usually implies some power and scares > anti-regulatory people), I would say something like "We see the IGF as a > body that can promote and confirm consensus on non-binding policy > recommendations, as per part (g) of its mandate, given the legitimacy > stemming from the Tunis agreements and from its special character as a > network of equal stakeholders." better than the original IMHO -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Tue Oct 24 09:12:31 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:12:31 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: <453E09FB.7050507@bertola.eu.org> References: <20061023161937.BA255DA8F0@smtp3.electricembers.net> <453DC442.7090807@Malcolm.id.au> <453E09FB.7050507@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <453E113F.2090702@Malcolm.id.au> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Jeremy Malcolm ha scritto: >> Here is my attempt, based loosely on Parminder's draft but shortened >> and simplified and rephrased in the form of a petition. Comments, > > First of all, I don't like the "intimidating" style, with premises, > lists and capitalized words... I would do something less formal, for > example in the form of a letter. Something like: "We consider the IGF as > one... and express... We are committed to... . However, we are concerned > that..." Would you have time to make the suggested changes yourself to the online version at http://igfwatch.org/petition/? Log in with "vb" and "temp01" then click "Turn admin on" and then the "Edit" button nearest to the title of the petition. Important: change your password as soon as you log in because I've just posted it on a public mailing list. :-) Anyone else who wishes for access to edit the text can email me and I'll set it up. Treat it like a wiki: don't be afraid to make changes, but note that all changes are logged and that it is trivial to roll them back if you make a mistake. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Oct 24 09:15:07 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:15:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: <453E09FB.7050507@bertola.eu.org> References: <20061023161937.BA255DA8F0@smtp3.electricembers.net> <453DC442.7090807@Malcolm.id.au> <453E09FB.7050507@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: We participate in IGF as equals. It's a place for collaboration and discussion. Why are you petitioning anyone? Petitioning seems to miss the whole point of IGF. It's Groundhog Day and we're at a WSIS prepcom? Instead ask questions, make suggestions. Write them down now, send them to the secretariat. Ask MAG members to give them to moderators of sessions (I promise to do what I can... with minimal editorial. But do cut point 6 :-) Blog the comments and hope they are picked up as part of remote participation/"blogsphere". etc. Adam () At 2:41 PM +0200 10/24/06, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Jeremy Malcolm ha scritto: >>Here is my attempt, based loosely on Parminder's draft but >>shortened and simplified and rephrased in the form of a petition. >>Comments, > >First of all, I don't like the "intimidating" style, with premises, >lists and capitalized words... I would do something less formal, for >example in the form of a letter. Something like: "We consider the >IGF as one... and express... We are committed to... . However, we >are concerned that..." > >As for the substance: > >>TO the Secretary-General of the United Nations >>AND TO the Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) >> >>CONSIDERING the IGF as one of the most important outcomes of the >>WSIS process, which promises to be an innovation in the arena of >>global governance; >> >>EXPRESSING our strong appreciation for the value that the IGF >>brings to global policy arena and for the work of the Secretariat >>and the Advisory Group to date; >> >>AND COMMITTED to our to full cooperation with an IGF process that >>embodies multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and >>transparent principles; >> >>BUT CONCERNED that these principles not be left behind in the >>unavoidable haste of all parties to convene and successfully >>conclude the IGF's inaugural meeting in Athens; >> >>WE THE UNDERSIGNED hereby call upon the Secretary-General of the >>United Nations to request the Secretariat of the Internet >>Governance Forum to fulfil its mandate to convene the IGF as a >>forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue in an open and >>inclusive process by: >> >>1. AFFIRMING that the IGF as not merely an open space in which free >>discussion can take place, > >For what we see until now, it is not even that. "Free discussion" >means that any interested person can have a chance to talk, which is >not what is going to happen in Athens - not by anyone's fault, but >for the formula that was chosen. Let me give it a try: > >"The first instance of the IGF has apparently been conceived on the >model of an international conference, with pre-arranged panelists >instructing the audience on pre-defined themes, and limited >opportunities for participants to express their views, or to raise >other issues. While we appreciate the effort, we would like to >ensure that any stakeholder has sufficient opportunities to express >views, raise issues of concern, gather interest in them, and get >them addressed at the IGF or forwarded to the appropriate venue. In >other words, we would like to stress the importance of replacing >top-down organizational models with bottom-up procedures, where a >sufficient number of participants can put issues on the agenda and >start working on them." > >(too long?) > >>but rather a deliberative body whose legitimacy to occupy this role >>stems from its special character as a network of equal stakeholders. > >Rather than "deliberative" (that usually implies some power and >scares anti-regulatory people), I would say something like "We see >the IGF as a body that can promote and confirm consensus on >non-binding policy recommendations, as per part (g) of its mandate, >given the legitimacy stemming from the Tunis agreements and from its >special character as a network of equal stakeholders." > >>2. FACILITATING the development of structures and processes within >>the IGF within which for such deliberation to take place, and thus >>enabling the IGF to fulfil its mandate given in paragraph 72 of the >>Tunis Agenda, including sub-paragraphs (c), (e), (g) and (k), all >>of which clearly bespeak an strong element of agency on the part of >>the IGF. >> >>3. DEVELOPING in an open and collaborative process a structure of >>Working Groups for the IGF around important issues and areas, which >>would work on an ongoing basis, through virtual as well as >>face-to-face means, and would report and be accountable to the IGF >>at large. >> >>4. INCREASING the transparency and inclusiveness of IGF processes, >>including the release of information about the manner of Advisory >>Group selections, their processes and outcomes, and opening these >>processes to receive the input of all stakeholders. > >I would rather state a revolutionary (in the UN environment) but >very important principle: that civil society representatives in the >AG and any other groups should be self-selected by civil society >itself, under transparent and accountable procedures. I would add >that the IGC has chartered itself to ensure such procedures for what >pertains to its own participation. > >I would also add that we are dissatisfied with the very limited >representation of civil society (excluding the technical & academic >community, which was eventually treated as a fourth group and is >actually much better represented than us) in the current AG, only >4-5 individuals on 46. We should perhaps even say that we expect one >fourth of the group to come from CS. > >>5. CONSIDERING the need for provision for the travel expenses of >>members from developing counties and other disadvantaged groups >>wishing to participate effectively in IGF deliberations, and for >>ensuring that the contributions of remote participants are accorded >>equal weight and authority as those of participants present in >>person. >> >>6. INITIATING a process of enhanced cooperation for development of >>globally-applicable principles on public policy issues, as called >>for by paragraphs 69, 70 and 71 of the Tunis Agenda, to be >>conducted within the framework of the IGF. >> >>Sincerely submitted by the undersigned, > >In the overall, I think it's a good petition. But I'd like to >understand whether there's consensus on it - even if, I guess, we >could get a lot of signatories during the meeting (especially if we >don't make it too radical) and thus we should deliver it on the last >day. >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Tue Oct 24 09:26:06 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:26:06 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: References: <20061023161937.BA255DA8F0@smtp3.electricembers.net> <453DC442.7090807@Malcolm.id.au> <453E09FB.7050507@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <453E146E.9020108@Malcolm.id.au> Adam Peake wrote: > Petitioning seems to miss the whole point of IGF. It's Groundhog Day and > we're at a WSIS prepcom? Doesn't really bother me if it's framed as a petition or something else, but the main benefit of a petition is that we have an idea of how many people are in agreement, and that one or two objectors within IGC aren't going to break it. > Instead ask questions, make suggestions. Write them down now, send them > to the secretariat. Most of the time that is to send them into a very deep black hole (I speak from experience). > Ask MAG members to give them to moderators of > sessions (I promise to do what I can... with minimal editorial. But do > cut point 6 :-) Blog the comments and hope they are picked up as part > of remote participation/"blogsphere". etc. Doing that too (in the past week I've blogged on CircleID, at IGFWatch.org, at igf2006.info, commented on other blogs and mailing lists, recorded a 5 minute video, and I forget what else). I still think a petition has certain advantages these don't. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Tue Oct 24 09:33:36 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:33:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: <453E113F.2090702@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Hello, > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Would you have time to make the suggested changes yourself to the online > version at http://igfwatch.org/petition/? Log in with "vb" and "temp01" > then click "Turn admin on" and then the "Edit" button nearest to the > title of the petition. The petition is nicely done. Nevertheless, with all due respect, I don't think it provides an appropriate starting point for a caucus statement. Three concerns: 1) To put it bluntly, I fear it could elicit giggles and grumbles if the caucus were to adopt the same style governments use in UN declaration, replete with committing, considering, affirming, etc. phraseology. A little too self-important for a motley crew of humble CS types. 2) We're not "petitioning" royals to hear our case, we're stating our position. 3) If we hit too many points, none will resonate or be taken up subsequently. I think we should shoot for three maximum. A couple of people have suggested I take a crack at it, so I will send something fairly brief in the next hour or two. Will read the list first to see if there are suggestions to fold in. Then we can rip apart this version as well;-) BD ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 24 09:54:51 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:24:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061024135508.2749CC9528@smtp1.electricembers.net> Adam > Why are you petitioning anyone? I can agree that we can call it a submission or something, BUT on > We participate in IGF as equals. I think we shouldn't take this myth too far... And I say it not as a complaint. (I discussed the logic of it in an earlier email.) It is inevitable. We all often regret it being a conference and then at the same time promote it as a conference, and this is something I am unable to understand. And if it is anything other than a conference it has to have an institutional character with some degree of 'body' and 'agency'. And immediately then there also is a relationship of the institution to, shall I say, its constituency. However participative or representative of the constituency, at one level a relationship of 'otherness' remains. That has to be true of any institution whatsoever. It's a place for > collaboration and > discussion. Yes. But we have been speaking of whether it is more than that, and if it has the capacity for performing other functions that I listed out specifically with respect to its Tunis mandate. > Instead ask questions, make suggestions. Write them down now, > send > them to the secretariat. Ask MAG members to give them to > moderators > of sessions. That should be fine. But what happen if everyone just simply agrees that all this is right and makes sense, and that something should be done about it. And leaving the onus of 'doing it' on the 'unknown' other. We can then go home from Athens with the knowledge of the righteousness of our stand and little more. There must be someone or something that is answerable about the non-fulfillment of the WSIS mandate. Now if you say each one of us equally is - I refuse responsibility :-). So please tell me whom to ask.. > But do cut point 6 :-) As I wrote it originally this point was not mainly about asking the IGF to initiate the process (which though can be considered). But since IGF has the mandate to kind of look at WSIS principles being observed etc, I see it as a forum to ask questions about unfulfilled mandates from the WSIS, especially when the mandate is given to the UN secretary general to initiate the process by a very specifically given date, and IGF is in advisory position to the UN SC. Why should the question of an unfulfilled mandate not be asked? Or is it the view that either globally applicable public policy principles for the Internet are not required, or that the present system (if there is any) is adequate to the purpose. I strongly believe that it is not. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:45 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF > > We participate in IGF as equals. It's a place for > collaboration and > discussion. > > Why are you petitioning anyone? > > Petitioning seems to miss the whole point of IGF. It's > Groundhog Day > and we're at a WSIS prepcom? > > Instead ask questions, make suggestions. Write them down now, > send > them to the secretariat. Ask MAG members to give them to > moderators > of sessions (I promise to do what I can... with minimal > editorial. > But do cut point 6 :-) Blog the comments and hope they are > picked up > as part of remote participation/"blogsphere". etc. > > Adam > > () > > > > At 2:41 PM +0200 10/24/06, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >Jeremy Malcolm ha scritto: > >>Here is my attempt, based loosely on Parminder's draft but > >>shortened and simplified and rephrased in the form of a > petition. > >>Comments, > > > >First of all, I don't like the "intimidating" style, with > premises, > >lists and capitalized words... I would do something less > formal, for > >example in the form of a letter. Something like: "We > consider the > >IGF as one... and express... We are committed to... . > However, we > >are concerned that..." > > > >As for the substance: > > > >>TO the Secretary-General of the United Nations > >>AND TO the Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum > (IGF) > >> > >>CONSIDERING the IGF as one of the most important outcomes > of the > >>WSIS process, which promises to be an innovation in the > arena of > >>global governance; > >> > >>EXPRESSING our strong appreciation for the value that the > IGF > >>brings to global policy arena and for the work of the > Secretariat > >>and the Advisory Group to date; > >> > >>AND COMMITTED to our to full cooperation with an IGF > process that > >>embodies multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and > >>transparent principles; > >> > >>BUT CONCERNED that these principles not be left behind in > the > >>unavoidable haste of all parties to convene and > successfully > >>conclude the IGF's inaugural meeting in Athens; > >> > >>WE THE UNDERSIGNED hereby call upon the Secretary-General > of the > >>United Nations to request the Secretariat of the Internet > >>Governance Forum to fulfil its mandate to convene the IGF > as a > >>forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue in an open and > >>inclusive process by: > >> > >>1. AFFIRMING that the IGF as not merely an open space in > which free > >>discussion can take place, > > > >For what we see until now, it is not even that. "Free > discussion" > >means that any interested person can have a chance to talk, > which is > >not what is going to happen in Athens - not by anyone's > fault, but > >for the formula that was chosen. Let me give it a try: > > > >"The first instance of the IGF has apparently been conceived > on the > >model of an international conference, with pre-arranged > panelists > >instructing the audience on pre-defined themes, and limited > >opportunities for participants to express their views, or to > raise > >other issues. While we appreciate the effort, we would like > to > >ensure that any stakeholder has sufficient opportunities to > express > >views, raise issues of concern, gather interest in them, and > get > >them addressed at the IGF or forwarded to the appropriate > venue. In > >other words, we would like to stress the importance of > replacing > >top-down organizational models with bottom-up procedures, > where a > >sufficient number of participants can put issues on the > agenda and > >start working on them." > > > >(too long?) > > > >>but rather a deliberative body whose legitimacy to occupy > this role > >>stems from its special character as a network of equal > stakeholders. > > > >Rather than "deliberative" (that usually implies some power > and > >scares anti-regulatory people), I would say something like > "We see > >the IGF as a body that can promote and confirm consensus on > >non-binding policy recommendations, as per part (g) of its > mandate, > >given the legitimacy stemming from the Tunis agreements and > from its > >special character as a network of equal stakeholders." > > > >>2. FACILITATING the development of structures and processes > within > >>the IGF within which for such deliberation to take place, > and thus > >>enabling the IGF to fulfil its mandate given in paragraph > 72 of the > >>Tunis Agenda, including sub-paragraphs (c), (e), (g) and > (k), all > >>of which clearly bespeak an strong element of agency on the > part of > >>the IGF. > >> > >>3. DEVELOPING in an open and collaborative process a > structure of > >>Working Groups for the IGF around important issues and > areas, which > >>would work on an ongoing basis, through virtual as well as > >>face-to-face means, and would report and be accountable to > the IGF > >>at large. > >> > >>4. INCREASING the transparency and inclusiveness of IGF > processes, > >>including the release of information about the manner of > Advisory > >>Group selections, their processes and outcomes, and opening > these > >>processes to receive the input of all stakeholders. > > > >I would rather state a revolutionary (in the UN environment) > but > >very important principle: that civil society representatives > in the > >AG and any other groups should be self-selected by civil > society > >itself, under transparent and accountable procedures. I > would add > >that the IGC has chartered itself to ensure such procedures > for what > >pertains to its own participation. > > > >I would also add that we are dissatisfied with the very > limited > >representation of civil society (excluding the technical & > academic > >community, which was eventually treated as a fourth group > and is > >actually much better represented than us) in the current AG, > only > >4-5 individuals on 46. We should perhaps even say that we > expect one > >fourth of the group to come from CS. > > > >>5. CONSIDERING the need for provision for the travel > expenses of > >>members from developing counties and other disadvantaged > groups > >>wishing to participate effectively in IGF deliberations, > and for > >>ensuring that the contributions of remote participants are > accorded > >>equal weight and authority as those of participants present > in > >>person. > >> > >>6. INITIATING a process of enhanced cooperation for > development of > >>globally-applicable principles on public policy issues, as > called > >>for by paragraphs 69, 70 and 71 of the Tunis Agenda, to be > >>conducted within the framework of the IGF. > >> > >>Sincerely submitted by the undersigned, > > > >In the overall, I think it's a good petition. But I'd like > to > >understand whether there's consensus on it - even if, I > guess, we > >could get a lot of signatories during the meeting > (especially if we > >don't make it too radical) and thus we should deliver it on > the last > >day. > >-- > >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] > bertola.eu.org]<----- > >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From vb at bertola.eu.org Tue Oct 24 09:58:13 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:58:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: <453E113F.2090702@Malcolm.id.au> References: <20061023161937.BA255DA8F0@smtp3.electricembers.net> <453DC442.7090807@Malcolm.id.au> <453E09FB.7050507@bertola.eu.org> <453E113F.2090702@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <453E1BF5.7020908@bertola.eu.org> Jeremy Malcolm ha scritto: > Would you have time to make the suggested changes yourself to the online > version at http://igfwatch.org/petition/? Ok, this is my try. About "petitioning", I addressed the document to "all fellow IGF participants", I think that is more in line with Adam's observations. In the end, while I support it, I think that the point on ICANN & enhanced cooperation (which is a substance point where there is lots of heated disagreement) does not really fit with the rest, which is all on process. Perhaps it could be pruned? In general, this is now too long and I agree with Bill that we might want to shorten it and only focus on a few key points, I'd say full respect of the mandate, deliberative processes, working groups, and AG representation. We could easily strike the entire two initial paras, for example. Here it is. ======= To all fellow participants to the Internet Governance Forum: We consider the IGF as one of the most important outcomes of the WSIS process, which promises to be an innovation in the arena of global governance; and we would like to express our strong appreciation for the value that the IGF brings to global policy arena and for the hard work of the Secretariat and the Advisory Group to date. While we are committed to full cooperation with an IGF process that embodies multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent principles, we are however concerned that these principles are not left behind in the unavoidable haste of all parties to convene and successfully conclude the IGF's inaugural meeting in Athens. We would then like to raise to the attention of all fellow IGF participants and stakeholders a few key points, and ask for them to be collectively received and implemented in Athens and beyond. First of all, the first instance of the IGF has apparently been conceived on the model of an international conference, with pre-arranged panelists instructing the audience on pre-defined themes, and limited opportunities for participants to express their views, or to raise other issues. While we appreciate the effort, we would like to ensure that any stakeholder has sufficient opportunities to express views, raise issues of concern, gather interest in them, and get them addressed at the IGF or forwarded to the appropriate venue. In other words, we would like to stress the importance of replacing top-down organizational models with bottom-up procedures, where a sufficient number of participants can put issues on the agenda and start working on them. Ultimately, we see the IGF as a body that can also promote and confirm consensus on non-binding policy recommendations, as per part (g) of its mandate, given the legitimacy stemming from the Tunis agreements and from its special character as a network of equal stakeholders. We thus request the development of structures and processes for the IGF within which such deliberation may take place, enabling the IGF to fulfill its mandate given in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, including sub-paragraphs (c), (e), (g) and (k), all of which clearly bespeak a strong element of agency on the part of the IGF. We suggest the IGF to develop, in an open and collaborative process, a structure of Working Groups around important issues and areas, which would work on an ongoing basis, through virtual as well as face-to-face means, and would report and be accountable to the IGF at large. We see the need to increase the transparency and inclusiveness of IGF processes, opening these processes to receive the input of all stakeholders. Specifically, we think that stakeholder groups should be free to self-select their representatives in the IGF Advisory Group, under clearly defined, transparent and accountable procedures. All stakeholder groups identified in Tunis should be adequately represented in the Advisory Group; we note with dissatisfaction the limited presence of civil society nominees in the current Advisory Group (only 5 over 46 members), much less than one fourth of the group, and constituting a significant step back in respect to the WGIG. We stress the need for provisions to cover the travel expenses of members from developing countries and other disadvantaged groups wishing to participate effectively in IGF deliberations, and for ensuring that the contributions of remote participants are accorded equal weight and authority as those of participants present in person. The IGF as realized in Athens meets only a limited and insufficient part of its mandate as described by paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda. We thus call for the cooperation of all stakeholders to address this matter. /* We finally call for a process of enhanced cooperation for development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues, as called for by paragraphs 69, 70 and 71 of the Tunis Agenda, to be conducted within the framework of the IGF. === NICE, BUT DOES IT FIT WITH THE REST? */ Sincerely submitted by the undersigned, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Tue Oct 24 10:09:36 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:09:36 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC's questions to the IGF In-Reply-To: <453E1BF5.7020908@bertola.eu.org> References: <20061023161937.BA255DA8F0@smtp3.electricembers.net> <453DC442.7090807@Malcolm.id.au> <453E09FB.7050507@bertola.eu.org> <453E113F.2090702@Malcolm.id.au> <453E1BF5.7020908@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <453E1EA0.2060406@Malcolm.id.au> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > About "petitioning", I addressed the document to "all fellow IGF > participants", I think that is more in line with Adam's observations. Yes, that's much better. Or if we wanted to steer away from "petition" altogether it could perhaps become a "manifesto". It's just a title, really. > In the end, while I support it, I think that the point on ICANN & > enhanced cooperation (which is a substance point where there is lots of > heated disagreement) does not really fit with the rest, which is all on > process. Perhaps it could be pruned? Sure, I agree. > In general, this is now too long and I agree with Bill that we might > want to shorten it and only focus on a few key points, I'es, I d say full > respect of the mandate, deliberative processes, working groups, and AG > representation. We could easily strike the entire two initial paras, for > example. I have no problem with that. I was trying to preserve as much as I could of Parminder's text, but if he's happy (or enough other people are) then I'm happy. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Oct 24 10:12:43 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:42:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] National vs. International was Re: Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <20061024085220.585014B827@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20061024141255.6D3635C54@smtp2.electricembers.net> > The reason seems to be that at the national level, there are > well-established democratic traditions with free, independent > media, > well-defined rules for transparency, checks and balances, and > accountability of governments to national parliaments. > > Much of this is not yet so well-developed at the > international level, > resulting in an increased success likelihood of the lobbying > efforts of greedy monopolistic companies. Nobert, So if what you say is indeed true (which I believe it is), then what we obviously need is stronger and more clearly defined democratic public policy spaces, structures and systems in the global arena as well, which are connected to strong systems and institutions for transparency and extracting accountability - which include international information sharing processes, media, and multi-stakeholder processes of input and participation.. But, the prescriptions you have been offering (very sincere and well-intentioned, no doubt) mostly speak only about things like 'light weight', multi-stakeholder, 'coalition of the willing' kind of voluntary processes, and no-government involvement(mostly), that just do not any way meet the criteria of effective democratic public policy spaces.. Systems of participation, transparency, volunteeristic multistakeholder systems are of little use without effective, sufficiently well funded public policy systems. and we cannot be speaking of one without the other. Well, you CAN have them, but they may not serve much purpose, beyond some very limited avenues of utility. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:22 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] National vs. International was Re: > Program for IGC at IGF > > Avri Doria wrote: > > On 24 okt 2006, at 08.39, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > > > How do we fend off greed, corruption or particularist > interests on > > > the international level? > > > > I think that transparency goes a long way here. > > Strongly agreed. > > > In the national setting it is very easy for the government > to stifle > > the press and even the net. On the international stage it > is more > > difficult, especially if groups like this keep up the > pressure. > > My observation here in Central Europe is that the influence > of greedy > particularist interests seems to be much stronger for policy > decisions > which are coordinated internationally than for those which > are only > discussed nationally. > > The reason seems to be that at the national level, there are > well-established democratic traditions with free, independent > media, > well-defined rules for transparency, checks and balances, and > accountability of governments to national parliaments. > > Much of this is not yet so well-developed at the > international level, > resulting in an increased success likelihood of the lobbying > efforts of greedy monopolistic companies. > > For an ICT-related example in the EU, see > http://NoBananaUnion.com/en/swpat-directive > > Here in Switzerland, a very similar process of political- > ideological > manipulation is at work related to the current revision > process of > the copyright law, where e.g. the attempt is made to > manipulate > politicians as well as the general public into thinking that > we have > to adopt legal protection for DRM systems because of > "international > standards". > > Greetings, > Norbert. > > > -- > Norbert Bollow > http://Norbert.ch > President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG > http://SIUG.ch > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From drake at hei.unige.ch Tue Oct 24 11:35:51 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:35:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: <453E1EA0.2060406@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Hello, Ok, here's yet another text we can chomp on. Sorry to have been slow, my brain's fuzzy per usual and I had to help my wife with something. A few comments: 1. I tried to make it shorter than Parminder¹s original but failed, the below is two pages. There¹s a lot that needs saying, and as is this only makes three points, which I believe is all that can be digested. If necessary, we could probably find some pulp to squeeze out. 2. I think we needed a little prolegomenon on the caucus itself, since not everyone who will be in Athens will know of us, or that we have been involved in developing and have supported this thing in various ways prior (which gives a little edge to the expression of concern). 3. I looked at some of the contributions sent to the list today and tried to pick up their main points without going into the sort of discursive bits about how we feel, criticisms of intentions/actions, or use of ³we request² type language. Just state the position, stop, was my thought. I don¹t know whether one could easily merge files between the different versions that have been floated, but if none seems relatively more suitable as a whole than we could try. 4. My main point would be that we should harp on the fact that they agreed a mandate, so I repeat that several times on purpose. It¹s our main tool methinks. Best, Bill --------- Statement of the civil society Internet Governance Caucus to the Internet Governance Forum in Athens, 31 October ­ 2 November 2006 The Internet Governance Caucus comprises a diverse range of individual and organizational civil society actors who are committed to the promotion of global public interest objectives in Internet governance decision-making. The caucus was created in early 2003 and played a leading role on Internet governance issues for the broad civil society coalition that participated in World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process. Some of its members were early proponents of an Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and active participants in the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which formally proposed the IGF¹s creation in the summer of 2005. The caucus strongly supported the WGIG¹s proposal, as well as the consequent mandate given to the IGF by the November 2005 Tunis Agenda on the Information Society. The Caucus remains firmly committed to the IGF and very much wants it to realize its full potential. However, we are concerned by the seemingly growing possibility that the IGF will fall well short of fulfilling the mandate established in the Tunis Agenda. We recognize that the IGF is still in its infancy, but do not believe it is premature to raise this concern now. To the contrary, we hope that by doing so we can help to stimulate a much-needed open, inclusive, and constructive dialogue about the IGF¹s mission and modalities. There are many issues concerning the IGF that merit urgent attention, but we wish to highlight our views on three in particular: 1. The IGF must have the will and capacity to fulfill its agreed mandate. The Tunis Agenda specifies that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview; facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities; strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries; identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing countries; and promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles [e.g. transparency, multistakeholder participation, and a development orientation] in Internet governance processes. [emphasis added] Here we would draw particular attention to the potential utility of formulating non-binding recommendations, and of assessing and promoting the implementation of ³good governance² principles and best practices by the diverse public and private sector institutions and collaborations involved in Internet governance. These are all critically important, value-adding functions that cannot be performed by any other Internet governance mechanism. But while governments and other stakeholders agreed on them in Tunis, we have not seen any indication since then that the IGF actually will have the capacity to undertake them. Clearly, an annual conference alone simply cannot do the job. We therefore would welcome an opportunity to discuss with other participants how they believe the IGF could develop the capacity to fulfill these and other elements of its mandate. If instead that mandate is no longer considered to be operative, we would like to understand how and why this has been decided. 2. The annual IGF conferences should be programmed and conducted in an open manner. Members of the IGF¹s Advisory Group (AG) should be appointed for one year and then replaced by new members who will program the following year¹s conference. The AG¹s composition should reflect a fair balance between the major stakeholder groupings, which should be able to select their own representatives. Participation by diverse constituencies from the developing counties should be made a priority, and resources should be allocated to support this objective. The AG¹s decision-making procedures should be transparent, accountable, and timely. As for the conference itself, it should be a place where, as the WGIG recommended, ³any stakeholder could bring up any Internet governance issue² and have an opportunity to initiate partnerships on related initiatives with other interested parties. While we recognize the constraints of a large group setting, the IGF should strive to maximize opportunities for fully participatory, bottom-up, peer-level multistakeholder dialogue. 3. The IGF should facilitate the formation of issue-oriented groupings alongside the annual conferences. Here we endorse the views expressed by the Multistakeholder Modalities Working Group in its February 2006 statement to the IGF secretariat. The IGF should establish transparent procedures for the formation and recognition of any dynamic coalitions or informal working groups stakeholders may wish to organize on relevant topics. All stakeholders should be able to create such groups on a bottom-up basis. Any such groups should be open to all stakeholders that may wish to participate, transparent, and based primarily on virtual collaboration. They could engage in a range of activities, e.g. inclusive dialogue, monitoring and analysis of trends, conducting studies, and developing recommendations for action. The IGF also should define transparent procedures under which such groups could present any results of their activities for consideration in the annual meetings. These steps would strengthen the engagement of stakeholders from around the world in the work of the IGF, and could significantly increase the IGF¹s capacity to fulfil the mandate it was given. Once again we express our strong support for the IGF and for the mandate it was given by governments and other stakeholders, and we stand ready to work with colleagues from all sectors to make the Tunis Agenda¹s vision a reality. ******************************************************* William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland http://www.cpsr.org/Members/wdrake ******************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca Tue Oct 24 13:57:05 2006 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:57:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Caucus statement: para 73c In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <453E53F1.5000607@umontreal.ca> Hi Bill, Thanks to you, Parminder and everyone who has taken the time to contribute to drafting this statement. I think it makes an important point and restricts itself relatively well to arguing it. I would add one complaint to the laundry list below about the steadily widening gap between the WSIS principles for the forum and its realization: Para 73 c of the "Tunis Agenda for the Information Society" reads: "... IGF meetings, in principle, may be held in parallel with major relevant UN conferences, /inter alia/, to use logistical support." Unless there is something UN going on in parallel this year in Athens, or next year in Rio that I am unaware of (very possible), this 'may' seems to be turning into a 'will not'. I think the absence of the ability to draw on existing logistical support ties in to some of the stuff we are already raising in this declaration about the problems of capacity for participation. Just a thought, Thanks again for pulling this together, See you this weekend. Jeremy William Drake wrote: > Hello, > > Ok, here's yet another text we can chomp on. Sorry to have been slow, > my brain's fuzzy per usual and I had to help my wife with something. > > A few comments: > > 1. I tried to make it shorter than Parminder’s original but failed, > the below is two pages. There’s a lot that needs saying, and as > is this only makes three points, which I believe is all that can > be digested. If necessary, we could probably find some pulp to > squeeze out. > 2. I think we needed a little prolegomenon on the caucus itself, > since not everyone who will be in Athens will know of us, or > that we have been involved in developing and have supported this > thing in various ways prior (which gives a little edge to the > expression of concern). > 3. I looked at some of the contributions sent to the list today and > tried to pick up their main points without going into the sort > of discursive bits about how we feel, criticisms of > intentions/actions, or use of “we request” type language. Just > state the position, stop, was my thought. I don’t know whether > one could easily merge files between the different versions that > have been floated, but if none seems relatively more suitable as > a whole than we could try. > 4. My main point would be that we should harp on the fact that they > agreed a mandate, so I repeat that several times on purpose. > It’s our main tool methinks. > > > Best, > > Bill > --------- > > *Statement of the civil society Internet Governance Caucus to the > Internet Governance Forum in Athens, 31 October – 2 November 2006 > * > The Internet Governance Caucus comprises a diverse range of individual > and organizational civil society actors who are committed to the > promotion of global public interest objectives in Internet governance > decision-making. The caucus was created in early 2003 and played a > leading role on Internet governance issues for the broad civil society > coalition that participated in World Summit on the Information Society > (WSIS) process. Some of its members were early proponents of an > Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and active participants in the Working > Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which formally proposed the IGF’s > creation in the summer of 2005. The caucus strongly supported the > WGIG’s proposal, as well as the consequent mandate given to the IGF by > the November 2005 Tunis Agenda on the Information Society. > > The Caucus remains firmly committed to the IGF and very much wants it > to realize its full potential. However, we are concerned by the > seemingly growing possibility that the IGF will fall well short of > fulfilling the mandate established in the Tunis Agenda. We recognize > that the IGF is still in its infancy, but do not believe it is > premature to raise this concern now. To the contrary, we hope that by > doing so we can help to stimulate a much-needed open, inclusive, and > constructive dialogue about the IGF’s mission and modalities. > > There are many issues concerning the IGF that merit urgent attention, > but we wish to highlight our views on three in particular: > > /1. The IGF must have the will and capacity to fulfill its agreed mandate. > /The Tunis Agenda specifies that the IGF should, /inter alia, > facilitate discourse between bodies/ dealing with different > cross-cutting international public policies and issues that do not > fall within the scope of any existing body; interface with appropriate > inter-governmental organizations and other institutions /on matters > under their purview;/ facilitate the exchange of information and best > practices, and in this regard make full use of the expertise of the > academic, scientific and technical communities; strengthen and enhance > the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet > governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries; > identify emerging issues, /bring them to the attention of the relevant > bodies/ and the general public, and, /where appropriate, make > recommendations/; contribute to capacity building for Internet > governance in developing countries; and /promote and assess, on an > ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles [e.g. transparency, > multistakeholder participation, and a development orientation] in > Internet governance processes. /[emphasis added] Here we would draw > particular attention to the potential utility of formulating > non-binding recommendations, and of assessing and promoting the > implementation of “good governance” principles and best practices by > the diverse public and private sector institutions and collaborations > involved in Internet governance. > > These are all critically important, value-adding functions that cannot > be performed by any other Internet governance mechanism. But while > governments and other stakeholders agreed on them in Tunis, we have > not seen any indication since then that the IGF actually will have the > capacity to undertake them. Clearly, an annual conference alone simply > cannot do the job. We therefore would welcome an opportunity to > discuss with other participants how they believe the IGF could develop > the capacity to fulfill these and other elements of its mandate. If > instead that mandate is no longer considered to be operative, we would > like to understand how and why this has been decided. > > /2. The annual IGF conferences should be programmed and conducted in > an open manner. > /Members of the IGF’s Advisory Group (AG) should be appointed for one > year and then replaced by new members who will program the following > year’s conference. The AG’s composition should reflect a fair balance > between the major stakeholder groupings, which should be able to > select their own representatives. Participation by diverse > constituencies from the developing counties should be made a priority, > and resources should be allocated to support this objective. The AG’s > decision-making procedures should be transparent, accountable, and > timely. As for the conference itself, it should be a place where, as > the WGIG recommended, “any stakeholder could bring up any Internet > governance issue” and have an opportunity to initiate partnerships on > related initiatives with other interested parties. While we recognize > the constraints of a large group setting, the IGF should strive to > maximize opportunities for fully participatory, bottom-up, peer-level > multistakeholder dialogue. > > /3. The IGF should facilitate the formation of issue-oriented > groupings alongside the annual conferences. > /Here we endorse the views expressed by the Multistakeholder > Modalities Working Group in its February 2006 statement to the IGF > secretariat. The IGF should establish transparent procedures for the > formation and recognition of any dynamic coalitions or informal > working groups stakeholders may wish to organize on relevant topics. > All stakeholders should be able to create such groups on a bottom-up > basis. Any such groups should be open to all stakeholders that may > wish to participate, transparent, and based primarily on virtual > collaboration. They could engage in a range of activities, e.g. > inclusive dialogue, monitoring and analysis of trends, conducting > studies, and developing recommendations for action. The IGF also > should define transparent procedures under which such groups could > present any results of their activities for consideration in the > annual meetings. These steps would strengthen the engagement of > stakeholders from around the world in the work of the IGF, and could > significantly increase the IGF’s capacity to fulfil the mandate it was > given. > > Once again we express our strong support for the IGF and for the > mandate it was given by governments and other stakeholders, and we > stand ready to work with colleagues from all sectors to make the Tunis > Agenda’s vision a reality. > > > > > ******************************************************* > William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch > Director, Project on the Information > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > Graduate Institute for International Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > http://www.cpsr.org/Members/wdrake > ******************************************************* > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Tue Oct 24 19:56:15 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 07:56:15 +0800 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <453EA81F.2020602@Malcolm.id.au> William Drake wrote: > Hello, > > Ok, here's yet another text we can chomp on. Sorry to have been slow, > my brain's fuzzy per usual and I had to help my wife with something. Just two points. First, I have an issue with the whole "dynamic coalitions" idea, because it is easy for a powerful oligopoly to exclude other willing stakeholders from a dynamic coalition, and difficult to ensure that it is in any way accountable or transparent in its functioning. I much prefer the idea of relatively formal working groups which can be required to report to the IGF, to adhere to consensus principles, and to be inclusive of any willing participants. So I would simply delete the words "any dynamic coalitions or informal"; it may be just a change of nomenclature, but I think no less powerful for that. Second, in lieu of it being a petition, perhaps you could include in there a reference to how many members of the IGC there are? Though that is an open question, I realise. Either way, don't let these small niggles hold this up being finalised/formalised if others seriously disagree. Finally, can we stick this up at igcaucus.org (even if it has a "DRAFT" label on it)? -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Oct 25 00:48:05 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:48:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] National vs. International was Re: Program for IGC@IGF In-Reply-To: <14761CB8-15DF-4C6E-BE2B-ED8281AD4CC6@psg.com> References: <5CF48435-9DD6-4664-A9B0-7AAAEA9049CA@psg.com> <453DB534.1030708@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <14761CB8-15DF-4C6E-BE2B-ED8281AD4CC6@psg.com> Message-ID: > >>Avri Doria wrote: >>>in many localities, the cheapest access, is that provided by the   >>>community for free. >>Touché. >>How can we feed this in the access session of the IGF? > >Not sure. but we make sure people talk about it. >Business forces have certainly been fighting >this trend with every weapon possible. It might >be good to get together a document that list all >the place where business and national government >have colluded to make this more difficult or >even impossible. What do you mean when you say business have been fighting this trend -- municipal Wi-Fi and fiber? And who is business, telcos and cable companies? (Google?) If you are talking about municipal broadband, the trend has changed. Many are now developing as public/private partnerships. Even AT&T is bidding for (and winning) contracts to build and run muni Wi-Fi networks. Legislation in the US (draft) favors municipalities. Europe is beginning to see fiber deployments led by municipalities. Open network model: commissioned and at least part owned by the municipality, run by the city or a contracted service provider, and then made available to any service provider that wishes to offer service over the network. Amsterdam the leader in this. It is good Though not really relevant to access in developing countries. But the recent Bill Moyers 'The Net at Risk' documentary (PBS, streaming online at the moment here ) has discussion at the beginning relevant to some of Parminder's comments about public investment in infrastructure. How in the 1990s the RBOCs got tax breaks and rate relief in the promise of building out fiber ... took the cash and didn't build the network. US broadband now generally sucks (given that the US was for so long the leader in all things Internet.) Japan was similar -- a lot of tax break type subsidy for building network infrastructure, which actually was used to build network and is now the core of the broadband growth and cheap service we enjoy. Japan has not subsidized residential broadband per se, but in the past subsidized elements that have now enable very successful and competitive commercial residential broadband. Adam Adam >> >>>i do not beleive any of them will give up >>>their greed, corruption or nationalist >>>interests without the pressure that can only >>>be generated internationally. >>Question (not rethorically, not meant to defend national regulation): >>How do we fend off greed, corruption or >>particularist interests on the international >>level? > >I think that transparency goes a long way here. >In the national setting it is very easy for the >government to stifle the press and even the net. >On the international stage it is more difficult, >especially if groups like this keep up the >pressure. > >a. >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Wed Oct 25 04:34:16 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:34:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: <453EA81F.2020602@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Hi, It's Wednesday and IGF attendees are presumably traveling Saturday-Sunday, so the time frame is very short. If the 50 + people who signed the caucus charter want to agree a caucus statement we'll have to move pretty quickly to get rough consensus or do a vote. At present the response level to the various proposals doesn't seem promising... If full caucus action is impossible, another option might be to do a sign-on as "members of the caucus" rather than the caucus per se. We went this route with the text on CS inclusion I inserted into the ITU's WSIS follow-up meeting earlier in the year, which worked well. Either way, it'd be good to hear from people what they want to do, if anything. Two quick replies to the responses that did come in (thanks): > From: Jeremy Shtern > Para 73 c of the "Tunis Agenda for the Information Society" reads: > > "... IGF meetings, in principle, may be held in parallel with major > relevant UN conferences, /inter alia/, to use logistical support." > > Unless there is something UN going on in parallel this year in Athens, > or next year in Rio that I am unaware of (very possible), this 'may' > seems to be turning into a 'will not'. I think the absence of the > ability to draw on existing logistical support ties in to some of the > stuff we are already raising in this declaration about the problems of > capacity for participation. I take your point. But while the IGF secretariat is a tiny operation and undoubtedly could use more logistical support, this also ties into the question of the IGF's independence. You may recall that at Tunis, Russia unilaterally held up agreement on the TA until the last minute by successfully demanding that lots of references to the ITU's competence and potentially leading contributions to the IGF be inserted into the text (the Russian rep being the head of the ITU WSIS WG etc). The nominally anodyne language on UN logistical support can be viewed in this context. Before and after the agreement, there was a lot of public and private discussion about whether the IGF might simply fall into that orbit, inter alia due to lack of the political and financial support needed to stay up independently. This is part of why the caucus made statements in PrepCom 3 and at Tunis to the effect that the IGF should have the institutional capacity to function independently and should not be tied to any existing agency. It is arguably preferable that we are not holding the IGF as an addendum to the ITU Plenipotentiary in Antalya with all the same participants etc. If ITU members want to create an ITU-I division that's their business, but IGF is an alternative and more open space. (Conversely, if the IGF doesn't work out, even more governmental action will default to the ITU---a point to which some early opponents of an IGF seemed oblivious. As it is, you should see some of the proposals for Antalya...). > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Just two points. First, I have an issue with the whole "dynamic > coalitions" idea, because it is easy for a powerful oligopoly to exclude > other willing stakeholders from a dynamic coalition, and difficult to > ensure that it is in any way accountable or transparent in its > functioning. I much prefer the idea of relatively formal working groups > which can be required to report to the IGF, to adhere to consensus > principles, and to be inclusive of any willing participants. > So I would simply delete the words "any dynamic coalitions or > informal"; it may be just a change of nomenclature, but I think no less > powerful for that. > 'Dynamic coalitions' is ugly but the semi-official formulation because some governments get crazy at the idea of working groups. When I used the latter term at the last IGF consultation your government in particular said in no uncertain terms that they could not accept formal WGs (nobody in CS ever argued for formalized groups, but such distinctions get lost amidst tooth gnashing about 'slippery slopes' etc). Not clear there'd be much to gain by restarting a nomenclature battle here when we're already pushing on more important and sensitive spots...? > Second, in lieu of it being a petition, perhaps you could include in > there a reference to how many members of the IGC there are? Though that > is an open question, I realise. What would be the strategic benefit of publicly announcing how small we are? > Either way, don't let these small niggles hold this up being > finalised/formalised if others seriously disagree. > > Finally, can we stick this up at igcaucus.org (even if it has a "DRAFT" > label on it)? Well, Vittorio hasn't indicated that he's withdrawn the language he's proposed, so you can't replace that with this. You could post them both as options a and b or something if you like. Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 25 05:23:23 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:53:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061025092352.E8380DA869@smtp3.electricembers.net> I will try some reconciliation between Vittorio's and Bill's drafts I think there is a good degree of congruence expect for the first (substantial) para in Vittorio's draft. To quote >>> First of all, the first instance of the IGF has apparently been conceived on the model of an international >conference, with pre-arranged panelists instructing the audience on pre-defined themes, and limited opportunities for >participants to express their views, or to raise other issues. While we appreciate the effort, we would like to ensure >that any stakeholder has sufficient opportunities to express views, raise issues of concern, gather interest in them, >and get them addressed at the IGF or forwarded to the appropriate venue. In other words, we would like to stress the >importance of replacing top-down organizational models with bottom-up procedures, where a sufficient number of >participants can put issues on the agenda and start working on them. I understand the motivation behind it - but we are back to - shd it be a more (and more) open conference kind of a thing, or should be more focused, purposeful body which is able to carry out the tasks we list for it (in subsequent paras). I think though both aspects are important, there is some 'structural' trade-off here. If we make this (as above) our first point, it takes the edge off our effort to speak about IGF's capacity to do many of things we want it to do. In any case, our working group/ dynamic coalitions point makes for processes of inclusion. I don't think just being able to get up in a big noisy room and speaking out to one's heart's content adds much. Structuring participation and inclusiveness is a better approach - which we are doing by asking for more openness in MAG etc processes, and putting up WG like structures. If we leave this para out - rest of the Vittorio's draft and Bill's are not too different. Para beginning 'Ultimately, we see the IGF." corresponds to Bill's point 1. para beginning 'We suggest the IGF to develop." corresponds to Bill's point 3, and paras beginning 'we see.' and 'we strive..' can be pulled together with Bill's point 2. So if Vittorio and Bill can do a quick round, privately, on putting out an agreed draft covering these 3 points, we may be close to agreement. The prefaces etc can also be agreed to. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 2:04 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal > > Hi, > > It's Wednesday and IGF attendees are presumably traveling > Saturday-Sunday, > so the time frame is very short. If the 50 + people who > signed the caucus > charter want to agree a caucus statement we'll have to move > pretty quickly > to get rough consensus or do a vote. At present the response > level to the > various proposals doesn't seem promising... > > If full caucus action is impossible, another option might be > to do a sign-on > as "members of the caucus" rather than the caucus per se. We > went this > route with the text on CS inclusion I inserted into the ITU's > WSIS follow-up > meeting earlier in the year, which worked well. Either way, > it'd be good to > hear from people what they want to do, if anything. > > Two quick replies to the responses that did come in (thanks): > > > From: Jeremy Shtern > > > Para 73 c of the "Tunis Agenda for the Information Society" > reads: > > > > "... IGF meetings, in principle, may be held in parallel > with major > > relevant UN conferences, /inter alia/, to use logistical > support." > > > > Unless there is something UN going on in parallel this year > in Athens, > > or next year in Rio that I am unaware of (very possible), > this 'may' > > seems to be turning into a 'will not'. I think the absence > of the > > ability to draw on existing logistical support ties in to > some of the > > stuff we are already raising in this declaration about the > problems of > > capacity for participation. > > I take your point. But while the IGF secretariat is a tiny > operation and > undoubtedly could use more logistical support, this also ties > into the > question of the IGF's independence. You may recall that at > Tunis, Russia > unilaterally held up agreement on the TA until the last > minute by > successfully demanding that lots of references to the ITU's > competence and > potentially leading contributions to the IGF be inserted into > the text (the > Russian rep being the head of the ITU WSIS WG etc). The > nominally anodyne > language on UN logistical support can be viewed in this > context. Before and > after the agreement, there was a lot of public and private > discussion about > whether the IGF might simply fall into that orbit, inter alia > due to lack of > the political and financial support needed to stay up > independently. This > is part of why the caucus made statements in PrepCom 3 and at > Tunis to the > effect that the IGF should have the institutional capacity to > function > independently and should not be tied to any existing agency. > It is arguably > preferable that we are not holding the IGF as an addendum to > the ITU > Plenipotentiary in Antalya with all the same participants > etc. If ITU > members want to create an ITU-I division that's their > business, but IGF is > an alternative and more open space. (Conversely, if the IGF > doesn't work > out, even more governmental action will default to the ITU--- > a point to > which some early opponents of an IGF seemed oblivious. As it > is, you should > see some of the proposals for Antalya...). > > > From: Jeremy Malcolm > > > Just two points. First, I have an issue with the whole > "dynamic > > coalitions" idea, because it is easy for a powerful > oligopoly to exclude > > other willing stakeholders from a dynamic coalition, and > difficult to > > ensure that it is in any way accountable or transparent in > its > > functioning. I much prefer the idea of relatively formal > working groups > > which can be required to report to the IGF, to adhere to > consensus > > principles, and to be inclusive of any willing > participants. > > So I would simply delete the words "any dynamic coalitions > or > > informal"; it may be just a change of nomenclature, but I > think no less > > powerful for that. > > > 'Dynamic coalitions' is ugly but the semi-official > formulation because some > governments get crazy at the idea of working groups. When I > used the latter > term at the last IGF consultation your government in > particular said in no > uncertain terms that they could not accept formal WGs (nobody > in CS ever > argued for formalized groups, but such distinctions get lost > amidst tooth > gnashing about 'slippery slopes' etc). Not clear there'd be > much to gain by > restarting a nomenclature battle here when we're already > pushing on more > important and sensitive spots...? > > > Second, in lieu of it being a petition, perhaps you could > include in > > there a reference to how many members of the IGC there are? > Though that > > is an open question, I realise. > > What would be the strategic benefit of publicly announcing > how small we are? > > > Either way, don't let these small niggles hold this up > being > > finalised/formalised if others seriously disagree. > > > > Finally, can we stick this up at igcaucus.org (even if it > has a "DRAFT" > > label on it)? > > Well, Vittorio hasn't indicated that he's withdrawn the > language he's > proposed, so you can't replace that with this. You could > post them both as > options a and b or something if you like. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Oct 25 05:31:22 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:31:22 +0800 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <453F2EEA.7020402@Malcolm.id.au> William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > It's Wednesday and IGF attendees are presumably traveling Saturday-Sunday, > so the time frame is very short. If the 50 + people who signed the caucus > charter want to agree a caucus statement we'll have to move pretty quickly > to get rough consensus or do a vote. At present the response level to the > various proposals doesn't seem promising... I'm travelling tomorrow (the only flight I could get), but as long as it isn't preposterous, I'll agree to anything for the sake of having *some* uniform civil society statement/petition/manifesto/whatever in time for the IGF, and I would recommend the same course to others. >> Finally, can we stick this up at igcaucus.org (even if it has a "DRAFT" >> label on it)? > > Well, Vittorio hasn't indicated that he's withdrawn the language he's > proposed, so you can't replace that with this. You could post them both as > options a and b or something if you like. Well I'll stick yours up at igfwatch.org/statement (contact me for a username and password to edit it if you want them, otherwise I'll make updates as they happen), but if either of them becomes an official IGC document then it should be moved to igcaucus.org, yes? -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Oct 25 05:52:59 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:52:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] The vote for coordinators and call for nominations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, With 2 days to go, I have received notice from 2 candidates. Again no disrespect meant to the two who have agreed to be candidates, but I would hope there would be more interest being coordinator of this caucus. On 15 okt 2006, at 13.04, Avri Doria wrote: > Regardless of which option we take, I am putting out a two week > call for nominees as of today and ending on 28 October. I am > proposing using a single set of nominees, whichever of the options > we use. > > Nominees should provide me with > - contact points > - country of residence > - gender > - and with a brief statement/bio in thinking about it, i think a statement is more important then a bio, though some bio information may be good too. > That I will post on www.igcaucus.org by the time all the > nominations are in. Even though I have not yet received statements from the candidates, I have created a web page for listing the candidates. http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-candidates-2006.html Once I receive their statements, I will add them. I will also list other candidates as they come in. Note: the person working on the web interface has not been able to complete it. We may end up using the email voting method again. with the IGF coming on, I certainly don't have time to try and do something about it. Also I will probably wait until after the IGF to initiate the vote. I am wondering if there is support for leaving the nomination period open until after the IGF, for example until 4 November. thanks a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yasmeen at diplomacy.edu Wed Oct 25 05:52:18 2006 From: yasmeen at diplomacy.edu (Yasmeen Ariff) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:52:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Simulation Exercise on Negotiations and Chairing International Meetings Message-ID: <026901c6f81b$430e8bb0$10a1a8c0@diplomacy.edu> Dear All, We will be having a simulation exercise "Negotiating a Global Framework for Internet Governance at the Internet Governance Forum 2011" on the 31st October at the Amarilia Hotel (next door to the Divani Apollon Palace). The simulation exercise, which is part of our diplomatic skills workshop for our IG capacity building programme, will focus on building negotiating and chairing skills. It will be run by Dr. John Hemery (expert in negotiation exercises from Oxford) and Dr. Alex Sceberras Trigona (former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Malta). Besides 15 participants from the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme there will be an additional 15 places for participants from developing countries from different stakeholder backgrounds. Please forward this message to anyone who may be interested in the exercise and ask them to register by sending us an email to ig at diplomacy.edu with their name, email address, contact numbers in Athens and organisation details. Please see Simulation Exercise Document for more details: http://www.diplomacy.edu/poolbin.asp?IDPool=165 For more Info on Diplo at the IGF: http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig/ See you in Athens! Yasmeen Yasmeen Ariff Internet Governance Projects DiploFoundation 4th Floor, Regional Building Regional Road Msida MSD 13 MALTA Tel: +356 21 333323 Fax: +356 21 315574 http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Wed Oct 25 07:37:10 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 07:37:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] The vote for coordinators and call for nominations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <453F4C66.6010507@lists.privaterra.org> Looking at the list of candidates - well, no gender balance. sigh regards Robert Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > With 2 days to go, I have received notice from 2 candidates. > > Again no disrespect meant to the two who have agreed to be candidates, > but I would hope there would be more interest being coordinator of this > caucus. > > > On 15 okt 2006, at 13.04, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Regardless of which option we take, I am putting out a two week call >> for nominees as of today and ending on 28 October. I am proposing >> using a single set of nominees, whichever of the options we use. >> >> Nominees should provide me with >> - contact points >> - country of residence >> - gender >> - and with a brief statement/bio > > in thinking about it, i think a statement is more important then a > bio, though some bio information may be good too. > >> That I will post on www.igcaucus.org by the time all the nominations >> are in. > > Even though I have not yet received statements from the candidates, I > have created a web page for listing the candidates. > > http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-candidates-2006.html > > Once I receive their statements, I will add them. I will also list > other candidates as they come in. > > Note: the person working on the web interface has not been able to > complete it. We may end up using the email voting method again. with > the IGF coming on, I certainly don't have time to try and do something > about it. Also I will probably wait until after the IGF to initiate the > vote. I am wondering if there is support for leaving the nomination > period open until after the IGF, for example until 4 November. > > thanks > > a. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca Wed Oct 25 08:27:50 2006 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:27:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <453F5846.8030309@umontreal.ca> Hi Bill, Bellow your comments which are below my comments with a +++ in front of my new comments. William Drake wrote: > Para 73 c of the "Tunis Agenda for the Information Society" reads: > > "... IGF meetings, in principle, may be held in parallel with major > relevant UN conferences, /inter alia/, to use logistical support." > > Unless there is something UN going on in parallel this year in Athens, > or next year in Rio that I am unaware of (very possible), this 'may' > seems to be turning into a 'will not'. I think the absence of the > ability to draw on existing logistical support ties in to some of the > stuff we are already raising in this declaration about the problems of > capacity for participation. > > > I take your point. But while the IGF secretariat is a tiny operation and > undoubtedly could use more logistical support, this also ties into the > question of the IGF's independence. You may recall that at Tunis, Russia > unilaterally held up agreement on the TA until the last minute by > successfully demanding that lots of references to the ITU's competence and > potentially leading contributions to the IGF be inserted into the text (the > Russian rep being the head of the ITU WSIS WG etc). The nominally anodyne > language on UN logistical support can be viewed in this context. Before and > after the agreement, there was a lot of public and private discussion about > whether the IGF might simply fall into that orbit, inter alia due to lack of > the political and financial support needed to stay up independently. This > is part of why the caucus made statements in PrepCom 3 and at Tunis to the > effect that the IGF should have the institutional capacity to function > independently and should not be tied to any existing agency. It is arguably > preferable that we are not holding the IGF as an addendum to the ITU > Plenipotentiary in Antalya with all the same participants etc. If ITU > members want to create an ITU-I division that's their business, but IGF is > an alternative and more open space. (Conversely, if the IGF doesn't work > out, even more governmental action will default to the ITU---a point to > which some early opponents of an IGF seemed oblivious. As it is, you should > see some of the proposals for Antalya...). > ++++ As there has been no support expressed for making this point and a compelling reason not to outlined above, I'll withdraw it as a suggestion with the following last words- The independence of the secretariat and associated functions is one part of this issue, but the idea that, by piggy-backing the IGF onto other UN events, the travel costs would be easier to bear for developing country delegations and diplomatic cores was, I had the impression, also closely associated with this idea as a capacity building function. Anyway, consider the proposal withdrawn. Thanks again Bill and eveyone. Jeremy ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Oct 25 09:15:41 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:15:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <453F637D.9050108@bertola.eu.org> William Drake ha scritto: > Well, Vittorio hasn't indicated that he's withdrawn the language he's > proposed, so you can't replace that with this. You could post them both as > options a and b or something if you like. I was actually meaning to be helpful, not to push my own views :) I think that Parminder's right in suggesting that both drafts share the same views - I am fine with your text, even if I think that it would be better if you could dry up the introduction, and I would love a "less panels, more debate" sentence somewhere (but that's not a requirement, at all). My only concern is that we are more or less complaining to the globe, but there is no clear step forward that we ask for... I mean, the original was too much of a petition, but this is IMHO too much of a statement. Perhaps we could close it with a sentence asking the UN SG to take our procedural comments into account when forming the next AG for Rio, and the next AG to take our substantial comments into account when organizing IGF 2007. However, another option which I would really like is to try to form a bottom-up informal multistakeholder group to work in the next 4-6 weeks and come up with a consensus proposal on better formal structures for the IGF (eg AG selection procedures, meat for the "dynamic coalitions" idea, etc). We could use the excuse that the old AG is expired and that the new AG does not yet exist, to exploit the window of opportunity and demonstrate the power of self-organization, while ensuring that we reach some of the objectives we state. But would we ever be able to convince other stakeholder groups - even just business, I* societies and Secretariat could be enough, governmental concerns can be addressed separately later - and make this happen? PS You still have the "developing counties" typo in point 2, coming from the original text. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Oct 25 09:19:46 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:19:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: spec rapp on freedom of expression Message-ID: <453F6472.9030002@bertola.eu.org> From the Plenary list, this is the part of the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression that pertains to IG. I'm apparently not the only one who jumped on the chair when reading the start of the second paragraph. ===== The final phase of the World Summit on the Information Society, held in Tunis from 16 to 18 November 2005, was marked by strenuous debates around issues like the global access and exploitation of Internet resources, and enhanced dissemination and availability of information. The Internet revolution has definitely opened a new era for freedom of opinion and expression, especially for the numerous opportunities for the dissemination of education and knowledge. Internet availability may have a terrific impact on the quantity and quality of information at the disposal of the most disadvantaged classes, especially the rural poor. The international community at large, including private enterprises, should take this opportunity to provide a chance for substantial human and economic development in the less developed countries through the exploitation of Internet resources. The establishment of an intergovernmental organization on Internet governance must be solidly anchored to the principles of freedom of opinion and expression as enshrined in international human rights instruments. Private corporations, which have been playing a crucial role in the promotion of modern technologies, the United Nations, States and civil society, will need to cooperate closely in order to make sure that human rights will be a fundamental and unavoidable component of the future of Internet governance. However, much has still to be done to reach a collective concept of Internet Governance. Regrettably, I have received numerous reports of harassment, arrest, trial and detention of Internet writers in several countries. Law-enforcement agencies closed several websites and arrested ordinary customers and bloggers, who have subsequently been charged of opinion-related offences, such as defamation or slander, and terrorist-like activities such as "acts against State security". -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Oct 25 09:32:07 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:32:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: <453F637D.9050108@bertola.eu.org> References: <453F637D.9050108@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: hi, are we complaining before the fact? i.e., while we may suspect that the current spin may not work, won't we need to see what happens to know whether it doesn't work? what do we achieve by protesting at the start? a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Oct 25 09:30:57 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:30:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: <453EA81F.2020602@Malcolm.id.au> References: <453EA81F.2020602@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <49F33F37-BACE-4153-98F1-C8D7554C2C02@psg.com> On 25 okt 2006, at 01.56, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Finally, can we stick this up at igcaucus.org (even if it has a > "DRAFT" label on it)? once it settles down, sure. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Wed Oct 25 10:19:24 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:19:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: <453F637D.9050108@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: Hi v, > From: Vittorio Bertola > I was actually meaning to be helpful, not to push my own views :) I Nobody said otherwise, you were helpful. > think that Parminder's right in suggesting that both drafts share the > same views - I am fine with your text, even if I think that it would be > better if you could dry up the introduction, and I would love a "less > panels, more debate" sentence somewhere (but that's not a requirement, > at all). Didn't know the intro was wet. Means what? On 'less panels,' I'd thought "While we recognize the constraints of a large group setting, the IGF should strive to maximize opportunities for fully participatory, bottom-up, peer-level multistakeholder dialogue" made that point. Too indirect perhaps. Anyway, I think this and any other tweaks are probably moot, as a dialogue among five or six people isn't a basis for caucus statement. If someone wants to do a sign-on for this version, yours, or Parminder's, maybe we could pull that off, but I'm not sinking more time into this, GigaNet was more than enough already. > My only concern is that we are more or less complaining to the globe, > but there is no clear step forward that we ask for... I mean, the > original was too much of a petition, but this is IMHO too much of a > statement. Perhaps we could close it with a sentence asking the UN SG to > take our procedural comments into account when forming the next AG for > Rio, and the next AG to take our substantial comments into account when > organizing IGF 2007. I didn't mean it as complaining, sorry if you and Avri read it that way. I had thought it fairly moderate in tone but reflective of views expressed on the list. And it actually does ask for some clear steps, e.g. an open discussion on the mandate and how to achieve it; openness in AG and conference workings; establishment of procedure for formation of and input from groups. Whatever. > However, another option which I would really like is to try to form a > bottom-up informal multistakeholder group to work in the next 4-6 weeks > and come up with a consensus proposal on better formal structures for > the IGF (eg AG selection procedures, meat for the "dynamic coalitions" > idea, etc). We could use the excuse that the old AG is expired and that > the new AG does not yet exist, to exploit the window of opportunity and > demonstrate the power of self-organization, while ensuring that we reach > some of the objectives we state. But would we ever be able to convince > other stakeholder groups - even just business, I* societies and > Secretariat could be enough, governmental concerns can be addressed > separately later - and make this happen? You mean like the MMWG? > > PS You still have the "developing counties" typo in point 2, coming from > the original text. What original, I make my own mistakes without assistance.... Cheers, BD ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Wed Oct 25 11:00:07 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:00:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] My new appointment Message-ID: Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> bdelachapelle at gmail.com 10/23/2006 11:16 AM >>> >I will participate in this new capacity in the upcoming >Internet Governance Forum in Athens and am looking forward >to seeing many of you there again and continue our >interactions, including in the workshops. Bertrand: congratulations and know that I view this as a very positive development. Given the gulf that often exists between govt delegations and civil society and the difficult time most governments have becoming acculturated to the informal, list-serv based cooperation of civil society, your capacity to bridge the two worlds should benefit both sides ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Wed Oct 25 11:01:52 2006 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:01:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] New French Govt ICANN GAC/ Governance Rep. Message-ID: good question. For sake of economy I would prefer to see the IGC coordinator on the CSB but I also agree with those who question whether the CSB should continue to exist. >>> rguerra at lists.privaterra.org 10/23/2006 11:04 AM >>> Looking at the recently adopted IG charter - i have a question. Will the caucus coordinators will server as representatives to the CSB , will a person need to be elected from within the caucus or will the IGC wish to decline serving on the CSB? Though i'd raise the issue - hope the IG caucus meeting over the next week or so can come up with a statement on what to do.. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From hakik at sdnbd.org Wed Oct 25 11:54:21 2006 From: hakik at sdnbd.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:54:21 +0600 Subject: [governance] New French Govt ICANN GAC/ Governance Rep. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.0.20061025215002.01ac5668@sdnbd.org> "Will the caucus coordinators will server as representatives to the CSB , will a person need to be elected from within the caucus or will the IGC wish to decline serving on the CSB?" I hope these could be resolved within a short time. But, as it has been observed, if at all CSB continue to exist, then it needs a separate coordinator to represent. CS focus diversified angles within a society and here outcome is also important. Best Regards. Hakik. At 09:01 PM 10/25/2006, Milton Mueller wrote: >good question. For sake of economy I would prefer to see the IGC >coordinator on the CSB but I also agree with those who question whether >the CSB should continue to exist. > > >>> rguerra at lists.privaterra.org 10/23/2006 11:04 AM >>> >Looking at the recently adopted IG charter - i have a question. Will >the >caucus coordinators will server as representatives to the CSB , will a >person need to be elected from within the caucus or will the IGC wish >to decline serving on the CSB? > >Though i'd raise the issue - hope the IG caucus meeting over the next >week or so can come up with a statement on what to do.. > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >-- >This message has been scanned for viruses and >dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Wed Oct 25 12:38:37 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:38:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] New French Govt ICANN GAC/ Governance Rep. In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.0.20061025215002.01ac5668@sdnbd.org> References: <7.0.1.0.0.20061025215002.01ac5668@sdnbd.org> Message-ID: <453F930D.2090404@lists.privaterra.org> my personal view is as follows: - CSB members should resign, as the structure's specific mandate - to help facilitate and coordinate logistical issues during the WSIS - has been completed. - CS Plenary, should start a consultation process similar to the one completed by the governance caucus. The consultation process would have as its aim to come up with a specific mandate for a logistical coordinating body and how many seats it has - The proposed document would be voted on (as was the case for the governance caucus). If approved, then seats on the body would be opened for election. Again, the Governance caucus is a good model to build on. In the meantime, the key function of information sharing - should still be done by the INDIVIDUAL organizations (such as CONGO) that have been doing so in their individual capacity . regards Robert Hakikur Rahman wrote: > "Will the caucus coordinators will server as representatives to the CSB > , will a > person need to be elected from within the caucus or will the IGC wish > to decline serving on the CSB?" > > I hope these could be resolved within a short time. But, as it has been > observed, if at all CSB continue to exist, then it needs a separate > coordinator to represent. CS focus diversified angles within a society > and here outcome is also important. > > Best Regards. > Hakik. > > At 09:01 PM 10/25/2006, Milton Mueller wrote: >> good question. For sake of economy I would prefer to see the IGC >> coordinator on the CSB but I also agree with those who question whether >> the CSB should continue to exist. >> >> >>> rguerra at lists.privaterra.org 10/23/2006 11:04 AM >>> >> Looking at the recently adopted IG charter - i have a question. Will >> the >> caucus coordinators will server as representatives to the CSB , will a >> person need to be elected from within the caucus or will the IGC wish >> to decline serving on the CSB? >> >> Though i'd raise the issue - hope the IG caucus meeting over the next >> week or so can come up with a statement on what to do.. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >> believed to be clean. > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jsarr at refer.sn Wed Oct 25 13:17:05 2006 From: jsarr at refer.sn (jsarr at refer.sn) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:17:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] New French Govt ICANN GAC/ Governance Rep. In-Reply-To: <453F930D.2090404@lists.privaterra.org> References: <7.0.1.0.0.20061025215002.01ac5668@sdnbd.org> <453F930D.2090404@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <1161796625.453f9c111d40e@courrier.refer.sn> Cher Robert, Selon Robert Guerra : > Again, the Governance caucus is a good model to build on. Le grand défaut du caucus gouvernance est qu'il n'a fait aucun pas en direction du multilinguisme. Si le bureau de la société civile doit prendre ce modèle, il faudra améliorer à ce niveau. Salutations cordiales. Joseph SARR ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Wed Oct 25 13:36:22 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:36:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] New French Govt ICANN GAC/ Governance Rep. In-Reply-To: <1161796625.453f9c111d40e@courrier.refer.sn> References: <7.0.1.0.0.20061025215002.01ac5668@sdnbd.org> <453F930D.2090404@lists.privaterra.org> <1161796625.453f9c111d40e@courrier.refer.sn> Message-ID: <453FA096.20102@lists.privaterra.org> Cher Joseph: Transparency, an open democratic structure on that takes into consideration cultural diversity, gender balance , etc also are important values. As we move into WSIS 2.0 structures, it is important we indeed recognize not only key ideals expressed in numerous CS documents - but also effective means for them to be realized. In the current context - that of an open call for co-chairs of the caucus... A french speaking candidate as co-chair of the governance caucus would be most welcome. Personally, would be great if you could encourage people to run. I'd suggest the same from the indigenous caucus . Some new faces, particularly those who can help bring in new voices, ideas and perspectives is much needed. regards Robert jsarr at refer.sn wrote: > Cher Robert, > > Selon Robert Guerra : > >> Again, the Governance caucus is a good model to build on. > > Le grand défaut du caucus gouvernance est qu'il n'a fait aucun pas en direction > du multilinguisme. Si le bureau de la société civile doit prendre ce modèle, il > faudra améliorer à ce niveau. > > Salutations cordiales. > > Joseph SARR ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 25 15:33:34 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:03:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061025193341.433E1DA8D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> > Anyway, I think this and any other tweaks are probably moot, > as a dialogue > among five or six people isn't a basis for caucus statement. > If someone > wants to do a sign-on for this version, yours, or > Parminder's, maybe we > could pull that off, but I'm not sinking more time into this, But the problem is that IGF is an (potentially) important institution for IG, and some of these questions are crucial to be asked in the first meeting. Otherwise its character will be cast. And if we do not ask them, in all probability, nobody else is going to. Can we so easily give up on this responsibility. As for the problem of not having due processes for calling rough consensus, I suggest a way out, if Avri is agreeable to it. There has been a consensus among the 5-6 people who got involved in the discussion on the three basic points on Bill's text - developing capacity in IGF to fulfill its complete mandate, transparency of its processes and pro-active effort for inclusiveness, and setting up WG/ dynamic coalition kind structures on an ongoing basis. We have heard no opposition to these three points. So I suggest that we give 24 hours for anyone to oppose submission by the IGC to the IGF with these three points - pulling together text which has been circulated - and if no one opposes it, we write a 'clear' text and put it up for adoption. This can be done over the weekend. And if there are a good number of assenting voices, and no dissent we go ahead with it. And I am sure that this would not be a new procedure. Statements have been adopted on behalf of the IGC earlier in similar conditions. And with similar number of people involved initially in the exchanges. Parminder PS: I am traveling in 2 hours, and will be offline for 15 hours after that. ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:49 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal > > Hi v, > > > From: Vittorio Bertola > > > I was actually meaning to be helpful, not to push my own > views :) I > > Nobody said otherwise, you were helpful. > > > think that Parminder's right in suggesting that both drafts > share the > > same views - I am fine with your text, even if I think that > it would be > > better if you could dry up the introduction, and I would > love a "less > > panels, more debate" sentence somewhere (but that's not a > requirement, > > at all). > > Didn't know the intro was wet. Means what? On 'less > panels,' I'd thought > "While we recognize the constraints of a large group setting, > the IGF should > strive to maximize opportunities for fully participatory, > bottom-up, > peer-level multistakeholder dialogue" made that point. Too > indirect > perhaps. > > Anyway, I think this and any other tweaks are probably moot, > as a dialogue > among five or six people isn't a basis for caucus statement. > If someone > wants to do a sign-on for this version, yours, or > Parminder's, maybe we > could pull that off, but I'm not sinking more time into this, > GigaNet was > more than enough already. > > > My only concern is that we are more or less complaining to > the globe, > > but there is no clear step forward that we ask for... I > mean, the > > original was too much of a petition, but this is IMHO too > much of a > > statement. Perhaps we could close it with a sentence asking > the UN SG to > > take our procedural comments into account when forming the > next AG for > > Rio, and the next AG to take our substantial comments into > account when > > organizing IGF 2007. > > I didn't mean it as complaining, sorry if you and Avri read > it that way. I > had thought it fairly moderate in tone but reflective of > views expressed on > the list. And it actually does ask for some clear steps, e.g. > an open > discussion on the mandate and how to achieve it; openness in > AG and > conference workings; establishment of procedure for formation > of and input > from groups. Whatever. > > > However, another option which I would really like is to try > to form a > > bottom-up informal multistakeholder group to work in the > next 4-6 weeks > > and come up with a consensus proposal on better formal > structures for > > the IGF (eg AG selection procedures, meat for the "dynamic > coalitions" > > idea, etc). We could use the excuse that the old AG is > expired and that > > the new AG does not yet exist, to exploit the window of > opportunity and > > demonstrate the power of self-organization, while ensuring > that we reach > > some of the objectives we state. But would we ever be able > to convince > > other stakeholder groups - even just business, I* societies > and > > Secretariat could be enough, governmental concerns can be > addressed > > separately later - and make this happen? > > You mean like the MMWG? > > > > PS You still have the "developing counties" typo in point > 2, coming from > > the original text. > > What original, I make my own mistakes without assistance.... > > Cheers, > > BD > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Oct 25 17:27:10 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:57:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] workshop invite - exploring a framework convention on the Internet In-Reply-To: <20061025193341.433E1DA8D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20061025212723.7F1005C67@smtp2.electricembers.net> I invite all IGC members to the workshop on 'Exploring a Framework Convention on the Internet" on the 31st between 1330 and 1500 hours at the IGF. We are interested in hearing all views on the issue - which suggests one institutional way out for the current global 'public policy dilemma' for the Internet. However, Internet is a novel phenomenon, and any institutional framework for its governance will need to be a new hybrid form. More details of the workshop are enclosed. We mean to keep it a highly interactive session, so not being on the panel should not be a major limitation to participating :) Parminder UN Internet Governance Forum, Athens, 30th October to 2nd November, 2006 Workshop on 'Exploring a Framework Convention on the Internet' 1330 to 1500 Hrs, 31st October Organized by: IT for Change, Bangalore; Hivos, Netherlands; Panos institute, West Africa; Third World Institute, Uruguay; and Foundation for Media Alternatives, Philippines Panelists: Pankaj Agrawala, Government of India, MAG member; William Currie, Association for Progressive Communications; William Drake, Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO, Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland; John Mathiason, Internet Governance Project, Syracuse University, New York; One representative from the Brazilian government (yet to be confirmed) The workshop will explore the context, usefulness and possibility of a 'Framework Convention on the Internet', by examining the following questions, which will be posed to the panelists and other participants: 1. The WSIS identified the need for, and mandated, the initiation of some international processes for developing public policy on Internet related issues (see paragraphs 60, 61, 69, 70 and 71 of the Tunis Agenda), but since the WSIS, not much has been done in this area. What do we think of the importance of the Internet as a key global socio-economic infrastructure of the future, and the nature of public policy regimes in this regard? The possible 'policy regime' options are: a. A distributed and largely 'privatized' governance regime as at present, which, on critical emergent policy matters, may interface with national policy regimes in an ad-hoc, fire-fighting, manner. b. Evolving global public policies regarding the Internet 'internally' in respective global regimes like the WIPO and the WTO, and specific international treaties like those in the area of cooperation on crime, in as much as these domains are impacted by the Internet (or vice versa). c. Laying out broad global public policy principles for the Internet, through a new international process, which gives due regard to the new realities of a truly global infrastructure and the systems built over it. 2. With frequent references to 'balkanization' of the Internet in the public discourse today (whether in terms of 'network neutrality' like economic issues, cultural issues like multilingualism, or issues like political restrictions on free flow of information), how important is it to save the 'global public nature of the Internet' by defining a broad global public policy regime for it? How would you comment on the hypothesis that - 'One global public Internet can survive only under one (broad) global public policy regime'? 3. What are your views on initiating a framework convention kind of a process, which incorporates due innovations, especially with regard to a greater multistakeholder involvement, for evolving global public policy principles for the Internet? What is the appropriateness or otherwise of such an institutional form; what are its chances in the present and the future context; what are the main bottlenecks, and what are the positive signs? Background Papers: 1. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance - Call for a Framework Convention on the Internet' at http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/A%20Development%20Agenda%20fo r%20IG%20-%20ITfC.pdf 2. 'A Framework Convention: An Institutional Option for Internet Governance' at http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/igp-fc.pdf 3. Association for Progressive Communication's recommendations to WSIS on IG at http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/contributions/co103.pdf ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Framework Convention Workshop.doc Type: application/msword Size: 45568 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Oct 25 18:40:06 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:40:06 +0800 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: <20061025193341.433E1DA8D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20061025193341.433E1DA8D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <453FE7C6.40002@Malcolm.id.au> Parminder wrote: >> Anyway, I think this and any other tweaks are probably moot, >> as a dialogue >> among five or six people isn't a basis for caucus statement. >> If someone >> wants to do a sign-on for this version, yours, or >> Parminder's, maybe we >> could pull that off, but I'm not sinking more time into this, > > But the problem is that IGF is an (potentially) important institution > for IG, and some of these questions are crucial to be asked in the first > meeting. Otherwise its character will be cast… And if we do not ask > them, in all probability, nobody else is going to… > > Can we so easily give up on this responsibility… It does seem to me like a bit of a wasted opportunity, yes. I'd have hoped we could have taken it that silence from any would-be dissenters meant consensus. If we can't use Bill's draft in that way, then it seems to me we can only fall back to the model of a petition. May I then, Parminder and Vittorio, publicise Vittorio's most recent draft of the version the three of us contributed to (http://igfwatch.org/petition) more widely in an attempt to gain support for a unified position from civil society, though not from the IGC? Please let me know within a few hours as I depart for Athens today. PS. Also if you agree can you print it and some signature pages out and bring them to Athens? Too late for me to do so. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Oct 25 19:35:26 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:35:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: <453FE7C6.40002@Malcolm.id.au> References: <20061025193341.433E1DA8D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> <453FE7C6.40002@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: On 26 okt 2006, at 00.40, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > It does seem to me like a bit of a wasted opportunity, yes. I'd > have hoped we could have taken it that silence from any would-be > dissenters meant consensus. that is, perhaps unfortunately, one of the things that history has taught us is not the case. we cannot assume the silence means consent and have gotten into trouble before because of that. true, not everyone has to respond, but a significant number of people need to say something. even if it just an 'i agree' a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Wed Oct 25 19:44:00 2006 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:44:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <453FF6C0.6020909@zedat.fu-berlin.de> William Drake wrote: > Anyway, I think this and any other tweaks are probably moot, as a dialogue > among five or six people isn't a basis for caucus statement. Just FYI: My recent silence does not imply I do not endorse the general effort and the direction of the statement - quite to the contrary. I just have to finish some other business before coming to Athens. I guess several others have the same problem. ;-) So, whoever has time to work on this: Please go ahead with the statement and try to make it an agreed IGC statement by all means. Parminder's proposal sounds good to me. No opposition over a defined period of time implies consensus. On the process: The "calling rough consensus" function of any coordinator is only needed if there are dissenting voices, right? That's why it's called "rough". If nobody objects, I find it hard to not move forward. Best, Ralf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nne75 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 20:37:26 2006 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:37:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: endorsement Message-ID: <20061026003726.37765.qmail@web50209.mail.yahoo.com> Hi people The draft, as it is, is okay by me. I thought it would have been posted. On another note, may I nominate Bill Drake? Best Nnenna ----- Original Message ---- From: Ralf Bendrath To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 11:44:00 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal William Drake wrote: > Anyway, I think this and any other tweaks are probably moot, as a dialogue > among five or six people isn't a basis for caucus statement. Just FYI: My recent silence does not imply I do not endorse the general effort and the direction of the statement - quite to the contrary. I just have to finish some other business before coming to Athens. I guess several others have the same problem. ;-) So, whoever has time to work on this: Please go ahead with the statement and try to make it an agreed IGC statement by all means. Parminder's proposal sounds good to me. No opposition over a defined period of time implies consensus. On the process: The "calling rough consensus" function of any coordinator is only needed if there are dissenting voices, right? That's why it's called "rough". If nobody objects, I find it hard to not move forward. Best, Ralf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Wed Oct 25 22:44:05 2006 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 04:44:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <454020F5.9080301@zedat.fu-berlin.de> (Resending, as my mail somehow did not make it. Or did it? Not to me.) William Drake wrote: > Anyway, I think this and any other tweaks are probably moot, as a dialogue > among five or six people isn't a basis for caucus statement. Just FYI: My recent silence does not imply I do not endorse the general effort and the direction of the statement - quite to the contrary. I just have to finish some other business before coming to Athens. I guess several others have the same problem. ;-) So, whoever has time to work on this: Please go ahead with the statement and try to make it an agreed IGC statement by all means. Parminder's proposal sounds good to me. No opposition over a defined period of time implies consensus. On the process: The "calling rough consensus" function of any coordinator is only needed if there are dissenting voices, right? That's why it's called "rough". If nobody objects, I find it hard to not move forward "as the caucus". Best, Ralf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From laina at getit-multimedia.com Thu Oct 26 01:37:10 2006 From: laina at getit-multimedia.com (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:37:10 -0700 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: <454020F5.9080301@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <007001c6f8c0$cc0692f0$4613180a@travellaptop> Ditto. Agree with the three basic points, although agree with someonelse (I think Avri) who pointed out that it should not be posed as a protest even before the fact. A statement of principles as a way to move forward would be best and agreed with Parminder that IGC could potentially play a role forward for IG. Laina -----Original Message----- From: Ralf Bendrath [mailto:bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de] Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:44 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal (Resending, as my mail somehow did not make it. Or did it? Not to me.) William Drake wrote: > Anyway, I think this and any other tweaks are probably moot, as a > dialogue among five or six people isn't a basis for caucus statement. Just FYI: My recent silence does not imply I do not endorse the general effort and the direction of the statement - quite to the contrary. I just have to finish some other business before coming to Athens. I guess several others have the same problem. ;-) So, whoever has time to work on this: Please go ahead with the statement and try to make it an agreed IGC statement by all means. Parminder's proposal sounds good to me. No opposition over a defined period of time implies consensus. On the process: The "calling rough consensus" function of any coordinator is only needed if there are dissenting voices, right? That's why it's called "rough". If nobody objects, I find it hard to not move forward "as the caucus". Best, Ralf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Oct 26 04:19:04 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:19:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: <453FE7C6.40002@Malcolm.id.au> References: <20061025193341.433E1DA8D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> <453FE7C6.40002@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <45406F78.8030905@bertola.eu.org> Jeremy Malcolm ha scritto: > May I then, Parminder and Vittorio, publicise Vittorio's most recent > draft of the version the three of us contributed to > (http://igfwatch.org/petition) more widely in an attempt to gain support > for a unified position from civil society, though not from the IGC? > Please let me know within a few hours as I depart for Athens today. I don't really mind whether it's my text or Bill's, but I do think that we can try to call consensus on a caucus document (initially I thought the opposite, but, as someone pointed out, the Charter is already approved, so we have means to take decisions). We could make a 48-hours consensus call as stated in the Charter, and if no one objects we could release the statement as a caucus document. If there are substantial objections, however, we might fall back to a sign-on petition to be circulated in Athens. Does this look like a good plan? -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Thu Oct 26 04:31:09 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:31:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal [Revision] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, On process, Parminder suggests we follow the 'silence is assent' model, Ralf notes that due to other commitments that applies to him, but Avri says this approach has led to trouble in the past (actually, my recollection is that almost all of the relatively few instances of objections to caucus statements involved cases where we had to say something on short notice in a PrepCom etc in reaction to the flow of the negotiations that had not been vetted at all, which is a different problem). In general, 'you snooze you lose' is obviously a bad way to do things, but I guess the question is whether it can be acceptable in highly constrained situations like this one, with just four days to the IGF, people starting to travel, text being on the table for a number of days, and various people feeling that we really ought to say something. Since we don't have a coordinators to call rough consensus it's not obvious how to resolve this, but clearly to reach a comfort level on either doing it or not doing it we need to at least have more people weighing in either way; it doesn't actually take that much time to type yes or no.... On substance, in the event that we somehow decide to go forward, below is a tweaking that tries to respond to the views expressed that it seemed like an ex ante protest. I wish there'd been some specific examples given of this, as I have trouble reading it that way since I wasn't of that mind when I drafted it and all three points it makes had been raised a number of times by various people without contention. But whatever, I tried to identify any bits that might conceivably seem protesty and rectify: 1. "However, we are concerned by the seemingly growing possibility that the IGF will fall well short of fulfilling the mandate established in the Tunis Agenda." Deleted 'seemingly growing' and replaced 'will' with 'could'. 2. "There are many issues concerning the IGF that merit urgent attention, but we wish to highlight our views on three in particular:" Deleted first clause. 3. "Here we would draw particular attention to the potential utility of formulating non-binding recommendations, and of assessing and promoting the implementation of ³good governance² principles and best practices by the diverse public and private sector institutions and collaborations involved in Internet governance." Deleted, in case non-binding recommendations and good governance are somehow too divisive to emphasize. 4. "But while governments and other stakeholders agreed on them in Tunis, we have not seen any indication since then that the IGF actually will have the capacity to undertake them. Clearly, an annual conference alone simply cannot do the job. We therefore would welcome an opportunity to discuss with other participants how they believe the IGF could develop the capacity to fulfill these and other elements of its mandate. If instead that mandate is no longer considered to be operative, we would like to understand how and why this has been decided." Replaced with, "But while governments and other stakeholders agreed on them in Tunis, they also cannot be performed by annual conferences that largely consist of presentations by invited speakers. We therefore would welcome an opportunity for open dialogue with other participants on how the IGF could fulfill these and other elements of its mandate." The rest remains the same, I can't find anything in it that can be read as a protest, it's simply recommendations---fairly anodyne ones in my view. If someone else can, please say what, specifically, should be changed how. Revised text below. Bill --- Statement of the civil society Internet Governance Caucus to the Internet Governance Forum in Athens, 31 October ­ 2 November 2006 The Internet Governance Caucus comprises a diverse range of individual and organizational civil society actors who are committed to the promotion of global public interest objectives in Internet governance decision-making. The caucus was created in early 2003 and played a leading role on Internet governance issues for the broad civil society coalition that participated in World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process. Some of its members were early proponents of an Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and active participants in the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which formally proposed the IGF¹s creation in the summer of 2005. The caucus strongly supported the WGIG¹s proposal, as well as the consequent mandate given to the IGF by the November 2005 Tunis Agenda on the Information Society. The Caucus remains firmly committed to the IGF and very much wants it to realize its full potential. However, we are concerned by the possibility that the IGF cuuld fall well short of fulfilling the mandate established in the Tunis Agenda. We recognize that the IGF is still in its infancy, but do not believe it is premature to raise this concern now. To the contrary, we hope that by doing so we can help to stimulate a much-needed open, inclusive, and constructive dialogue about the IGF¹s mission and modalities. We wish to highlight our views on three issues in particular: 1. The IGF must have the will and capacity to fulfill its agreed mandate. The Tunis Agenda specifies that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other institutions on matters under their purview; facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of the expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities; strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing countries; identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in developing countries; and promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles [e.g. transparency, multistakeholder participation, and a development orientation] in Internet governance processes. [emphasis added] These are all critically important, value-adding functions that cannot be performed by any other Internet governance mechanism. But while governments and other stakeholders agreed on them in Tunis, they also cannot be performed by annual conferences that largely consist of presentations by invited speakers. We therefore would welcome an opportunity for open dialogue with other participants on how the IGF could fulfill these and other elements of its mandate. 2. The annual IGF conferences should be programmed and conducted in an open manner. Members of the IGF¹s Advisory Group (AG) should be appointed for one year and then replaced by new members who will program the following year¹s conference. The AG¹s composition should reflect a fair balance between the major stakeholder groupings, which should be able to select their own representatives. Participation by diverse constituencies from the developing counties should be made a priority, and resources should be allocated to support this objective. The AG¹s decision-making procedures should be transparent, accountable, and timely. As for the conference itself, it should be a place where, as the WGIG recommended, ³any stakeholder could bring up any Internet governance issue² and have an opportunity to initiate partnerships on related initiatives with other interested parties. While we recognize the constraints of a large group setting, the IGF should strive to maximize opportunities for fully participatory, bottom-up, peer-level multistakeholder dialogue. 3. The IGF should facilitate the formation of issue-oriented groupings alongside the annual conferences. Here we endorse the views expressed by the Multistakeholder Modalities Working Group in its February 2006 statement to the IGF secretariat. The IGF should establish transparent procedures for the formation and recognition of any dynamic coalitions or informal working groups stakeholders may wish to organize on relevant topics. All stakeholders should be able to create such groups on a bottom-up basis. Any such groups should be open to all stakeholders that may wish to participate, transparent, and based primarily on virtual collaboration. They could engage in a range of activities, e.g. inclusive dialogue, monitoring and analysis of trends, conducting studies, and developing recommendations for action. The IGF also should define transparent procedures under which such groups could present any results of their activities for consideration in the annual meetings. These steps would strengthen the engagement of stakeholders from around the world in the work of the IGF, and could significantly increase the IGF¹s capacity to fulfil the mandate it was given. Once again we express our strong support for the IGF and for the mandate it was given by governments and other stakeholders, and we stand ready to work with colleagues from all sectors to make the Tunis Agenda¹s vision a reality. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 04:57:36 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:57:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal [Revision] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Bill, On 10/26/06, William Drake wrote: > > Hi, > > On process, Parminder suggests we follow the 'silence is assent' model, I don't like this, unless perhaps we are all in the same meat-space. > Revised text below. > > We wish to highlight our views on three issues in particular: > > 1. The IGF must have the will and capacity to fulfill its agreed mandate. > The Tunis Agenda specifies that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate > discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international > public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing > body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other > institutions on matters under their purview; facilitate the exchange of > information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of the > expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities; strengthen > and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future > Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing > countries; identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the > relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make > recommendations; contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in > developing countries; and promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the > embodiment of WSIS principles [e.g. transparency, multistakeholder > participation, and a development orientation] in Internet governance > processes. [emphasis added] > > These are all critically important, value-adding functions that cannot be > performed by any other Internet governance mechanism. I find this objectionable in the extreme. The IG folks I have been involved with do most, if not all of the above. The idea that you don't understand this is disturbing, but perhaps it's just rhetoric on your part. in any case, I don't think it necessary. The rest is fairly unobjectionable. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Oct 26 05:02:12 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:02:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] Civil Society at IGF opening ceremony Message-ID: We were asked to recommend a person from civil society to speak at the opening ceremony of IGF, morning of Monday 30 October. There wasn't much time to make a choice, so my apologies for the lack of democracy in the selection process -- my fault if anyone's. We have recommended Natasha Primo, Executive Director of Women's Net , one of the most impressive women's and ICT organizations in Africa. Natasha is also Chair of APC. Thought it particularly important to bring gender issues forward in IGF as they are not well represented in any of the panel sessions. And I am sure Natasha will listen to comments from the Caucus. We were not asked to find a representative of civil society. But someone who could present some civil society perspective on the IGF, perhaps our hopes and aspirations for it. Natasha will have exactly 7 minutes speaking time. We will also be asked for suggest a person from civil society for the closing ceremony. Also 7 minutes. I expect this will be more a reaction to the week and developments in Athens. No need to select anyone yet, the person may stand out as things develop in Athens. Thanks, Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Thu Oct 26 05:07:07 2006 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:07:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: <20061025193341.433E1DA8D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> (parminder@itforchange.net) References: <20061025193341.433E1DA8D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20061026090707.A2ED841669@quill.bollow.ch> "Parminder" wrote: > But the problem is that IGF is an (potentially) important institution for > IG, and some of these questions are crucial to be asked in the first > meeting. I agree wholeheartedly, even though because of time constraints, I can't currently actively participate in the development of the text. > So I suggest that we give 24 hours for anyone to oppose submission by the > IGC to the IGF with these three points - pulling together text which has > been circulated - and if no one opposes it, we write a 'clear' text and put > it up for adoption. This can be done over the weekend. And if there are a > good number of assenting voices, and no dissent we go ahead with it. And I > am sure that this would not be a new procedure. Statements have been adopted > on behalf of the IGC earlier in similar conditions. And with similar number > of people involved initially in the exchanges. That's fine with me. In the alternative scenario that there is dissent which cannot be resolved in the scarce remaining time, I'd suggest that if a 'clear' text is produced as proposed above, it can still be used, as a statement in the name of "the undersigned members of the Internet Governance Caucus", and everyone who wants can sign during the lunch break on Monday. That way we'll still have something ready by the time of the "setting the scene" session (Monday 3pm), but there won't be any procedural worries about holding a vote or some other formal way of authorizing a statement in the name of the IGC which is not based on total consensus. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Oct 26 05:08:37 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:08:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: <45406F78.8030905@bertola.eu.org> References: <20061025193341.433E1DA8D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> <453FE7C6.40002@Malcolm.id.au> <45406F78.8030905@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: On 26 okt 2006, at 10.19, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > We could make a 48-hours consensus call as stated in the Charter, > and if no one objects we could release the statement as a caucus > document. Ok. I have put a copy of draft sent in by Bill Drake at: http:// www.igcaucus.org/draft-Athens-stmt.html since a few people have written in to say they agree with having a statement and with support for this statement, lets try for a consensus call - not rough consensus (i do not fee that i or anyone else is in a position to call rough consensus). Over the next 48 hours - by the end of Saturday 28 October, no one objects to using this statement (not counting minor non-substantive edits), then we can call it a IGC statement. thanks. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Thu Oct 26 07:26:47 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:26:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal [Revision] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: McTim, > From: McTim >> These are all critically important, value-adding functions that cannot be >> performed by any other Internet governance mechanism. > > I find this objectionable in the extreme. The IG folks I have been > involved with do most, if not all of the above. > > The idea that you don't understand this is disturbing, but perhaps > it's just rhetoric on your part. in any case, I don't think it > necessary. Equally disturbing is the idea that you would respond publicly in this manner without first checking privately to make sure you understand what you're actually reacting to. Yet again (and again), you really need to stop viewing every expression of concern by anyone about any aspect of IG as some sort of thinly veiled attack on the technical and operational organizations involved in standards and identifiers and the people who work in them. Nothing like that was intended or implied, full stop. The statement does not say that within their particular functional areas of activity, the people you work with don't do make huge contributions to the net's development or significant efforts to contribute to capacity building or anything else. It is dealing, per the IGF's original conception and mandate, with the whole heterogeneous landscape of IG mechanisms and issues, including the intergovernmental realm, and saying that there is no one body within that landscape that performs the following functions with respect to IG AS A WHOLE: > The Tunis Agenda specifies that the IGF should, inter alia, facilitate > discourse between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international > public policies and issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing > body; interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other > institutions on matters under their purview; facilitate the exchange of > information and best practices, and in this regard make full use of the > expertise of the academic, scientific and technical communities; strengthen > and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing and/or future > Internet governance mechanisms, particularly those from developing > countries; identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the > relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make > recommendations; contribute to capacity building for Internet governance in > developing countries; and promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the > embodiment of WSIS principles [e.g. transparency, multistakeholder > participation, and a development orientation] in Internet governance > processes. [emphasis added] Which of the groups you imagine you are defending from attack is facilitating discourse and information exchange on PUBLIC POLICIES between the full constellation of intergovernmental and private bodies involved in IG? Which is serving as an interface between intergovernmental organizations on matters under THEIR purview? Which is promoting and assessing, on an ongoing basis, whether the full range of intergovernmental and private bodies involved in IG undertakes decision making in a manner that is transparent, accountable, inclusive, and development-oriented? None of them. They're doing other things, per their respective mandates and constituent interests, and the statement is not saying they don't do those things well. It's operating at the systemic level, not the level of individual organizations or networks. That's the IGF's unique mandate, and the statement merely endorse the mandate and says fine, let's implement it. The sentence, "These are all critically important, value-adding functions that cannot be performed by any other Internet governance mechanism" needs to be read in that specific context. If you misunderstand the IGF's mandate, then you'll misunderstand an endorsement of it. If it would make you feel better, we could specify further, "These are all critically important, value-adding functions that cannot be performed for the Internet governance arena as a whole by any one existing organization." On the other hand, if as you frequently seem to indicate, you think the IGF is just useless BS in the first place, then I can't see why you'd care how exactly the caucus frames another endorsement of it. So would you like us to make the sentence above allude more clearly to the mandate, or would you simply like the caucus to not endorse the mandate? Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Thu Oct 26 08:56:28 2006 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:56:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal [Revision] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4540B07C.6080509@zedat.fu-berlin.de> McTim wrote: >> These are all critically important, value-adding functions that >> cannot be >> performed by any other Internet governance mechanism. > > I find this objectionable in the extreme. The IG folks I have been > involved with do most, if not all of the above. I guess the potential source for misunderstanding lies in the difference between "mechanism" and "folks". As Bill said, it's a systemic function. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Amr.Aljowaily at ties.itu.int Thu Oct 26 11:54:02 2006 From: Amr.Aljowaily at ties.itu.int (Amr Aljowailiy) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:54:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] workshop invite - exploring a framework convention on the Internet In-Reply-To: <20061025212723.7F1005C67@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <00df01c6f916$f54ae200$2401a8c0@laptop> Thank you Parminder. I haven't received a feedback yet. Is the invitation to cosponsor/participate for Egypt still holding? Best regards, Amr Personal Communication From: Amr Aljowaily First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Egypt to the UN, WTO and Other International Organizations in Geneva. 49 Avenue Blanc (2eme Etage), 1202 Geneva Tel: (0)22-731 6530/9 Fax:(0)22-738 4415 amr.aljowaily at ties.itu.int _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 11:27 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] workshop invite - exploring a framework convention on the Internet I invite all IGC members to the workshop on 'Exploring a Framework Convention on the Internet" on the 31st between 1330 and 1500 hours at the IGF. We are interested in hearing all views on the issue - which suggests one institutional way out for the current global 'public policy dilemma' for the Internet. However, Internet is a novel phenomenon, and any institutional framework for its governance will need to be a new hybrid form. More details of the workshop are enclosed. We mean to keep it a highly interactive session, so not being on the panel should not be a major limitation to participating :) Parminder UN Internet Governance Forum, Athens, 30th October to 2nd November, 2006 Workshop on 'Exploring a Framework Convention on the Internet' 1330 to 1500 Hrs, 31st October Organized by: IT for Change, Bangalore; Hivos, Netherlands; Panos institute, West Africa; Third World Institute, Uruguay; and Foundation for Media Alternatives, Philippines Panelists: Pankaj Agrawala, Government of India, MAG member; William Currie, Association for Progressive Communications; William Drake, Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO, Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland; John Mathiason, Internet Governance Project, Syracuse University, New York; One representative from the Brazilian government (yet to be confirmed) The workshop will explore the context, usefulness and possibility of a 'Framework Convention on the Internet', by examining the following questions, which will be posed to the panelists and other participants: 1. The WSIS identified the need for, and mandated, the initiation of some international processes for developing public policy on Internet related issues (see paragraphs 60, 61, 69, 70 and 71 of the Tunis Agenda), but since the WSIS, not much has been done in this area. What do we think of the importance of the Internet as a key global socio-economic infrastructure of the future, and the nature of public policy regimes in this regard? The possible 'policy regime' options are: a. A distributed and largely 'privatized' governance regime as at present, which, on critical emergent policy matters, may interface with national policy regimes in an ad-hoc, fire-fighting, manner. b. Evolving global public policies regarding the Internet 'internally' in respective global regimes like the WIPO and the WTO, and specific international treaties like those in the area of cooperation on crime, in as much as these domains are impacted by the Internet (or vice versa). c. Laying out broad global public policy principles for the Internet, through a new international process, which gives due regard to the new realities of a truly global infrastructure and the systems built over it. 2. With frequent references to 'balkanization' of the Internet in the public discourse today (whether in terms of 'network neutrality' like economic issues, cultural issues like multilingualism, or issues like political restrictions on free flow of information), how important is it to save the 'global public nature of the Internet' by defining a broad global public policy regime for it? How would you comment on the hypothesis that - 'One global public Internet can survive only under one (broad) global public policy regime'? 3. What are your views on initiating a framework convention kind of a process, which incorporates due innovations, especially with regard to a greater multistakeholder involvement, for evolving global public policy principles for the Internet? What is the appropriateness or otherwise of such an institutional form; what are its chances in the present and the future context; what are the main bottlenecks, and what are the positive signs? Background Papers: 1. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance - Call for a Framework Convention on the Internet' at http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/A%20Development%20Agenda%20fo r%20IG%20-%20ITfC.pdf 2. 'A Framework Convention: An Institutional Option for Internet Governance' at http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/igp-fc.pdf 3. Association for Progressive Communication's recommendations to WSIS on IG at http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/contributions/co103.pdf ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Oct 26 10:06:47 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:06:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: References: <20061025193341.433E1DA8D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> <453FE7C6.40002@Malcolm.id.au> <45406F78.8030905@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <4540C0F7.9040200@wz-berlin.de> Avri Doria wrote: > > On 26 okt 2006, at 10.19, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >> We could make a 48-hours consensus call as stated in the Charter, and >> if no one objects we could release the statement as a caucus document. > > Ok. I have put a copy of draft sent in by Bill Drake at: > http://www.igcaucus.org/draft-Athens-stmt.html > > > since a few people have written in to say they agree with having a > statement and with support for this statement, lets try for a consensus > call - not rough consensus (i do not fee that i or anyone else is in a > position to call rough consensus). > > Over the next 48 hours - by the end of Saturday 28 October, no one > objects to using this statement (not counting minor non-substantive > edits), then we can call it a IGC statement. Hi, I had planned to not comment on this statement but now that silence could be interpreted as consent I feel I should speak up. I have two issues with the statement. The first is about style, the second is about the content of issue No 2. Regarding the style of the statement: The statement reminds me very much of the interventions the caucus made throughout the WSIS prepcoms. We wrote a text, we edited it, we gave copies to the chair and the translators and we finally read it. The forum is not meant to accommodate that kind of prepared interventions/statements, it is about dialogue. Because the forum should not repeat prepcom style interventions, the secretariat offers the opportunity to contribute videos to the forum. Whoever feels like giving a statement should use this opportunity. While it is easy to predict that some people will nonetheless prepare written statements, I don't understand why the IG caucus of all groups sticks to this pretty non-interactive mode of communication. As both Avri and Laina pointed out, we are speaking on equal footing with the other groups assembled in Athens. This is why we should not complain about something that hasn't taken place yet and list demands to an imaginary chair in control of the whole thing. Such a statement with suggestions of how to proceed in the next years would be very good at the lessons learned meeting after the forum. Regarding issue No 2: I know it sounds odd for a member of the Advisory Committee to say this but I would like to get an explanation why members of the IGF's advisory group should only be appointed for one year. There are at least two reasons why this doesn't make sense to me. The first is that appointing new members is a very time consuming effort the swallows a lot of the secretariat's capacity. The second is reason is that at least some of us (not necessarily all) should have a second term to make good use of what they learned during their first term. Have we had any discussion about the pro's and con's of one versus two terms? My view on this issue is based on my experience in ICANN's NomCom. I was much more efficient at my job in the second year. There are aspects I don't agree with in issue No 2. The demand that the AG should make decisions in a transparent, accountable and timely manner I find just empty. There is a lot of literature on the problem of accountability and transparency. After having read only a fraction of it I've come to the conclusion that both accountability and transparency are not good per se. It is really a matter of designing it carefully and finding a good balance. Ralf's window metaphor from a few days ago is just wrong. It is neither possible nor desirable to communicate everything in the open. Unless we really spell out what we mean by transparency and accountability I suggest we rather not demand more of it any longer. Finally an objection to the provision that all AG members should be selected by the stakeholder groups. First, the caucus did to a considerable degree select its own representatives but the statement doesn't reflect that. Markus took always great care to take into account the preferences from the various groups. Yet, the secretariat does need some latitude to meet another concern mentioned in this section of the statement. If the stakeholder groups don't propose a sufficient number of representatives from developing countries, or if they propose only very few women, the secretariat must be able to make adjustments. Likewise, if all the selections are made in a decentral manner by the respective stakeholder groupings, some countries might be overrepresented and some regions not represented at all. So, I don't agree with this demand. I don't want to veto the statement if there is a sufficient amount of support for it. But I don't want my silence be confused with consent. Sorry for the length, jeanette > > thanks. > a. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Oct 26 10:56:55 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:56:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: <4540C0F7.9040200@wz-berlin.de> References: <20061025193341.433E1DA8D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> <453FE7C6.40002@Malcolm.id.au> <45406F78.8030905@bertola.eu.org> <4540C0F7.9040200@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <4540CCB7.4080600@bertola.eu.org> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: > The forum is not meant to accommodate that kind of prepared > interventions/statements, it is about dialogue. Because the forum should > not repeat prepcom style interventions, the secretariat offers the > opportunity to contribute videos to the forum. Whoever feels like giving > a statement should use this opportunity. > > While it is easy to predict that some people will nonetheless prepare > written statements, I don't understand why the IG caucus of all groups > sticks to this pretty non-interactive mode of communication. The problem is that, per our years of discussions, as a caucus we can't just pop up there and say whatever we think on the spot. We need to follow a formal process and agree in advance on something. We might present what we agreed upon in a less formal manner - for example, someone could just take the floor and explain our consensus, rather than reading a prearranged document. But we do need to agree on (and approve) something quite precise before the meeting, if we are to speak as a caucus at the Forum. (Governments have a similar problem, but since they are hierarchical structures, the topmost officer may just show up and speak. We are not hierarchical, so we cannot do the same.) > Regarding issue No 2: I know it sounds odd for a member of the Advisory > Committee to say this but I would like to get an explanation why members > of the IGF's advisory group should only be appointed for one year. There was no intention to send you away if you want to continue - actually, the points you make about continuing are valid (though there are others against - for example, since there can be so few civil society members of the AG, perhaps it would be fairer to rotate as quickly as possible). It just seemed logical to assume that AG members would not stick to their chairs forever, but needed reappointment every year, without implying that we couldn't reappoint the existing ones. > There are aspects I don't agree with in issue No 2. The demand that the > AG should make decisions in a transparent, accountable and timely manner > I find just empty. There is a lot of literature on the problem of > accountability and transparency. After having read only a fraction of it > I've come to the conclusion that both accountability and transparency > are not good per se. I understand, but I think that the demand for accountability and transparency comes from the fact that many of us are quite dissatisfied with the way this IGF has been designed. I don't think anyone ever asked the caucus whether there should be panels or not, whether we agreed not to have working groups, whether we agreed with such a strong theming of the event and so on. It's not a demand for accountability per se, it's that we need accountability to get our voices heard in the future, since, not blaming anyone, the feeling of many people is this didn't happen enough this year. > Finally an objection to the provision that all AG members should be > selected by the stakeholder groups. First, the caucus did to a > considerable degree select its own representatives but the statement > doesn't reflect that. This is factually incorrect - it was true for the WGIG, but not for the IGF AG. This caucus put forward 15 names: https://ssl.cpsr.org/pipermail/governance/2006-April/006088.html of which only three were taken; another couple of CS persons who were not in our list were picked (so we picked only 60% of our reps). Ok, we didn't hope to have 15 people in the AG, but 5 over 46, of which only 3 from the caucus, is not even near to balanced representation of civil society, let it be 1/3 or 1/4 of the AG. Especially if you compare it with the representation of the "Internet technical community", which sums up to 12 members. And again, no one would care about chairs, if the resulting Forum didn't come fundamentally short of its mission, especially in the points that were most important to us. > Yet, the secretariat does need some latitude to meet another concern > mentioned in this section of the statement. If the stakeholder groups > don't propose a sufficient number of representatives from developing > countries, or if they propose only very few women, the secretariat must > be able to make adjustments. Catering for diversity and adjustments is different from saying that civil society representatives should be picked from the top rather than appointed from the bottom, which is what we are complaining against. Incidentally, you say that you need freedom for the Secretariat to take care of diversity, and yet the only three people that the Secretariat picked from our list were you, Adam and Robin - completely ignoring the developing world... Our suggestions were much more diverse than the final choice! -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Oct 26 11:17:15 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:17:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal Message-ID: A few quick points. 1. This statement has come together surprisingly fast. Few people have contributed to it and, I suspect, read it. I know that numerous messages about it have been posted in the last four days. However, based on past experience I initially viewed this as yet another futile attempt of the caucus to pull together something at the last minute, which rarely works. Therefore , being extremely busy with Athen prep, I did not read most of them thinking that the efforts would not gel. 2. Having finally been prompted to read it, the statement itself is not bad. I agree however with Jeanette's warnings about the tone and intent. This is not WSIS, this is not an intervention into an intergovernmental negotiation, and therefore the "appeal to authority" aspect is misplaced. I think we need a far more positive and constructive sense of what we want to come out of the forum, what are the results. IGP is about to release a short paper about that, by the way. My suggestion is that those who agree with the statement as it stands post it somewhere, copy it and distribute it at the Forum, and do one of the videos. 3. I do agree with the "term limits" for MAG members, even knowing that we have very good people on there. Rotation in that office will still allow us to capture that learning. >>> jeanette at wz-berlin.de 10/26/2006 10:06 AM >>> Avri Doria wrote: > > On 26 okt 2006, at 10.19, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >> We could make a 48-hours consensus call as stated in the Charter, and >> if no one objects we could release the statement as a caucus document. > > Ok. I have put a copy of draft sent in by Bill Drake at: > http://www.igcaucus.org/draft-Athens-stmt.html > > > since a few people have written in to say they agree with having a > statement and with support for this statement, lets try for a consensus > call - not rough consensus (i do not fee that i or anyone else is in a > position to call rough consensus). > > Over the next 48 hours - by the end of Saturday 28 October, no one > objects to using this statement (not counting minor non-substantive > edits), then we can call it a IGC statement. Hi, I had planned to not comment on this statement but now that silence could be interpreted as consent I feel I should speak up. I have two issues with the statement. The first is about style, the second is about the content of issue No 2. Regarding the style of the statement: The statement reminds me very much of the interventions the caucus made throughout the WSIS prepcoms. We wrote a text, we edited it, we gave copies to the chair and the translators and we finally read it. The forum is not meant to accommodate that kind of prepared interventions/statements, it is about dialogue. Because the forum should not repeat prepcom style interventions, the secretariat offers the opportunity to contribute videos to the forum. Whoever feels like giving a statement should use this opportunity. While it is easy to predict that some people will nonetheless prepare written statements, I don't understand why the IG caucus of all groups sticks to this pretty non-interactive mode of communication. As both Avri and Laina pointed out, we are speaking on equal footing with the other groups assembled in Athens. This is why we should not complain about something that hasn't taken place yet and list demands to an imaginary chair in control of the whole thing. Such a statement with suggestions of how to proceed in the next years would be very good at the lessons learned meeting after the forum. Regarding issue No 2: I know it sounds odd for a member of the Advisory Committee to say this but I would like to get an explanation why members of the IGF's advisory group should only be appointed for one year. There are at least two reasons why this doesn't make sense to me. The first is that appointing new members is a very time consuming effort the swallows a lot of the secretariat's capacity. The second is reason is that at least some of us (not necessarily all) should have a second term to make good use of what they learned during their first term. Have we had any discussion about the pro's and con's of one versus two terms? My view on this issue is based on my experience in ICANN's NomCom. I was much more efficient at my job in the second year. There are aspects I don't agree with in issue No 2. The demand that the AG should make decisions in a transparent, accountable and timely manner I find just empty. There is a lot of literature on the problem of accountability and transparency. After having read only a fraction of it I've come to the conclusion that both accountability and transparency are not good per se. It is really a matter of designing it carefully and finding a good balance. Ralf's window metaphor from a few days ago is just wrong. It is neither possible nor desirable to communicate everything in the open. Unless we really spell out what we mean by transparency and accountability I suggest we rather not demand more of it any longer. Finally an objection to the provision that all AG members should be selected by the stakeholder groups. First, the caucus did to a considerable degree select its own representatives but the statement doesn't reflect that. Markus took always great care to take into account the preferences from the various groups. Yet, the secretariat does need some latitude to meet another concern mentioned in this section of the statement. If the stakeholder groups don't propose a sufficient number of representatives from developing countries, or if they propose only very few women, the secretariat must be able to make adjustments. Likewise, if all the selections are made in a decentral manner by the respective stakeholder groupings, some countries might be overrepresented and some regions not represented at all. So, I don't agree with this demand. I don't want to veto the statement if there is a sufficient amount of support for it. But I don't want my silence be confused with consent. Sorry for the length, jeanette > > thanks. > a. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Thu Oct 26 11:27:33 2006 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (klohento at panos-ao.org) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:27:33 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: <4540CCB7.4080600@bertola.eu.org> References: <20061025193341.433E1DA8D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> <453FE7C6.40002@Malcolm.id.au> <45406F78.8030905@bertola.eu.org> <4540C0F7.9040200@wz-berlin.de> <4540CCB7.4080600@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <22171.213.154.88.66.1161876453.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> > the only three people that the Secretariat > picked from our list were you, Adam and Robin - completely ignoring the > developing world... Just to make a small correction: I was also on the list (even though I was also at the same time nominated by ACSIS), Qusai AlShatti was also on the IGC list - and we are from developing countries. Another reality is that the IGC caucus (even though the most relevant from a thematic point of view) is not the only CS grouping that can send nominations... KL ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Oct 26 11:32:49 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:32:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Does the UN Internet Gov. Forum know where it is going? Message-ID: Over a thousand people are heading to Athens, Greece for the first meeting of the UN-sponsored Internet Governance Forum. Many of them are still fielding doubts or worries about what the outcome of this new multi-stakeholder institution is supposed to be. In a new paper from the Internet Governance Project, John Mathiason opens with the famous quote from Yogi Berra, "if you don't know where you are going, you might not get there." He proposes some specific outcomes for the Forum that are consistent with the Tunis Agenda and proposes to use the techniques of "results based management" to assess how well the Forum achieves them. Download the paper here: http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/roadtorio.pdf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Oct 26 11:33:52 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:33:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: <4540CCB7.4080600@bertola.eu.org> References: <20061025193341.433E1DA8D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> <453FE7C6.40002@Malcolm.id.au> <45406F78.8030905@bertola.eu.org> <4540C0F7.9040200@wz-berlin.de> <4540CCB7.4080600@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <4540D560.5050009@wz-berlin.de> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: >> The forum is not meant to accommodate that kind of prepared >> interventions/statements, it is about dialogue. Because the forum >> should not repeat prepcom style interventions, the secretariat offers >> the opportunity to contribute videos to the forum. Whoever feels like >> giving a statement should use this opportunity. >> >> While it is easy to predict that some people will nonetheless prepare >> written statements, I don't understand why the IG caucus of all groups >> sticks to this pretty non-interactive mode of communication. > > The problem is that, per our years of discussions, as a caucus we can't > just pop up there and say whatever we think on the spot. We need to > follow a formal process and agree in advance on something. We might > present what we agreed upon in a less formal manner - for example, > someone could just take the floor and explain our consensus, rather than > reading a prearranged document. But we do need to agree on (and approve) > something quite precise before the meeting, if we are to speak as a > caucus at the Forum. Vittorio, I would agree with that approach. What I object to is to read a statement that sounds as if we are appealing to some higher authority. I would suggest the caucus brings up one or two important points in the setting the scene session. The one I'd found most relevant concerns the outcomes of the forum. In order to make the forum a really relevant entity it needs to think about potential outcomes and how to achieve those. The other point I find very relevant is covered by the first issue in the statement. It is about keeping the mission in mind and making sure that the forum evolves into more than a mere conference. But we should definitely not read the whole mission to the audience. >> Regarding issue No 2: I know it sounds odd for a member of the >> Advisory Committee to say this but I would like to get an explanation >> why members of the IGF's advisory group should only be appointed for >> one year. > > There was no intention to send you away if you want to continue - Not my point. I wouldn't mind so much a staggering approach that allows for some of us to stay. I would then suggest Adam rather than me. > actually, the points you make about continuing are valid (though there > are others against - for example, since there can be so few civil > society members of the AG, perhaps it would be fairer to rotate as > quickly as possible). It just seemed logical to assume that AG members > would not stick to their chairs forever, but needed reappointment every > year, without implying that we couldn't reappoint the existing ones. My point was to have a discussion about this pro's and con's instead of just writing down one possible view on this. > >> There are aspects I don't agree with in issue No 2. The demand that >> the AG should make decisions in a transparent, accountable and timely >> manner I find just empty. There is a lot of literature on the problem >> of accountability and transparency. After having read only a fraction >> of it I've come to the conclusion that both accountability and >> transparency are not good per se. > > I understand, but I think that the demand for accountability and > transparency comes from the fact that many of us are quite dissatisfied > with the way this IGF has been designed. I don't think anyone ever asked > the caucus whether there should be panels or not, whether we agreed not > to have working groups, whether we agreed with such a strong theming of > the event and so on. It's not a demand for accountability per se, it's > that we need accountability to get our voices heard in the future, > since, not blaming anyone, the feeling of many people is this didn't > happen enough this year. As you know, the AG met only twice. The decisions about the basic structure were made in the first meeting in May (?). Time was really a pressing problem. The only way I see how the caucus could have contributed to this would have been to have a systematic discussion about structure _beforehand_. If the whole decision making process would have designed bottom up with all members first consulting their various groups, we would not be ready to have meeting this year. I repeat what I said, accountability and transparency is always a relative thing, it competes against other goals, and it can easily become dysfunctional. For those interested in details, have a look for example at Marc Bovens (2005): http://www.usg.uu.nl/download/08-Ferlie-chap08.pdf > >> Finally an objection to the provision that all AG members should be >> selected by the stakeholder groups. First, the caucus did to a >> considerable degree select its own representatives but the statement >> doesn't reflect that. > > This is factually incorrect - it was true for the WGIG, but not for the > IGF AG. This caucus put forward 15 names: > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/pipermail/governance/2006-April/006088.html > > of which only three were taken; another couple of CS persons who were > not in our list were picked (so we picked only 60% of our reps). I'd say 60% is a reason to complain but not too loudly. Ok, we > didn't hope to have 15 people in the AG, but 5 over 46, of which only 3 > from the caucus, is not even near to balanced representation of civil > society, let it be 1/3 or 1/4 of the AG. Especially if you compare it > with the representation of the "Internet technical community", which > sums up to 12 members. > > And again, no one would care about chairs, if the resulting Forum didn't > come fundamentally short of its mission, especially in the points that > were most important to us. But it is still an evolving thing, we should bring up well considered suggestions in the lessions learned session. I still have no idea how this reporting will work out and what we actually achieve in Athens. You are dismissing it before it had a chance to accomplish something. > >> Yet, the secretariat does need some latitude to meet another concern >> mentioned in this section of the statement. If the stakeholder groups >> don't propose a sufficient number of representatives from developing >> countries, or if they propose only very few women, the secretariat >> must be able to make adjustments. > > Catering for diversity and adjustments is different from saying that > civil society representatives should be picked from the top rather than > appointed from the bottom, Vittorio, I didn't say that. jeanette which is what we are complaining against. > > Incidentally, you say that you need freedom for the Secretariat to take > care of diversity, and yet the only three people that the Secretariat > picked from our list were you, Adam and Robin - completely ignoring the > developing world... Our suggestions were much more diverse than the > final choice! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Oct 26 11:38:43 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:38:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal Message-ID: >>> klohento at panos-ao.org 10/26/2006 11:27:33 AM >>> >Another reality is that the IGC caucus (even though the most >relevant from a thematic point of view) is not the only CS grouping >that can send nominations... Yes, but it is not best practice to allow a Secretariat, which is in itself not accountable to the represented groups in any way, to pick and choose which CS grouping it will take and which it will exclude. This is not a criticism of the Secretariat, of course, but a statement about the under-institutionalization of the whole process. If the UN is serious about broadening participation and representation it will have to set up new structures for representation. It cannot, or should not, continue to rely on the informal, behind-the-scenes old boy and girl networks, which allows a secretariat complete discretion to pick and choose the representatives for various sectors. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Oct 26 11:46:10 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:46:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: <22171.213.154.88.66.1161876453.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> References: <20061025193341.433E1DA8D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> <453FE7C6.40002@Malcolm.id.au> <45406F78.8030905@bertola.eu.org> <4540C0F7.9040200@wz-berlin.de> <4540CCB7.4080600@bertola.eu.org> <22171.213.154.88.66.1161876453.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr> Message-ID: <4540D842.1090202@bertola.eu.org> klohento at panos-ao.org ha scritto: > Just to make a small correction: Apologies, I must confess that I missed that. That makes things somewhat better, though it does not solve my concerns on that point completely. > Another reality is that the IGC caucus (even though the most relevant from > a thematic point of view) is not the only CS grouping that can send > nominations... This is another point that we should discuss with all other CS groupings. We should find a way to work together at least on these procedural points, otherwise, if we stand divided, it will be easier to ignore even the (many) points on which we agree. For example, appointment of delegates should be something on which we should find a way to have just one inclusive process whose outcome is acknowledged by all civil society groups. It might come with time, if we work to that effect. On the other hand, diversity is never bad, so there's nothing wrong in putting forward multiple suggestions either. I just think that this makes it easier to ignore them all altogether. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be Thu Oct 26 11:55:31 2006 From: jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be (Jacques Berleur) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:55:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statistics for a democratic control !!! Message-ID: Dear friends, In view of our CS Athens meeting, I have gathered some statistics on the two lists: governance at lists.cpsr.org, plenary at wsis-cs.org. >From 27/04/06 to 26/10/06, i.e. 6 months, we got 1582 messages. There are around 60 persons having more than 10 messages each. But there are only 13 with above 30, as follows: - Avri Doria 141 - Milton Mueller: 92 - Parminder 75 - Veni Markowski 70 - Vittorio Bertola 66 - William Drake 63 - Adam Peake: 62 - Ralf Bendrath 42 - Mc Tim: 40 - Mawaki Chango : 33 - Robert Guerra 33 - Wolfgang Kleinwächter 37 - CONGO: 30 The score of Avri is understandable since s/he was conducting the survey on the IGC Charter. The score of CONGO is very low as compared to its Secretarial Task. The followers are: - Francis Muguet 27 - Jeanette Hoffman 26 - Jeremy Malcolm 26 - Nenna 24 - Norbert Bollow 21 - Renata Bloem 14 You must understand that many people are absent from the list since it is not-moderated.... and have not the capacity to follow the discussion without spending a long time that they don't have. To see you in Athens. A retired Professor who has bee fighting more than 30 years for a human centred information society, Jacques Berleur -- ************************************************ Prof. Jacques BERLEUR Facultes Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix Rue Grandgagnage, 21 Phone: +32 81 72-4976 Mobile: +32 (0)475 548372 5000 NAMUR Fax: +32 81 72 4967 BELGIUM mailto:jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be URL: http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/~jbl/ ************************************************ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Thu Oct 26 12:04:54 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:04:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: <4540D560.5050009@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: Hi, There's not a lot of point in going around and around on this anymore, since it seems clear we can't agree a joint position statement (best of luck to our future coordinators ;-). But just for my own understanding of what people are saying, could this be explained please: > From: Jeanette Hofmann > Vittorio, I would agree with that approach. What I object to is to read > a statement that sounds as if we are appealing to some higher authority. > From: Milton Mueller > This is not WSIS, this is not an intervention into an intergovernmental > negotiation, and therefore the "appeal to authority" aspect is > misplaced. I think we need a far more positive and constructive sense of I don't get the "appealing to authority" interpretation anymore than I did the "protesting" interpretation. The statement simply says 1) we think the IGF should follow its mandate, annual conferences alone can't achieve that, so we would welcome an opportunity for open dialogue on how it can be done; 2) the AG and conference should be open and transparent; and 3) the IGF should facilitate the formation of dynamic blah blah blahs. In what sense are these positions groveling appeals to authority? Which passages do this? I see them as flat statements of preference. Thanks, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Oct 26 12:12:49 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:12:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4540DE81.9080200@wz-berlin.de> William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > There's not a lot of point in going around and around on this anymore, since > it seems clear we can't agree a joint position statement (best of luck to > our future coordinators ;-). But just for my own understanding of what > people are saying, could this be explained please: > >> From: Jeanette Hofmann > >> Vittorio, I would agree with that approach. What I object to is to read >> a statement that sounds as if we are appealing to some higher authority. > >> From: Milton Mueller > >> This is not WSIS, this is not an intervention into an intergovernmental >> negotiation, and therefore the "appeal to authority" aspect is >> misplaced. I think we need a far more positive and constructive sense of > > I don't get the "appealing to authority" interpretation anymore than I did > the "protesting" interpretation. Hi Bill, lets imagine you would talk to your giganet colleagues and you wanted to convince them of something, would you then write for example "resources should be allocated to support this objective"? No, you wouldn't write that since you know there is nobody in Giganet who allocates any recourses. This is meant as a mere illustration of my point. jeanette The statement simply says 1) we think the > IGF should follow its mandate, annual conferences alone can't achieve that, > so we would welcome an opportunity for open dialogue on how it can be done; > 2) the AG and conference should be open and transparent; and 3) the IGF > should facilitate the formation of dynamic blah blah blahs. In what sense > are these positions groveling appeals to authority? Which passages do this? > I see them as flat statements of preference. > > Thanks, > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rishi at gipi.org.in Thu Oct 26 12:48:48 2006 From: rishi at gipi.org.in (Rishi Chawla) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:18:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Statistics for a democratic control !!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I completely agree with Jacques here. I am interested in the agenda, but it is really difficult to keep track of all those mails. Rishi Chawla Center for Communications Law & Policy Research, New Delhi, India -----Original Message----- From: Jacques Berleur [mailto:jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be] Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:26 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org Subject: [governance] Statistics for a democratic control !!! Dear friends, In view of our CS Athens meeting, I have gathered some statistics on the two lists: governance at lists.cpsr.org, plenary at wsis-cs.org. >From 27/04/06 to 26/10/06, i.e. 6 months, we got 1582 messages. There are around 60 persons having more than 10 messages each. But there are only 13 with above 30, as follows: - Avri Doria 141 - Milton Mueller: 92 - Parminder 75 - Veni Markowski 70 - Vittorio Bertola 66 - William Drake 63 - Adam Peake: 62 - Ralf Bendrath 42 - Mc Tim: 40 - Mawaki Chango : 33 - Robert Guerra 33 - Wolfgang Kleinwächter 37 - CONGO: 30 The score of Avri is understandable since s/he was conducting the survey on the IGC Charter. The score of CONGO is very low as compared to its Secretarial Task. The followers are: - Francis Muguet 27 - Jeanette Hoffman 26 - Jeremy Malcolm 26 - Nenna 24 - Norbert Bollow 21 - Renata Bloem 14 You must understand that many people are absent from the list since it is not-moderated.... and have not the capacity to follow the discussion without spending a long time that they don't have. To see you in Athens. A retired Professor who has bee fighting more than 30 years for a human centred information society, Jacques Berleur -- ************************************************ Prof. Jacques BERLEUR Facultes Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix Rue Grandgagnage, 21 Phone: +32 81 72-4976 Mobile: +32 (0)475 548372 5000 NAMUR Fax: +32 81 72 4967 BELGIUM mailto:jberleur at info.fundp.ac.be URL: http://www.info.fundp.ac.be/~jbl/ ************************************************ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Thu Oct 26 12:50:14 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:50:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: <4540CCB7.4080600@bertola.eu.org> References: <20061025193341.433E1DA8D8@smtp3.electricembers.net> <453FE7C6.40002@Malcolm.id.au> <45406F78.8030905@bertola.eu.org> <4540C0F7.9040200@wz-berlin.de> <4540CCB7.4080600@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: At 4:56 PM +0200 10/26/06, Vittorio Bertola wrote: Governments have a similar problem, but since they are hierarchical structures, .... We are not hierarchical, ... At 11:38 AM -0400 10/26/06, Milton Mueller wrote: If the UN is serious about broadening participation and representation it will have to set up new structures for representation. hmmm ... (with apologies for truncations) David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Oct 26 12:58:23 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 01:58:23 +0900 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: <4540DE81.9080200@wz-berlin.de> References: <4540DE81.9080200@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: I agree very much with what Jeanette's said. I don't see the meeting as a statement'y kind of place. There won't be statements from the floor. The time for statements of this kind was before August 2. We blew it. But, whoever wants could print it up and distribute, or ask George Sadowsky for space in the "plaza". And there is always the blogsphere route in, it is a legitimate online input. I am not saying I agree with the caucus doing that, but I hope someone will (modifying text to reflect whoever is taking responsibility.) Anyway, some thoughts on the content: Para 1. Boiler plate, but who cares. Yes, in WSIS it needed framing. IGF I hope not. Para 2. OK Para 3/4, (1) is a very good issue for the setting the scene session But not at that length/detail. Interventions should be a minute, two at most. Para 5, (2) Now's time to promote the concept of a process of dialogue and not worry about annual conferences. Think it's going to be hard enough getting the majority to move away from focusing on the annual event. Only 1 more country to step in and offer to host and the 5 years series is complete. Accountable to who? Right now the MAG is accountable to the Secretary General as he convenes the whole thing and MAG was set up to advise him. It legitimate because he was invited to do something and he's doing it. And as for WGIG recommends ... isn't the practical implementation of that the workshops? Or the process we missed up to August 2 when anyone could submit any comment on any issue. At least that will be the reply. The point of multi-stakeholder is we won't always get exactly what we ask for, and getting some and compromise is part of being part of a multi-stakeholder process. Para 6, (3) Delete 1st sentence. Yes, we do need online working groups. They have been raised in MAG and so far not been accepted. Important that this is also raised as part of setting the scene. As a member of the MAG I have been wondering if I should comment on this statement. I certainly wouldn't want my negative view to derail the statement if people wish to push forward with it. But as a member of the caucus I am bothered but a procedural point -- we have just undergone an incredibly long and painful process to agree a charter and process, isn't this last minute draft exactly the kind of thing the re-chartering was to avoid? Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Thu Oct 26 13:05:39 2006 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:05:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] Statistics for a democratic control !!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4540EAE3.6060907@lists.privaterra.org> Given the comments of Rishi & Jacques... might I suggest we try to start using online tools that could be of use. Let me suggest two - Wiki & blogs. There is an example from the ICANN community that, i think, is a good example - that being icannwiki.org. In terms of hosting - well, igf2006.info is a good place to start. ... regards Robert Rishi Chawla wrote: > I completely agree with Jacques here. I am interested in the agenda, but it > is really difficult to keep track of all those mails. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Thu Oct 26 13:39:03 2006 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:39:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal Message-ID: Jeanette, I was agreeing with you until you objected to CS groveling for resources, which ah, is what CS always does....especially since the responsible authority, the new sec gen, does have some say in resource allocation, and he claims multi-stakeholder interaction is a priority. Whether the statement is going anywhere or not, CS folks should be expressing concern about resource issues to those reponsible authorities even if no quick fix is available. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> jeanette at wz-berlin.de 10/26/2006 12:12 PM >>> William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > There's not a lot of point in going around and around on this anymore, since > it seems clear we can't agree a joint position statement (best of luck to > our future coordinators ;-). But just for my own understanding of what > people are saying, could this be explained please: > >> From: Jeanette Hofmann > >> Vittorio, I would agree with that approach. What I object to is to read >> a statement that sounds as if we are appealing to some higher authority. > >> From: Milton Mueller > >> This is not WSIS, this is not an intervention into an intergovernmental >> negotiation, and therefore the "appeal to authority" aspect is >> misplaced. I think we need a far more positive and constructive sense of > > I don't get the "appealing to authority" interpretation anymore than I did > the "protesting" interpretation. Hi Bill, lets imagine you would talk to your giganet colleagues and you wanted to convince them of something, would you then write for example "resources should be allocated to support this objective"? No, you wouldn't write that since you know there is nobody in Giganet who allocates any recourses. This is meant as a mere illustration of my point. jeanette The statement simply says 1) we think the > IGF should follow its mandate, annual conferences alone can't achieve that, > so we would welcome an opportunity for open dialogue on how it can be done; > 2) the AG and conference should be open and transparent; and 3) the IGF > should facilitate the formation of dynamic blah blah blahs. In what sense > are these positions groveling appeals to authority? Which passages do this? > I see them as flat statements of preference. > > Thanks, > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nne75 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 14:03:46 2006 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:03:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: reinforce the statement Message-ID: <20061026180346.29493.qmail@web50211.mail.yahoo.com> Dear all, Thanks, Jeanette for pointing out this. My opinion was that the statement will serve as an operations guide for face2face negociations. That it will serve to convey a sort of fundamentals to which the caucus holds. That these fundamentals were to underlie negotiations and serve as objectives for the input of IGC members.. Anyhow, my suggestion will be to reinforce the last paragraph. I have this for now.. The issues mentioned are not just concerns and desires, but are actually objectives for which we intend to work. We hope that as our contributions towards achieving these goals come into the sessions, they shall be supported and upheld. Once again we express our strong support for the IGF and for the mandate it was given by governments and other stakeholders, and stand ready to work with colleagues from all sectors to make the Tunis Agenda’s vision a reality. ----- Original Message ---- From: Lee McKnight To: William Drake ; governance at lists.cpsr.org; jeanette at wz-berlin.de Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 5:39:03 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal Jeanette, I was agreeing with you until you objected to CS groveling for resources, which ah, is what CS always does....especially since the responsible authority, the new sec gen, does have some say in resource allocation, and he claims multi-stakeholder interaction is a priority. Whether the statement is going anywhere or not, CS folks should be expressing concern about resource issues to those reponsible authorities even if no quick fix is available. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> jeanette at wz-berlin.de 10/26/2006 12:12 PM >>> William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > There's not a lot of point in going around and around on this anymore, since > it seems clear we can't agree a joint position statement (best of luck to > our future coordinators ;-). But just for my own understanding of what > people are saying, could this be explained please: > >> From: Jeanette Hofmann > >> Vittorio, I would agree with that approach. What I object to is to read >> a statement that sounds as if we are appealing to some higher authority. > >> From: Milton Mueller > >> This is not WSIS, this is not an intervention into an intergovernmental >> negotiation, and therefore the "appeal to authority" aspect is >> misplaced. I think we need a far more positive and constructive sense of > > I don't get the "appealing to authority" interpretation anymore than I did > the "protesting" interpretation. Hi Bill, lets imagine you would talk to your giganet colleagues and you wanted to convince them of something, would you then write for example "resources should be allocated to support this objective"? No, you wouldn't write that since you know there is nobody in Giganet who allocates any recourses. This is meant as a mere illustration of my point. jeanette The statement simply says 1) we think the > IGF should follow its mandate, annual conferences alone can't achieve that, > so we would welcome an opportunity for open dialogue on how it can be done; > 2) the AG and conference should be open and transparent; and 3) the IGF > should facilitate the formation of dynamic blah blah blahs. In what sense > are these positions groveling appeals to authority? Which passages do this? > I see them as flat statements of preference. > > Thanks, > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From drake at hei.unige.ch Thu Oct 26 15:42:41 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:42:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Adam, > From: Adam Peake > I don't see the meeting as a statement'y kind of place. There won't be > statements from the floor. > > The time for statements of this kind was before August 2. We blew it. Part of why I bothered to put time into this I really didn't have was because of this message, sent by you on Oct. 23, responding to Parminder's questions: > From: Adam Peake > There's a "setting the scene" session on the afternoon of the first > day that might be a good time to ask some of these questions, and a > "taking-stock and the way forward" session on the final day for > others. > > We could submit them as questions from the caucus (if agreed). Or you > can send them as individuals. Or I and I think other CS members of > the MAG would be happy to deliver them. Or someone can send them in > remotely, or blog them and Kieren might pick them up. > > IGF seems to be ignoring a large part of it's mandate > () It would be good to ask > why, but better to discuss how to we can start to address the > overlooked issues. (does why matter as much as improving things?) Parminder then suggested that I draft something based on his questions, and I did, asking the very point you said should be asked. The statement also raises issues you say in today's message should be raised, e.g. > Para 6, (3) Delete 1st sentence. Yes, we do need online working > groups. They have been raised in MAG and so far not been accepted. > Important that this is also raised as part of setting the scene. Nevertheless, > But as a member of the caucus I am bothered but a procedural point -- > we have just undergone an incredibly long and painful process to agree > a charter and process, isn't this last minute draft exactly the kind > of thing the re-chartering was to avoid? Yes it is, but at the time people were saying we need a statement, shouldn't waste the opportunity, etc. Whatever, let's move on. Cheerio, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 16:14:19 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:14:19 +0300 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal [Revision] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/26/06, William Drake wrote: > McTim, > It > is dealing, per the IGF's original conception and mandate, with the whole > heterogeneous landscape of IG mechanisms and issues, including the > intergovernmental realm, and saying that there is no one body within that > landscape that performs the following functions with respect to IG AS A > WHOLE: > nor should there be IMHO. > > Which of the groups you imagine you are defending from attack is > facilitating discourse and information exchange on PUBLIC POLICIES between > the full constellation of intergovernmental and private bodies involved in > IG? Which is serving as an interface between intergovernmental organizations > on matters under THEIR purview? Which is promoting and assessing, on an > ongoing basis, whether the full range of intergovernmental and private > bodies involved in IG undertakes decision making in a manner that is > transparent, accountable, inclusive, and development-oriented? ummm,... all of them > > None of them. They're doing other things, per their respective mandates and > constituent interests, and the statement is not saying they don't do those > things well. It's operating at the systemic level, not the level of > individual organizations or networks. That's the IGF's unique mandate, IIRC, the mandate is to do capacity building. and > the statement merely endorse the mandate and says fine, let's implement it. > The sentence, "These are all critically important, value-adding functions > that cannot be performed by any other Internet governance mechanism" needs > to be read in that specific context. If you misunderstand the IGF's > mandate, then you'll misunderstand an endorsement of it. If it would make > you feel better, we could specify further, "These are all critically > important, value-adding functions that cannot be performed for the Internet > governance arena as a whole by any one existing organization." On the other > hand, if as you frequently seem to indicate, you think the IGF is just > useless BS in the first place, I've never said that, I just think it's a jolly for y'all. If all the cash that was spent on it was spent on real capacity buillding in the developing world, instead of talking about capacity building, we'd be better off. > > So would you like us to make the sentence above allude more clearly to the > mandate, or would you simply like the caucus to not endorse the mandate? As I think it's extraneous, I suggest deleting the whole sentence. As other have raised issues with more than one sentence, it looks like a moot point. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 16:23:11 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:23:11 +0300 Subject: [governance] Statistics for a democratic control !!! In-Reply-To: <4540EAE3.6060907@lists.privaterra.org> References: <4540EAE3.6060907@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: On 10/26/06, Robert Guerra wrote: > Given the comments of Rishi & Jacques... might I suggest we try to start > using online tools that could be of use. Let me suggest two - Wiki & blogs. > > There is an example from the ICANN community that, i think, is a good > example - that being icannwiki.org. > > In terms of hosting - well, igf2006.info is a good place to start. ... there is always smt like this: http://www.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From JRMathia at maxwell.syr.edu Thu Oct 26 16:34:27 2006 From: JRMathia at maxwell.syr.edu (John Mathiason) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:34:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] My new appointment References: <954259bd0610230816j361b0363la8a58c50a57cb21a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <32A8B2CB12BFC84D8D11D872C787AA9AB40A98@EXCHANGE.forest.maxwell.syr.edu> Bertrand, Congratulations! I think you made the right choice. Need an intern in the summer? See you in Athens, John -----Original Message----- From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: Mon 23/10/2006 11:16 To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Subject: [governance] My new appointment Dear all, As the Athens Forum approaches, I am looking forward to seeing you all again and continuing our debates and common endeavours. But before it takes place, I want to announce publicly on the list that things have evolved on my side recently and that I have just been appointed by the French government as its "Special Envoy for the Information Society", (in French : Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information) with the responsibility to cover the various aspects of the post-WSIS and related processes. I have decided to accept this offer to return to formal diplomatic service with the conviction that I can bring my past experiences in the business and civil society sectors to this new role and thus contribute further to the development of innovative multi-stakeholder processes, including those decided in Tunis. The present period is different from the summit years where the challenge was to get civil society accepted. Now, the multi-stakeholder principle is accepted - at least in theory - by all governements. I can therefore pursue the same vision in this new role as before : the challenge is to give life to multi-stakeholderism and make it work concretely for the benefit of the international community. I will participate in this new capacity in the upcoming Internet Governance Forum in Athens and am looking forward to seeing many of you there again and continue our interactions, including in the workshops. Best Bertrand ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Oct 26 17:18:33 2006 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:48:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061026211835.AD086CA10E@smtp1.electricembers.net> > Part of why I bothered to put time into this I really didn't > have was > because of this message, sent by you on Oct. 23, responding > to Parminder's > questions: Adam's latest email greatly surprised me as well on this count.... > > But as a member of the caucus I am bothered but a > procedural point -- > > we have just undergone an incredibly long and painful > process to agree > > a charter and process, isn't this last minute draft exactly > the kind > > of thing the re-chartering was to avoid? > I did not understand this point at all... How is chartering to avoid last minute drafts... I in fact may rather think that it can enable some last minute processes. Milton also have lamented such 'last minute efforts' which he thinks are doomed to failure. But I think purposeful advocacy spaces are not like research or academic activities. It is very often opportunistic, and a lot of such last minute kind of activities are involved. If countries can work our internationally agreed and often binding texts in the last confused hours - as we saw at WSIS, so can the CS. And if WSIS isnt a great example of useful outputs, I am sure similar last minute activities must lie behind the more useful policy documents - on subjects like human rights, MDGs, climate change and such. With the failure of a simple exercise when we have tried to post points which all come from IGF mandate related texts, which have been often agreed on in the IGC during the WSIS, into an opportunistic space, we need to review how effective are we as an advocacy group. And often I am not able to understand if differences on procedures really hide far-reaching differences on substantive points. We need to discuss substantive views more seriously - without of course aspiring for anything like homogeneity. For it is futile to try to get some consensus on what we think is the broad ambit of the mandate of the IGC in terms of its effectiveness in global IG related public policy arena when Jeanette still insists on comparing IGF with Giganet (in her email to Bill) - when the whole point of the present exercise was to see that it is not reduced to a conference - and McTim just refuses to see a public policy related role of IGC and sees only a capacity building function for it. > Yes it is, but at the time people were saying we need a > statement, shouldn't > waste the opportunity, etc. I think we needed it. We can now lament it after the event. >Whatever, let's move on. Yes, time for it :) Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 1:13 AM > To: Governance; Peake, Adam > Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal > > Hi Adam, > > > From: Adam Peake > > > I don't see the meeting as a statement'y kind of place. > There won't be > > statements from the floor. > > > > The time for statements of this kind was before August 2. > We blew it. > > Part of why I bothered to put time into this I really didn't > have was > because of this message, sent by you on Oct. 23, responding > to Parminder's > questions: > > > From: Adam Peake > > > There's a "setting the scene" session on the afternoon of > the first > > day that might be a good time to ask some of these > questions, and a > > "taking-stock and the way forward" session on the final day > for > > others. > > > > We could submit them as questions from the caucus (if > agreed). Or you > > can send them as individuals. Or I and I think other CS > members of > > the MAG would be happy to deliver them. Or someone can send > them in > > remotely, or blog them and Kieren might pick them up. > > > > IGF seems to be ignoring a large part of it's mandate > > () It would be > good to ask > > why, but better to discuss how to we can start to address > the > > overlooked issues. (does why matter as much as improving > things?) > > Parminder then suggested that I draft something based on his > questions, and > I did, asking the very point you said should be asked. The > statement also > raises issues you say in today's message should be raised, > e.g. > > > Para 6, (3) Delete 1st sentence. Yes, we do need online > working > > groups. They have been raised in MAG and so far not been > accepted. > > Important that this is also raised as part of setting the > scene. > > Nevertheless, > > > But as a member of the caucus I am bothered but a > procedural point -- > > we have just undergone an incredibly long and painful > process to agree > > a charter and process, isn't this last minute draft exactly > the kind > > of thing the re-chartering was to avoid? > > Yes it is, but at the time people were saying we need a > statement, shouldn't > waste the opportunity, etc. Whatever, let's move on. > > Cheerio, > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From pouzin at well.com Thu Oct 26 19:10:03 2006 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:10:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: endorsement Message-ID: <200610262310.k9QNA3Gw014364@well.com> While I have no strong feeling on style, I feel that some statement is a must. I would agree with any version which a) is consensual, b) has a better chance to be effective. Or else the IGF could be cast in a wrong mold (as per Parminder). Best ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Thu Oct 26 20:01:15 2006 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:01:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal [Revision] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45414C4B.2000802@zedat.fu-berlin.de> McTim wrote: > IIRC, the mandate is to do capacity building. No. The mandate is much more, including to -discuss public policy issues; -interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview; -identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations; -promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes; -discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources; help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users. (Just a small selection, look at the Tunis agenda, para 72). > If all the cash that was spent on it was spent on real capacity > buillding in the developing world, instead of talking about capacity > building, we'd be better off. While I understand and know this sentiment, I insist it is about more than just distributing money. First of all, the money for IGF would not be available for any Internet-related issues if there were no IGF. How do you get money for capacity-building if you don't talk about it before? But more important, there are problems that can not be solved by throwing money at things. They instead have to be dealt with as matters of public policy. Be it privacy protection, intellectual property regulations, spam, free speech, whatever. The IGF is a unique venue for raising matters of public interest, for focusing the attention of policy-makers and others, and for adressing issues that are so cross-border that they can not be solved on the national level - and for discussing which are which. (If it fulfills its mandate of course - but we are still working on this, I understand.) Best, Ralf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Fri Oct 27 06:59:28 2006 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:59:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] New APC Policy Issue Papers in English and French Message-ID: <20061027105939.E17F4171389@mail.gn.apc.org> Dear all Please find below an announcement about a series of papers APC has produced in readiness for the IGF. I look forward to seeing some of you there .. karen ==== *New APC Policy Issue Papers in English and French* (Version française plus bas) In the occasion of the Internet Governance Forum, the Association for Progressive Communications is launching three new papers on key ICT policy and internet rights issues. --------------------------------------------------------------------- CONVERGENCE: The importance of convergence in the ICT policy environment By Kate Wild This paper looks at the meaning and importance of convergence and considers some of the challenges to implementing it, along with strategies for overcoming them. It also provides a global perspective on regulating convergence and broadband from ITU and then it looks at experiences in North America and Europe as well as regional and country approaches in Africa. http://rights.apc.org/documents/convergence_EN.pdf (English) http://rights.apc.org/documents/convergence_FR.pdf (French) --------------------------------------------------------------------- OPEN ACESS: Lowering the costs of international bandwidth in Africa By Mike Jensen This paper was commissioned by the APC as part of the Catalysing Access to ICTs in Africa initiative and to contribute to APC's efforts to promote open access to ICT infrastructure in Africa. According to the author, a variety of factors are responsible for the lack of acess to bandwith in Africa, but the biggest cause is the high cost of international connections to the global telecommunication backbones. http://rights.apc.org/documents/open_access_EN.pdf (English) http://rights.apc.org/documents/open_access_FR.pdf (French) --------------------------------------------------------------------- WSIS: Whose information society? Developing country and civil society voices in the World Summit on the Information Society By David Souter This paper summarises a study of developing country and civil society participation and influence in WSIS that was commissioned by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC). As well as analysing participation, the study looked at the impact of WSIS on international ICT decision-making in general and makes recommendations to all main actors about how future decision-making might become more inclusive of developing countries, nongovernmental actors and their concerns. http://rights.apc.org/documents/wsis_EN.pdf (English) -------- FRANÇAIS -------- Les nouveaux thèmes émergents d'APC en anglais en français A l’occasion du Forum sur la gouvernance de l’internet (FGI), l’Association pour le progrès des communications lance trois nouveaux articles sur les thèmes fondamentaux des politiques de TIC et des droits d’internet. --------------------------------------------------------------------- CONVERGENCE : L’importance de la convergence dans le contexte des politiques des TIC Kate Wild La première partie de ce document porte sur le sens et l’importance de la convergence et sur certains des problèmes associés à sa mise en oeuvre, ainsi que sur les stratégies qui permettent de les surmonter. La deuxième partie présente un survol de la régulation de la convergence et de la bande passante par l’Union Internationale des Télécommunications (UIT) et s’intéresse aux expériences en Amérique du Nord et en Europe ainsi qu’à certaines approches régionales et de pays d’Afrique. http://rights.apc.org/documents/convergence_EN.pdf (Anglais) http://rights.apc.org/documents/convergence_FR.pdf (Français) --------------------------------------------------------------------- ACCÈS OUVERT : Abaisser les coûts de la bande passante internationale en Afrique Mike Jensen Cette analyse a été commandée par APC dans le cadre de Catalysing Access to ICTs in Africa et pour contribuer aux efforts d´APC pour promouvoir l´accès ouvert à l´infrastructure de TIC en Afrique. Selon l’auteur, la situation actuelle de la bande passante en Afrique est attribuable à un certain nombre de facteurs, mais elle est due essentiellement au coût élevé des connexions internationales vers les dorsales de télécommunication internationales. http://rights.apc.org/documents/open_access_EN.pdf (Anglais) http://rights.apc.org/documents/open_access_FR.pdf (Français) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Uniquement en anglais: WSIS: Whose information society? Developing country and civil society voices in the World Summit on the Information Society By David Souter This paper summarises a study of developing country and civil society participation and influence in WSIS that was commissioned by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC). As well as analysing participation, the study looked at the impact of WSIS on international ICT decision-making in general and makes recommendations to all main actors about how future decision-making might become more inclusive of developing countries, nongovernmental actors and their concerns. http://rights.apc.org/documents/wsis_EN.pdf (English) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at acm.org Fri Oct 27 09:08:43 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:08:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] Appeals team nomcom chair Message-ID: <374A4F36-C5FB-41F3-9D56-F69E0BAF2BD2@acm.org> hi, I still need a volunteer for the nomcom chair of the group that will pick the appeal's team? i will help with setting it up and with getting the process pieces together, but won't actually chair it or volunteer for it. and while we could wait until after the elections for the coordinators (post IGF), with it becoming their problem, i would like the group to get started before that so we would have an appeals team at about the time as we have the coordinators. anyone? thanks a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Fri Oct 27 09:36:05 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:36:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] workshop - Intellectuals in IGF Message-ID: workshop announcement: Intellectuals in IGF Thursday 2 November 11:30-13:00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Intellectuals_in_IGF-presentation.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 76558 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From mueller at syr.edu Fri Oct 27 09:53:28 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:53:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal Message-ID: Just to clarify: Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> parminder at itforchange.net 10/26/06 5:18 PM >>> > Milton also have lamented such 'last minute efforts' which >he thinks are doomed to failure. But I think purposeful advocacy >spaces are not like research or academic activities. It is very >often opportunistic, and a lot of such last minute kind of activities >are involved. If countries can work our internationally agreed >and often binding texts in the last >confused hours - as we saw at WSIS, so can the CS. I did not mean to imply that I thought last-minute efforts were inherently bad or inherently doomed to failure, only that I have seen this specific caucus go through three or four of these efforts which did fail. Therefore, when I had to decide whether to carefully follow the drafting process or not, I chose not to because there was a large risk that I would be spending lots of time on something that would bear no fruit. Too many other demands on my time at this point. So I tuned out. And I agree, a chartered IGC should have more legitimacy of process and leadership and thus should in principle be able to act faster. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Oct 27 09:56:57 2006 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:56:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Updated draft agenda for igc@igf In-Reply-To: References: <77C537FB-5D6F-495D-AD8D-9770C4F4250B@acm.org> Message-ID: <954259bd0610270656y5a933bdav1d6809c8eeeb5691@mail.gmail.com> Hi everybody, Adam's and Vittorio's remarks and suggestions for Athens are useful : - multi-stakeholder interaction at the end if possible - encouragment of workshop organizers to say what they plan for the year 2007 (one element in particular would be to list events that are already planned on the various issues) - multi-stakeholder mailing list (announcements only) I'm sure at least some governments and business actors would be willing to follow that route. Looking forward to seeing those who'll be in Athens. Best Bertrand On 10/23/06, Avri Doria wrote: > > > On 23 okt 2006, at 11.35, Adam Peake wrote: > > > hold on... don't withdraw it, make it provisional. (or someone > > else will grab it.) > > it has not been approved, only requested. > obviously if the secretariat and the igf-ag decide to do something > else with that time, then we wont get it. or if there are too many > other requests we not get it because we already had a spot or ... > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Oct 27 12:43:42 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 01:43:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] various bits of important IGF news Message-ID: Various news. In transit, excuse any lack of clarity... Opening Ceremony, speakers: http://www.intgovforum.org/Description_of_Theme_Opening_Ceremony.php Moderators and panelists: http://www.intgovforum.org/list%20of%20panellists.php Opening Ceremony Logistics Due to the the expected high attendance, not all participants may find access to the main session hall on the opening day. Therefore, secondary passes will be issued to guarantee equitable access to all stakeholder groups. All government delegations will automatically get two secondary passes each and intergovernmental organizations, private sector, civil society and the technical and academic communities will be given a corresponding number of passes. All other participants will be able to watch the proceedings of the opening day broadcast live in the workshop rooms. Articles I read... BBC "Free speech online 'under threat' " (Amnesty and IGF) WIRED: Should ICANN Become Autonomous? http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,72017-0.html?tw=wn_index_6 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Fri Oct 27 13:02:29 2006 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:02:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] various bits of important IGF news In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Adam for the link The BBC Amnesty report is quite chilling. The move by Amnesty needs mass support else the air of freedom provided by technology will be smeared by actions from obscurantists sooner or later. Kudos to Amnesty Aaron ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Oct 27 13:21:45 2006 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:21:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal [Revision] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Le 26 oct. 06 à 10:31, William Drake a écrit : > it's not obvious how to resolve this, but clearly to reach a > comfort level on either doing it or not doing it we need to at > least have more people weighing in either way; it doesn't actually > take that much time to type yes or no.... OK... - Yes to a statement, much needed if this caucus wants to be considered as a caucus (or considers itself as a caucus) - No to this statement, which, despite your efforts as well as those of Parminder, Vittorio and Jeremy, appears in the end as unclear on the common views and demands of the caucus (if any), and, even downsized as it is now, still raise concerns from people who expressed themselves on the list. I, myself, also have important concerns, like e.g. the problem with the AG is not that its members are appointed for one or 10 years, but that we almost haven't heard from its members - at least its CS members - before any decision was made. Why on earth do we need CS members in the AG in such a scheme ? Wouldn't be preferable e.g. if there was only a secretariat that, being restricted to secretariat tasks, would be obliged to organize issue-related working groups ? This is only one of the many issues to be discussed, and it's not time to discuss them now. To be constructive, what I can propose is that: 1/ We take the time to discuss all these issues and make a statement (if possible) AFTER Athens. An assessment of one year of IGF existence. Not because, as Avri said, we shouldn't complain before things happens (since things - or nothing, I should rather say - happened already during one year of IGF existence... unless we are ready to agree that IGF is nothing more than an annual conference in a nice place). But because we cannot do better that this way. 2/ We hope that, during the main sessions, and at least the first one ("setting the scene") there would be one CS person who agrees with the main issues expressed in this statement and would raise them, if only in her/his name or the name of her/his organization. I see that, eventually, only some days before the events, the list of panelists have been published on the IGF website. I'm sure Karen Banks from APC is the best person to convey, in the way she would choose, our shared deep concerns. And I'm confident she will (sorry Karen to put the heavy load of my expectations on you:)) Best, Meryem PS. Actually, it took a bit more than saying yes or no... Sorry.____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 27 14:10:34 2006 From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (Kwasi) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:10:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] BBC E-mail: Everyone talks, but no-one listens Message-ID: <20061027_181034_025975.kboakye1@yahoo.co.uk> Kwasi saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you should see it. ** Message ** Below is a quote from the linked article, and I hope he's wrong: "There will be fine words spoken and important commitments are bound to be entered into, but behind the self-congratulation and sense of achievement the impact is likely to be minimal. Until we start holding politicians in more open, democratic societies to account for the decisions they make regarding the internet there will never be any real pressure to make things better, and next week's IGF meeting is not going to do that. " ** Everyone talks, but no-one listens ** Regular columnist Bill Thompson wonders what the net's new talking shop will actually achieve. < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/technology/6091282.stm > ** BBC Daily E-mail ** Choose the news and sport headlines you want - when you want them, all in one daily e-mail < http://www.bbc.co.uk/email > ** Disclaimer ** The BBC is not responsible for the content of this e-mail, and anything written in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect the BBC's views or opinions. Please note that neither the e-mail address nor name of the sender have been verified. If you do not wish to receive such e-mails in the future or want to know more about the BBC's Email a Friend service, please read our frequently asked questions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/4162471.stm ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lists at privaterra.info Sat Oct 28 04:02:30 2006 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 04:02:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] Opening Ceremony Logistics - Overpass issue .. ? Message-ID: <45430E96.1050701@privaterra.info> I've just noticed on the IGF website a notice that seems to indicate that overpasses will be issued for the opening session next week. This development is, problematic, as I think no structures are in place to allocate and distribute the passed. How does CS, in fact other stakeholders (who might be on this list) wish to deal with this issue. Looking forward to hearing discussion on this.. regards Robert http://www.intgovforum.org/ [NEW] Opening Ceremony Logistics Due to the the expected high attendance, not all participants may find access to the main session hall on the opening day. Therefore, secondary passes will be issued to guarantee equitable access to all stakeholder groups. All government delegations will automatically get two secondary passes each and intergovernmental organizations, private sector, civil society and the technical and academic communities will be given a corresponding number of passes. All other participants will be able to watch the proceedings of the opening day broadcast live in the workshop rooms. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Sat Oct 28 12:45:48 2006 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (kierenmccarthy at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGF website for online interaction Message-ID: I've built a highly interactive and super-featured website precisely for online interaction over the IGF next week and I want to give you all the URL so you can check it out. http://igf2006.info The site contains all the relevant information about the Forum, full details of all the meetings and workshops, their times, people, locations and so on. But most importantly you only have to sign up (all you need is an email address, you can use a pseudonym) to get full interaction. You get your own blog immediately where anything posted gets gathered and posted on the site (and I will be the person reading out interesting blog posts to the meeting at large), and you can add forums, chatrooms, plus pages, events, wikis, and so on. It has been designed with maximum interaction in mind, so I really hope you'll check it out and find it a good place to share ideas and discuss what's happening online. My hope is that it the site will prove useful enough for the online collaboration element to be written into future IGF meetings and so something more substantial than what I've knocked up in the past month gets created. But to even get there what it needs is useful people with good idea, suggestions and questions. Any questions or queries, email me either on igfadmin at igf2006.info or my own address kieren at kierenmccarthy.co.uk - or, preferably, stick a comment or a question on the site itself. Cheers Kieren McCarthy ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Sat Oct 28 13:05:21 2006 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 14:05:21 -0300 Subject: [governance] Opening Ceremony Logistics - Overpass issue .. ? In-Reply-To: <45430E96.1050701@privaterra.info> References: <45430E96.1050701@privaterra.info> Message-ID: <45438DD1.5010205@rits.org.br> In my view, no big deal if we miss the opening rituals, but if there is additional info on the overpasses, please let us know. frt rgds --c.a. Robert Guerra wrote: > I've just noticed on the IGF website a notice that seems to indicate > that overpasses will be issued for the opening session next week. > > This development is, problematic, as I think no structures are in place > to allocate and distribute the passed. How does CS, in fact other > stakeholders (who might be on this list) wish to deal with this issue. > > Looking forward to hearing discussion on this.. > > regards > > Robert > > > > > http://www.intgovforum.org/ > > [NEW] Opening Ceremony Logistics > > Due to the the expected high attendance, not all participants may find > access to the main session hall on the opening day. Therefore, secondary > passes will be issued to guarantee equitable access to all stakeholder > groups. All government delegations will automatically get two secondary > passes each and intergovernmental organizations, private sector, civil > society and the technical and academic communities will be given a > corresponding number of passes. All other participants will be able to > watch the proceedings of the opening day broadcast live in the workshop > rooms. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor *************************************************************** Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br *************************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sat Oct 28 13:46:48 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 19:46:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Blogger arrested in Greece Message-ID: <45439788.7080209@bertola.eu.org> Hello, as not everyone might have had this piece of news yet, apparently two days ago the Greek authorities have arrested for one night the owner of the blog aggregator blogme.gr, since one of the feeds he was showing was linking to a mockery website against a controversial Greek TV evangelist. As this person couldn't sue the mockery website (hosted in the US), he sued the aggregator instead. See Kieren McCarthy's take about this here: http://kierenmccarthy.co.uk/2006/10/28/greek-blog-aggregator-arrested/ Also some random blog's translation of the facts into English: http://naftilos.blogspot.com/2006/10/blogmegr-like-suing-google.html and the Technorati dump, if anyone knows Greek: http://www.technorati.com/search/blogme.gr Please beware that this is all n-th hand information, it needs to be confirmed (if anyone knows, please post additional sources), but at the same time there might be protesters from the local civil society, and it might be the case for civil society speakers in the opening sessions to raise the issue. Thanks, -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sun Oct 29 00:08:57 2006 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:08:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] the latest news/information on the IGF Message-ID: <20061029040857.71526.qmail@web54105.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all Below is the latest news and information I've collected on the IGF for my mailing list, some of which also appears on my website. I'll be keeping my website up-to-date with the latest on the IGF as it happens - http://technewsreview.com.au/. For a more comprehensive coverage twice a week, you can subscribe to my mailing list for free - see http://internews.tv/mailman/listinfo/internetnews_internews.tv Cheers David Dr. Peng Hwa Ang Speaks on "Who's Really Out To Control the Internet?" Dr. Peng Hwa Ang (Nanyang Technological University) gave a lecture titled “Who’s Really Out To Control the Internet? UN and U.S.A. Internet Governance” at Hamilton on Oct. 26. Dr. Ang is the dean of the School of Communication and Information at the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, as well as one of 40 persons appointed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan to a UN Working Group on Internet Governance in 2004. He spoke about the current international efforts to create a multilateral, transparent, and democratic method for Internet governance, as well as why it is in the United States’ best interest to relinquish some control over the Internet. http://www.hamilton.edu/news/more_news/display.cfm?id=11338 U.N. summit revives concerns about Net control A long-simmering dispute over whether the U.S. government has too much control over the Internet's underpinnings will heat up again next week at a United Nations summit in Greece. http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6130087.html http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6130087.html Should ICANN Become Autonomous? (AP) An international dispute over U.S. control of the internet appears unlikely to be resolved even as state envoys, regulators and technology experts convene next week to discuss the network's future. http://wired.com/news/wireservice/0,72017-0.html http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/10/27/1161749267589.html http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/10/27/1161749267589.html http://iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/26/europe/EU_GEN_Greece_UN_Internet_Governance.php "Call to Bloggers" to stand up for freedom ahead of world meeting on future of Internet (news release) Amnesty International today issued a ‘Call to Bloggers’, asking them to get online and stand up for freedom of expression on the internet. The organisation says this is a critical time when fundamental rights – particularly freedom of expression and privacy – are under threat from governments that want to control what their citizens say, and what information they can access. http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGPOL300552006 The Road to Rio and Beyond: Results-based Management of the UN Internet Governance Forum This paper (pdf) argues that the road to the 2007 meeting of the Internet Governance Forum in Rio de Janeiro and beyond must be paved with effective management practices. Results-based management principles employed elsewhere in reform of United Nations agency practices provide that base. http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/roadtorio.pdf Whose information society? Developing country and civil society voices in the World Summit on the Information Society by David Souter This paper summarises a study of developing country and civil society participation and influence in WSIS that was commissioned by the Association for Progressive Communications. As well as analysing participation, the study looked at the impact of WSIS on international ICT decision-making in general and makes recommendations to all main actors about how future decision-making might become more inclusive of developing countries, nongovernmental actors and their concerns. http://rights.apc.org/documents/wsis_EN.pdf Everyone talks, but no-one listens The net's great and the good are meeting in Athens, but Bill Thompson doubts that they will achieve much. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6091282.stm Google defiant over censorship in China Google is to enter the political arena in earnest this week when it debates freedom of speech, intellectual property rights and how to connect Africa to the internet at a special UN conference. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1934297,00.html Reporters Without Borders will go to IGF venue in Athens to put free expression on agenda (news release) Reporters Without Borders will be at the Internet Governance Forum in Athens to remind participants that free expression must be at the centre of any model of Internet governance, and to reiterate its positions on Internet neutrality and the need for Internet companies to behave ethically. http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19481 Council of Europe participation in UN Internet Governance Forum The Council of Europe will participate in the UN facilitated Internet Governance Forum, to be held in Athens from 30 October to 2 November 2006. The IGF will focus on four main themes -openness, diversity, security and access of the Internet – which the Council of Europe will address in light of its core values pertaining to human rights, democracy and rule of law. For more on the CoE's participation in the IGF, see: http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/media/Links/Events/IGFAthens2006Homepage_en.asp ICANN agreement paves way for DNS transition (news release) ISOC welcomes the agreement announced between the United States Department of Commerce and ICANN. The agreement ensures continued stability of the Internet by setting the foundation for an orderly transition of the Domain Name System (DNS) to the private sector. It also demonstrates clear support for ICANN and the role it plays in coordinating those activities related to the Internet's system of unique identifiers. http://www.isoc.org/isoc/media/releases/060929pr.shtml If the Internet ain't broke, do not try to fix it While the US wants to release the agency charged with managing the World Wide Web from federal oversight, the UN wants to bury it under layers of bureaucracy http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2006/10/28/2003333762 Consensus Polling: ALAC Shows the Way ICANN is about to make the jump from “merely excavating” to efficiently mining top-quality jewels. I say this because ICANN’s ALAC has reached unanimous consensus on their internal Self Review. As the New Zealand meeting drew to a close, a weary ALAC was ready to give up on creating a consensus Self Review. The familiar ICANN collaborative process of emailing Word attachments had “excavated” ALAC into the also familiar ICANN mire of “deeply divided over competing versions.” http://www.circleid.com/posts/alac_shows_the_way/ Neue Anläufe zur Debatte um die DNS-Aufsicht vor dem Internet Governance Forum Der freie Informationsfluss im Netz, Sicherheit, Bestrebungen zur Internationalisierung und das große Thema freier Zugang – das sind die vier Themen, die beim bevorstehenden ersten Internet Governance Forum (IGF) der UN diskutiert werden sollen, das vom 30. Oktober bis zum 2. November in Athen stattfindet. http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/80080 L’UNESCO abordera le risque de fragmentation d’Internet et le respect de la liberté d’expression au Forum sur la gouvernance d’Internet Comment empêcher la fragmentation d’Internet, comment garantir la libre circulation des informations dans le cyberespace et le respect du droit à la liberté d’expression ? Ces questions essentielles seront abordées à la première réunion du Forum sur la gouvernance d’Internet qui se tiendra à Athènes du 31 octobre au 2 novembre 2006. http://portal.unesco.org/ci/fr/ev.php-URL_ID=23340&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html Le contrôle américain du Web dérange toujours (AFP) L'épineuse question du contrôle des États-Unis sur l'Internet devrait revenir de manière lancinante pendant le Forum mondial sur le gouvernance de l'Internet (FGI), qui s'ouvre lundi à Athènes, après avoir été il y a un an au centre du Sommet sur l'information de Tunis. http://technaute.lapresseaffaires.com/nouvelles/texte_complet.php?id=81,12399,0,102006,1307721.html&ref=nouvelles La política de control de EEUU volverá a marcar el foro mundial de internet (AFP) La espinosa cuestión del control de Estados Unidos sobre internet saldrá de nuevo a relucir durante el Foro de Gobernanza de Internet (FGI) que se inaugurará el lunes en Atenas, tras haber sido la estrella hace un año en la Cumbre sobre la Información de Túnez. http://mipunto.com/punto_noticias/noticia_tecnologia.jsp?tipo=TECNOLOGIA&archivo=061027200814.zzk8tgpj.txt ONU: Reunión del Foro para el Gobierno de Internet no debatirá sobre control de la red La primera reunión del Foro para el Gobierno de Internet (FGI) de Naciones Unidas, que tendrá lugar la semana próxima en Atenas, versará sobre la seguridad, diversidad lingüística y accesibilidad de la red, sin incluir en su orden del día sesión alguna sobre el futuro del gobierno de internet http://www.latinoamericann.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1389 http://laflecha.net/canales/comunicacion/noticias/el-foro-de-gobierno-de-internet-de-la-onu-evitara-debatir-sobre-el-control-de-la-red http://www.24horaslibre.com/tecnologia/1161870690.php Story in Greek on IGF http://www.naftemporiki.gr/news/static/06/10/26/1258231.htm --------- David Goldstein address: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home) "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lists at privaterra.info Sun Oct 29 05:38:17 2006 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 12:38:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] Opening ceremony - with no Civil society presence Message-ID: <45448499.3010001@privaterra.info> http://igf2006.info/node/297 I've just learned that access to the opening ceremony will be - quite - restricted. Despite being a key stakeholder - NGOs & Civil society will only be assigned 100 passes to the session. Such a small number - well, is shocking . With no clear process nor mechanism defined to allocate and distribute passes - one thing will be clear, only friends of an insider group will be able to attend the session. Thus, the message is clear from the start - there will be an Opening ceremony - but with no real Civil society presence. So much for a real and effective multi-stakeholder meeting..sigh! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Oct 29 05:51:37 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:51:37 +0900 Subject: [governance] overpasses for IGF opening ceremony Message-ID: The main room for the IGF sessions holds 800. 1500 are registered to attend. So we are back into a situation of allocating overpasses for the opening session and perhaps other sessions in the main room. There will be overflow rooms. And pressure will be off when the workshops begin on the 2nd day. I have 100 overpasses for civil society. They are in my care. I got them by being the MAG meeting at the room at the wrong time! Business have a batch, the Internet community has a batch. govt have 2 (or 3?) per delegation. International orgs have a batch. The rest will be first come first serve. Anyone speaking on a panel session I would like advice on how to distribute the passes we have been given. My suggestion is to give a few passes to any CS group that has taken the lead in organizing a workshop should be given a few passes to distribute among their group. And return any left over to the general first come first served batch. We do not have the organization we once had in WSIS. And we have no idea who is coming and who is/considers themselves to be civil society. I would appreciate advice on what best to do. Thank you. Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Sun Oct 29 07:53:16 2006 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 14:53:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Blogger arrested in Greece In-Reply-To: <45439788.7080209@bertola.eu.org> References: <45439788.7080209@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <200610291454.k9TEs6tq029828@mx-in-01.forthnet.gr> hi vittorio thanks for this - i think it would be impossible not to raise this issue ;) karen At 19:46 28/10/2006, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Hello, > >as not everyone might have had this piece of news yet, apparently two >days ago the Greek authorities have arrested for one night the owner of >the blog aggregator blogme.gr, since one of the feeds he was showing was >linking to a mockery website against a controversial Greek TV >evangelist. As this person couldn't sue the mockery website (hosted in >the US), he sued the aggregator instead. > >See Kieren McCarthy's take about this here: >http://kierenmccarthy.co.uk/2006/10/28/greek-blog-aggregator-arrested/ >Also some random blog's translation of the facts into English: >http://naftilos.blogspot.com/2006/10/blogmegr-like-suing-google.html >and the Technorati dump, if anyone knows Greek: >http://www.technorati.com/search/blogme.gr > >Please beware that this is all n-th hand information, it needs to be >confirmed (if anyone knows, please post additional sources), but at the >same time there might be protesters from the local civil society, and it >might be the case for civil society speakers in the opening sessions to >raise the issue. > >Thanks, >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wnew at ip-watch.ch Sun Oct 29 13:02:36 2006 From: wnew at ip-watch.ch (William New) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:02:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] overpasses for IGF opening ceremony In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4513C504008879D2@mail12.bluewin.ch> (added by postmaster@bluewin.ch) Hi, I would hope that the press might also have a small place in the list? Thank you, William New, Intellectual Property Watch, Geneva -----Original Message----- From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: dimanche, 29. octobre 2006 11:52 To: Governance Cc: plenary at wsis-cs.org Subject: [governance] overpasses for IGF opening ceremony The main room for the IGF sessions holds 800. 1500 are registered to attend. So we are back into a situation of allocating overpasses for the opening session and perhaps other sessions in the main room. There will be overflow rooms. And pressure will be off when the workshops begin on the 2nd day. I have 100 overpasses for civil society. They are in my care. I got them by being the MAG meeting at the room at the wrong time! Business have a batch, the Internet community has a batch. govt have 2 (or 3?) per delegation. International orgs have a batch. The rest will be first come first serve. Anyone speaking on a panel session I would like advice on how to distribute the passes we have been given. My suggestion is to give a few passes to any CS group that has taken the lead in organizing a workshop should be given a few passes to distribute among their group. And return any left over to the general first come first served batch. We do not have the organization we once had in WSIS. And we have no idea who is coming and who is/considers themselves to be civil society. I would appreciate advice on what best to do. Thank you. Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From robin at ipjustice.org Sun Oct 29 13:08:29 2006 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:08:29 -0800 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Forum Opens in Athens: IPJ Sponsors 3 Workshops Message-ID: <4544EE1D.6040505@ipjustice.org> IP Justice Media Release 29 October 2006 Media Contact: Robin Gross, IP Justice Executive Director Email: robin at ipjustice.org Phone: (+30) 697 9851074 *UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Opens in Athens IP Justice Sponsors 3 Workshops on Internet Policy Issues * (Athens) The inaugural meeting of the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) takes place in Athens, Greece from 30 October – 2 November 2006. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has convened the forum to build multi-stakeholder dialogue on Internet policy issues. Over 1500 participants from around the world are expected to attend the forum to identify emerging issues and make recommendations intended to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet. In May 2006, Annan appointed IP Justice Executive Director Robin Gross to the IGF Advisory Group to help shape the policy dialogue. “The IGF was created out of recognition that the Internet has connected the world’s people together like never before, and we must work together to build an Internet that fosters a free flow of information, innovation and development for all,” said Robin Gross. Together with a number of other NGOs, industry and governments, IP Justice is co-sponsoring three workshops at IGF on the topics of “An Internet Bill of Rights”, “Access to Knowledge and Freedom of Expression” and “Open Standards”. Details on the 3 workshops are below. *“An Internet Bill of Rights” Workshop * Wednesday, 1 November 2006 from 13:30-15:00 at Divani Apollon Palace & Spa (Plato Hall) in Athens The workshop will deal with creating an “Internet Bill of Rights” to articulate the global rights and duties of Internet users from the viewpoint of the individual. The workshop will focus on the process of creating such an instrument and address the following questions: * What rights are fundamental to freedom in a digital world? * What obligations are necessary to create a digital society based on rule of law and civil liberty? * Who are the appropriate stake-holders in making policy determinations for the Internet and what is the role of government? * How to negotiate between conflicting values in setting policy for the online environment? * What special challenges and opportunities does the Internet provide to the quest for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Workshop Speakers: * Ms. Daniele Auffray, Alderwoman for ICT, Paris * Mr. Fiorello Cortiana, Italian Green Party and Milano Provincia * Prof. Stefano Rodotà, Former Head of the Council of European Data Protection Agencies * Ms. Robin Gross, IP Justice Executive Director and Attorney * Mr.Jose Murilo Junior from the Brazilian Ministry of Culture * Mr. Vittorio Bertola of ICANN’s At-Large Advisory Committee will moderate the discussion. Workshop Sponsors: * Centre for Technology and Society of Getulio Vargas Foundation School of Law, Rio de Janeiro * Italian Ministry of Reform and Innovation in the Public Administration * Italia Societa Internet * IP Justice Website for workshop: http://ipjustice.org/wp/campaigns/internet-governance/igf/389/ ======= *“Access to Knowledge (A2K) and Free Expression” Workshop* Thursday 2 November from 11:30 - 13:00 at the Divani Apollon Palace & Spa (Plato Hall) in Athens. “Harnessing the Power of the Internet to Provide Access to Knowledge & Free Flow of Information”: A workshop to explore significant opportunities and barriers to harnessing the power of the Internet to provide access to knowledge and encourage freedom of expression and the free flow of information. In particular, the workshop will focus on the appropriate balance for intellectual property rights on the Internet. Speakers: * Susan Struble from IT Standardization and Strategy at Sun Microsystems will address challenges to technical interoperability and the free flow of information on the Internet from software patents. * Dr. Magdy Nagi from Egypt's Library of Alexandria (Bibliotheca Alexandrina) will discuss the challenges online libraries face in providing access to information and encourage development. * Mary Wong, a Professor of Law at Franklin Pierce Law Center and the IP Academy of Singapore will address special online challenges to freedom of expression and access to knowledge from “digital locks”. * Andrew McLaughlin, Director of Global Public Policy and Senior Counsel at Google will address the barriers Google faces in providing access to knowledge from unbalanced copyright law. * Robin Gross, Executive Director of IP Justice will Chair the session. Webpage for workshop: http://ipjustice.org/wp/campaigns/internet-governance/igf/382/ ============ *“Open Standards” Workshop* Thursday 2 November from 9:30 - 11:30 at the Divani Apollon Palace & Spa (Aphrodite Hall) in Athens. This workshop will present the relationship between the “openness” of ICT standards, economic and social development, and government policy making, with a focus on procurement policies. The discussion will help governments to better understand the inherent tension between intellectual property rights (IPR) holders in ICT standards and the public. The workshop will use the example of the OpenDocument Format standard to highlight the positive impact open ICT standards can have on information access. The workshop will share the thoughts and experiences of the participants, who represent a broad range of multi-stakeholders: Government: * Republic of South Africa: Natalie Sunker, Deputy Director, Intellectual Property, Policy & Legislation, Department of Trade and Industry * Brazil: Rogerio Santanna, Secretary of Information Technology, Ministry of Planning and Budget * Egypt’s Library of Alexandria: Prof. Magdy Nagi, Head of ICT Sector, Bibliotheca Alexandrina Civil Society Organizations: * Consumer Project on Technology: Jamie Love * Yale Information Society Project: Eddan Katz * IP Justice: Robin Gross Intergovernmental Organization: * South Centre, Innovation, Access to Knowledge and Intellectual Property Programme (IAIPP) Standards Organization * W3C: Daniel Dardieller, Associate Chair for Europe Industry: * Sun Microsystems: Susy Struble, Government Policy IPJ website for workshop: http://ipjustice.org/wp/campaigns/internet-governance/igf/open-standards-workshop/ See CPTech's webpage for this workshop for more detailed information and background on the Open Standards Workshop: http://www.cptech.org/a2k/igf/athens110206/ ========== More Information: IPJ's IGF webpage: http://ipjustice.org/campaigns/internet-governance/igf/ Official Internet Governance Forum (IGF) webpage: http:/www.intgovforum.org IGF Athens 2006 webpage: http://www.igfgreece2006.gr/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lists at privaterra.info Sun Oct 29 13:18:16 2006 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 20:18:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] overpasses for IGF opening ceremony In-Reply-To: <4513C504008879D2@mail12.bluewin.ch> (added by postmaster@bluewin.ch) References: <4513C504008879D2@mail12.bluewin.ch> (added by postmaster@bluewin.ch) Message-ID: <4544F068.5060609@privaterra.info> William: If i'm not mistaken, the press has been allocated its own # of overpasses. The question is - if bloggers and other new forms of media can get passes via the press process, or instead have to get it via CS. regards Robert William New wrote: > Hi, I would hope that the press might also have a small place in the list? > Thank you, William New, Intellectual Property Watch, Geneva > > > -----Original Message----- > From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: dimanche, 29. octobre 2006 11:52 > To: Governance > Cc: plenary at wsis-cs.org > Subject: [governance] overpasses for IGF opening ceremony > > The main room for the IGF sessions holds 800. 1500 are registered to > attend. So we are back into a situation of allocating overpasses for the > opening session and perhaps other sessions in the main room. > > There will be overflow rooms. And pressure will be off when the workshops > begin on the 2nd day. > > I have 100 overpasses for civil society. They are in my care. I got them by > being the MAG meeting at the room at the wrong time! > > Business have a batch, the Internet community has a batch. govt have 2 (or > 3?) per delegation. International orgs have a batch. The rest will be > first come first serve. > > Anyone speaking on a panel session > > > I would like advice on how to distribute the passes we have been given. > > My suggestion is to give a few passes to any CS group that has taken the > lead in organizing a workshop should be given a few passes to distribute > among their group. And return any left over to the general first come first > served batch. > > We do not have the organization we once had in WSIS. And we have no idea > who is coming and who is/considers themselves to be civil society. > > I would appreciate advice on what best to do. > > Thank you. > > Adam > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wnew at ip-watch.ch Sun Oct 29 18:37:34 2006 From: wnew at ip-watch.ch (William New) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:37:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] overpasses for IGF opening ceremony In-Reply-To: <4544F068.5060609@privaterra.info> Message-ID: <4513CD490087DFFF@mail22.bluewin.ch> (added by postmaster@bluewin.ch) Thank you Robert, I'll check it out. Best, William -----Original Message----- From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info] Sent: dimanche, 29. octobre 2006 19:18 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William New Cc: 'Adam Peake'; plenary at wsis-cs.org Subject: Re: [governance] overpasses for IGF opening ceremony William: If i'm not mistaken, the press has been allocated its own # of overpasses. The question is - if bloggers and other new forms of media can get passes via the press process, or instead have to get it via CS. regards Robert William New wrote: > Hi, I would hope that the press might also have a small place in the list? > Thank you, William New, Intellectual Property Watch, Geneva > > > -----Original Message----- > From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam > Peake > Sent: dimanche, 29. octobre 2006 11:52 > To: Governance > Cc: plenary at wsis-cs.org > Subject: [governance] overpasses for IGF opening ceremony > > The main room for the IGF sessions holds 800. 1500 are registered to > attend. So we are back into a situation of allocating overpasses for > the opening session and perhaps other sessions in the main room. > > There will be overflow rooms. And pressure will be off when the > workshops begin on the 2nd day. > > I have 100 overpasses for civil society. They are in my care. I got > them by being the MAG meeting at the room at the wrong time! > > Business have a batch, the Internet community has a batch. govt have 2 > (or > 3?) per delegation. International orgs have a batch. The rest will > be first come first serve. > > Anyone speaking on a panel session > > > I would like advice on how to distribute the passes we have been given. > > My suggestion is to give a few passes to any CS group that has taken > the lead in organizing a workshop should be given a few passes to > distribute among their group. And return any left over to the general > first come first served batch. > > We do not have the organization we once had in WSIS. And we have no > idea who is coming and who is/considers themselves to be civil society. > > I would appreciate advice on what best to do. > > Thank you. > > Adam > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Oct 30 05:06:57 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:06:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Meeting with Secretariat? Message-ID: <4545CEC1.1070305@bertola.eu.org> I was wondering whether, before the IGF ends, there could be a chance to have a meeting between civil society and the Secretariat (Nitin and Markus) to discuss informally the concerns that many of us have been putting forward, and put forward some suggestions to solve them. What do you think? Would it be useful? Also, do our AG members think that it would be possible and advisable? -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Oct 30 06:52:51 2006 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:52:51 -0300 Subject: [governance] Meeting with Secretariat? In-Reply-To: <4545CEC1.1070305@bertola.eu.org> References: <4545CEC1.1070305@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <4545E793.4010607@rits.org.br> Useful indeed, Vittorio. I will be glad to participate. frt rgds --c.a. Vittorio Bertola wrote: > I was wondering whether, before the IGF ends, there could be a chance to > have a meeting between civil society and the Secretariat (Nitin and > Markus) to discuss informally the concerns that many of us have been > putting forward, and put forward some suggestions to solve them. > What do you think? Would it be useful? Also, do our AG members think > that it would be possible and advisable? -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor *************************************************************** Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br *************************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Mon Oct 30 07:04:03 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:04:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Meeting with Secretariat? In-Reply-To: <4545E793.4010607@rits.org.br> References: <4545CEC1.1070305@bertola.eu.org> <4545E793.4010607@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <4545EA33.4000207@Malcolm.id.au> Me too. But more urgently, where is the IGC meeting that's supposed to be taking place now? Carlos Afonso wrote: > Useful indeed, Vittorio. I will be glad to participate. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> I was wondering whether, before the IGF ends, there could be a chance >> to have a meeting between civil society and the Secretariat (Nitin and >> Markus) to discuss informally the concerns that many of us have been >> putting forward, and put forward some suggestions to solve them. >> What do you think? Would it be useful? Also, do our AG members think >> that it would be possible and advisable? -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Oct 30 07:25:56 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:25:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] Meeting with Secretariat? In-Reply-To: <4545EA33.4000207@Malcolm.id.au> References: <4545CEC1.1070305@bertola.eu.org> <4545E793.4010607@rits.org.br> <4545EA33.4000207@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Good idea -- be aware that Markus is now working in every session, Nitin has an enormous amount to do. We should ask for a set amount of time. Be flexible. Have very specific issues to address. They have always been very welcoming, so let's ask. But take account of their busyness in the time we ask for. Adam On 10/30/06, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Me too. > > But more urgently, where is the IGC meeting that's supposed to be taking > place now? > > Carlos Afonso wrote: > > Useful indeed, Vittorio. I will be glad to participate. > > > > frt rgds > > > > --c.a. > > > > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >> I was wondering whether, before the IGF ends, there could be a chance > >> to have a meeting between civil society and the Secretariat (Nitin and > >> Markus) to discuss informally the concerns that many of us have been > >> putting forward, and put forward some suggestions to solve them. > >> What do you think? Would it be useful? Also, do our AG members think > >> that it would be possible and advisable? > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Mon Oct 30 07:34:14 2006 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO - Philippe Dam) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:34:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Workshop on IG as a tool for participation - 31 Oct. 2006, 13:30-15:00 In-Reply-To: <453BE34F.1010404@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <200610301234.k9UCY9MU019116@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Find below the announcement a workshop organised on Tuesday 31 October 13:30-15:00 at the Internet Governance Forum in Athens. Best. Inaugural meeting of the Internet Governance Forum Athens - Greece The Conference of NGOs in consultative Relationship with the United Nations (CONGO) Invites you to a workshop on Internet Governance as a tool for participation (Democratization and empowerment) Tuesday, 31 October 2006, 13:30-15:00 Room I (Aphrodite C) Divani Apollon Palace, Vouliagmeni (Athens) Interveners: . Ambassador Janis Karklins (Permanent Representative of the Republic of Latvia to the UN in Geneva) . Ms. Titilayo Akinsanmi (WSIS YC / Global Teenager Project, Member of the IGF Advisory Group) . Ms. Chat Garcia Ramilo (Association for Progressive Communications) . Mr. Rik Panganiban (Social Science Research Council, New York) . Mr. Axel Plathe (UNESCO) . Ms. Miriam Sapiro (Summit Strategies International, LLC) . Mr. Teanau Tuiono (Indigenous Caucus) Moderator: . Renate Bloem, President of CONGO Internet Governance policies and practices can play a major role in promoting and shaping participatory and inclusive mechanisms for democratic practices. It also can deeply contribute to the empowerment of various groups and communities, at the local, national, regional and international level. This workshop will further explore ways to improve how Internet Governance policies and practices could promote the use of the Internet by all users to increase their ability to participate in public debates and policy processes and to benefit from empowerment. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Mon Oct 30 08:00:04 2006 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:00:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Blogger arrested in Greece In-Reply-To: <200610291454.k9TEs6tq029828@mx-in-01.forthnet.gr> References: <45439788.7080209@bertola.eu.org> <200610291454.k9TEs6tq029828@mx-in-01.forthnet.gr> Message-ID: Hi all I agree that the issue to be raised by the civil society at the current session at Athens. For an impact to be felt, each and every one taking the floor should hammer on the issue in stronger words. Aaron On 10/29/06, karen banks wrote: > hi vittorio > > thanks for this - i think it would be impossible not to raise this issue ;) > > karen > > At 19:46 28/10/2006, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >Hello, > > > >as not everyone might have had this piece of news yet, apparently two > >days ago the Greek authorities have arrested for one night the owner of > >the blog aggregator blogme.gr, since one of the feeds he was showing was > >linking to a mockery website against a controversial Greek TV > >evangelist. As this person couldn't sue the mockery website (hosted in > >the US), he sued the aggregator instead. > > > >See Kieren McCarthy's take about this here: > >http://kierenmccarthy.co.uk/2006/10/28/greek-blog-aggregator-arrested/ > >Also some random blog's translation of the facts into English: > >http://naftilos.blogspot.com/2006/10/blogmegr-like-suing-google.html > >and the Technorati dump, if anyone knows Greek: > >http://www.technorati.com/search/blogme.gr > > > >Please beware that this is all n-th hand information, it needs to be > >confirmed (if anyone knows, please post additional sources), but at the > >same time there might be protesters from the local civil society, and it > >might be the case for civil society speakers in the opening sessions to > >raise the issue. > > > >Thanks, > >-- > >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- > >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President ASAFE Tel. 237 337 50 22 Fax. 237 342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Mon Oct 30 08:08:20 2006 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:08:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Opening ceremony - with no Civil society presence In-Reply-To: <45448499.3010001@privaterra.info> References: <45448499.3010001@privaterra.info> Message-ID: The what is the rationale behind inviting all this crowd if they will not be able to attend fully?. To solve this situation, I will suggest that there should be some regional quotas allocated so that each region manages the selection of her representatives, so as to have an inclusive participation in future meetings. A statement like "only friends of an insider group will be able to attend the session" includes germs of exclusion that should thoroughly b fought against. What is the rationale behind such clientelist idea of another age? Aaron On 10/29/06, Robert Guerra wrote: > http://igf2006.info/node/297 > > I've just learned that access to the opening ceremony will be - quite - > restricted. > > Despite being a key stakeholder - NGOs & Civil society will only be > assigned 100 passes to the session. Such a small number - well, is > shocking . > > With no clear process nor mechanism defined to allocate and distribute > passes - one thing will be clear, only friends of an insider group will > be able to attend the session. > > Thus, the message is clear from the start - there will be an Opening > ceremony - but with no real Civil society presence. > > So much for a real and effective multi-stakeholder meeting..sigh! > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President ASAFE Tel. 237 337 50 22 Fax. 237 342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From robin at ipjustice.org Mon Oct 30 18:40:28 2006 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:40:28 -0800 Subject: [governance] Press Conference on IGF Open Standards Dynamic Coaliton: 31 Nov. 2:15pm Message-ID: <45468D6C.70401@ipjustice.org> Media Release 31 November 2006 Press Contacts: Susan Stuble, Sun Microsystems (+1) 210-353-0540 Email: susy at sun.com Jamie Love, CPTech (+30) 697 9605013 Email: James.love at cptech.org Press Conference on Creation of First IGF Dynamic Coalition Open Standards Workshop Organizers Form Coalition (Athens) On Tuesday 31 November at 2:15pm in the Media Room at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), organizers of the IGF Open Standards Workshop will hold a press conference on the creation of an IGF Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS). One of main outcomes of the IGF is the creation of “dynamic coalitions” or multi-stakeholder groups working together on a common goal over a multi-year process. The IGF DCOS is the first dynamic coalition coming out of the inaugural IGF meeting in Athens this week. The IGF Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards will work to promote open technical standards in information technologies, including both hardware and software. The Open Standards Workshop will be held on 2 November at 9:30am at the IGF in Athens. The workshop will explore the relationship between the “openness” of ICT standards, economic and social development, and government policy making, with a focus on procurement policies. The discussion will help governments to better understand the inherent tension between intellectual property rights (IPR) holders in ICT standards and the public. The “Open Standards” workshop will use the example of the OpenDocument Format standard to highlight the positive impact open ICT standards can have on information access. Tuesday’s IGF DCOS press conference on Open Standards will include the following speakers: * Brazil: Rogerio Santanna, Secretary of Information Technology, Ministry of Planning and Budget * Egypt’s Library of Alexandria: Prof. Magdy Nagi, Head of ICT Sector, Bibliotheca Alexandrina * Consumer Project on Technology: Jamie Love * Yale Information Society Project: Eddan Katz * IP Justice: Robin Gross * W3C: Daniel Dardieller, Associate Chair for Europe * Sun Microsystems: Susy Struble, Government Policy * Free Software Foundation Europe: Georg Greve, President For more information: CPTech Webpage on IGF Open Standards Workshop http://www.cptech.org/a2k/igf/athens110206/ Internet Governance Forum Website http://www.intgovforum.org IPJ Webpage on IGF Open Standards Workshop: http://ipjustice.org/wp/campaigns/internet-governance/igf/open-standards-workshop/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Oct 31 09:16:02 2006 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:16:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation - questions Message-ID: there are email addresses to facilitate remote participation. Please send your questions in English, French or Spanish. English : questions_e at igf2006.info French : questions_f at igf2006.info Español : preguntas at igf2006.info apologies for not sending this to you sooner. Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Tue Oct 31 11:58:31 2006 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:58:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Updated draft agenda for igc@igf In-Reply-To: <954259bd0610270656y5a933bdav1d6809c8eeeb5691@mail.gmail.com> References: <77C537FB-5D6F-495D-AD8D-9770C4F4250B@acm.org> <954259bd0610270656y5a933bdav1d6809c8eeeb5691@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <454780B7.1020508@Malcolm.id.au> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Hi everybody, > > Adam's and Vittorio's remarks and suggestions for Athens are useful : > - multi-stakeholder interaction at the end if possible > - encouragment of workshop organizers to say what they plan for the year > 2007 (one element in particular would be to list events that are already > planned on the various issues) > - multi-stakeholder mailing list (announcements only) We have the last of these, but (literally) nobody is subscribed to it. The Secretariat have been requested (by me) to announce it in a one-off mailing to everyone, but they haven't done so. It's here: http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/plenary_intgovforum.org -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 15:16:09 2006 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:16:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: SMS questions to main session References: Message-ID: <000f01c6fd29$6c4a4150$322fa7c3@HOME> Again, this is a little late in the day, but we have grabbed two dedicated mobile phones - one for French and one for English - to receive SMS text questions for the main sessions tomorrow. The sessions are about Diversity and Access and since the common refrain is that Africa and developing countries only tend to have Net access through their mobiles, it seemed like a good idea to try to make it as simple as possible for them to interact. It is not perfect of course (two languages, and using actual phones when some SMS software would be 1,000 times more effective), but it is better than not having it. Plus maybe people that don't want to get up and speak into a microphone will be encouraged. Please spread the numbers as widely as possible. We have already stuck them on the main IGF site and the igf2006.info site. If anyone knows who to grab for the IGF Greece website, punt it their way as well. In English: +30 697 680 6260 En Français: +30 697 182 1854 Kieren ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kieren McCarthy -------------------------- Homepages: http://www.kierenmccarthy.me.uk Blog: http://www.kierenmccarthy.co.uk/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon Oct 9 08:17:09 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 14:17:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] GigaNet Symposium in Athens Message-ID: Please distribute as appropriate Final Program Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) First Annual Symposium www.intgovforum.org/IGF_Platform.php Divani Apollon Palace & Spa Hotel Athens, Greece Room: TBA 29 October 2006 The Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) is an emerging scholarly community initiated in Spring 2006. Its four principal objectives are to: support the establishment of a global cohort of scholars specializing on Internet governance issues; promote the development of Internet governance as a recognized, interdisciplinary field of study; advance theoretical and applied research on Internet governance, broadly defined; and facilitate informed dialogue on policy issues and related matters between scholars and Internet governance stakeholders (governments, international organizations, the private sector, and civil society). In this context, the GigaNet plans to organize symposia to be held on site prior to the annual meetings of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). This event is the first in that series. 9:30-9:45 Welcome and Overview Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Professor of International Communication Policy and Regulation, University of Aarhus; Denmark 9:45-11:15 Theorizing Internet Governance: The State of the Art Chair: Peng Hwa Ang, Dean, School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, and Director, Singapore Internet Research Center; Singapore Panelists: “The Need For Interdisciplinary Understanding” Mary Rundle, Director, Net Dialogue, and Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University and the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford University; USA “Cross-national Collaboration on Internet Governance: Critical Success Factors for Cross-Disciplinary and Cross-Cultural Studies” Nanette S. Levinson, Associate Professor of International Relations, American University; Washington DC, USA “The Role of the State in Heterogeneous Governance Arrangements” Jeanette Hoffman, Research Fellow, Social Science Research Center, and Partner, the Internet Governance Project; Berlin, Germany “An Economic Rationale for Internet Regulation” Filomena Chirico, Post-doc Researcher, Tilburg Center for Law and Economics, Tilburg University; The Netherlands “Hybrid Regimes, Power, and Legitimacy in Global Governance: 
Insights from Internet Privacy Regulation”
Ralf Bendrath, Research Fellow, University of Bremen; Germany Focus: In recent years, scholars have begun to analyze Internet governance issues using the theoretical tools of their respective academic disciplines. While issues surrounding ICANN have attracted particular attention, there also has been significant work done on the international governance of digital international trade and intellectual property, privacy, security, speech, and other topics. Such research often has been rather specialized and geared toward the distinct audiences interested in each issue-area, which limited intellectual cross-fertilization. These topics are related, and Internet governance should be seen as a broad but coherent field of study that merits elaboration and support. Mapping the landscape of relevant theoretical perspectives is an important first step toward this end. The purpose of this panel is to consider questions such as: What aspects of Internet governance are uniquely interesting and worthy of scholarly analysis? How has Internet governance been addressed by scholars in the social sciences, humanities, law, and other disciplines, and which theoretical approaches seem to be the most promising for which issues and dynamics? Do these efforts point to the emergence of a coherent research agenda and the cumulative development of new knowledge? Are there barriers—intellectual, institutional, and other—that might have to be overcome to advance that agenda? How can Internet governance develop into an interdisciplinary scholarly field that is taken seriously by academics and also capable of providing useful inputs to the Internet Governance Forum and other policy development institutions? What lessons can be learned, if any, from other fields defined by the object of inquiry/dependent variables rather than by shared theories and independent variables, e.g., “communication studies,” “information studies,” and “women's studies”? Are there national or cultural differences in the ways scholars approach these matters, and if so how might these be reconciled? 11:15-11:30 Coffee break 11:30-13:00 “Enhanced Cooperation” and Interaction among Stakeholders in Internet Governance Chair: Milton Mueller, Professor of Information Studies, Syracuse University, and Partner, the Internet Governance Project Panelists: “A European Perspective on Enhanced Cooperation” Bernard Benhamou, Senior Lecturer for the Information Society, National Foundation of Political Science; Paris, France “‘The Sovereign Right of States:’ Why Multi-Stakeholder Policy Development is Possible and Necessary” Jeremy Malcolm, Doctoral candidate, Murdoch University; Perth, Australia “Distributed Internet Governance: A Chance or a Threat to Democracy?” Meryem Marzouki, Researcher, National Center for Scientific Research, and Computer Science Laboratory of the University Paris 6; France “The Future of Enhanced Cooperation” Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Professor of International Communication Policy and Regulation, University of Aarhus; Denmark Focus: In addition to creating the Internet Governance Forum, the Tunis Agenda calls for “enhanced cooperation” among governments. This language originated with the European Union's June 2005 criticism of US unilateral control of ICANN. The EU claimed that the WSIS statement constituted, “a worldwide political agreement providing for further internationalization of Internet governance, and enhanced intergovernmental cooperation to this end” and that, “Such cooperation should include the development of globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources.” The purpose of this panel is to consider questions such as: What are the causes of US-EU tensions over Internet governance? What institutional form might such a “new cooperation model” for deliberations among governments take? How viable is the distinction between “day-to-day management of the Internet and “public policy?” What, more generally, is the role of national governments in Internet governance in relation to other stakeholder groups? What implications might “enhanced cooperation” have for civil society and multistakeholder participation? How might such a philosophy lead to changes in the structure or processes of ICANN? 13:00-14:30 Lunch break (on your own) 14:30-16:00 The Distributed Architecture of Internet Governance Chair: William J. Drake, Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance, Graduate Institute of International Studies; Geneva, Switzerland Panelists: “The Role of International Telecommunications Arrangements in Distributed Internet Governance” Don MacLean, Independent consultant (formerly Chief of Strategic Planning and External Affairs, the International Telecommunication Union); Ottawa, Canada “Institutional Factors Impacting Participation in Distributed Internet Governance” David Souter, Visiting Professor in Communications Management (formerly Chief Executive, Commonwealth Telecommunications Organization); University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom “Striking a Balance in Guiding Principles for Distributed Internet Governance” Qiheng Hu, President of the Internet Society of China and Chairperson of the Steering Committee for the China Network and Information Center (formerly Vice President, Chinese Academy of Sciences); Beijing, China “Best Practices for Internet Standards Governance?” Laura DeNardis, Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project; New Haven, USA Focus: As the WSIS agreements recognized, Internet governance involves much more than ICANN or the collective management of naming and numbering. Internet governance also includes the development and application of internationally shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs in a variety of other issue-areas, e.g. technical standardization, cybercrime and network security, international interconnection, e-commerce, e-contracting, networked trade in digital goods and services, digital intellectual property, jurisdiction and choice of law, human rights, speech and social conduct, cultural and linguistic diversity, privacy and consumer protection, dispute resolution, and so on. These activities take a variety of forms and are pursued in a heterogeneous array of settings, including governmental, intergovernmental, private sector, and multistakeholder organizations and collaborations. In parallel, the international regimes and related frameworks they establish vary widely in their institutional attributes, e.g. the collective action problems addressed, functions performed, participants involved, organizational setting and decision making procedures, agreement type, strength and scope of prescriptions, compliance mechanisms, power dynamics and distributional biases, etc. But while there is now broad recognition that the architecture of Internet governance is highly distributed, there has been little systematic scholarly analysis or policy dialogue about its precise nature and implications. The purpose of this panel is to explore and clarify some of the lingering ambiguities, including questions such as: Which governance mechanisms are relatively more or less important in shaping the Internet¹s evolution and use? How well do these mechanisms cohere, and are there tensions and gaps between them? Are there crosscutting issues that merit consideration from analytical and programmatic standpoints? Are there generalizable lessons to be learned by the distinct communities of expertise involved in different issue-areas with regard to best practices and institutional design? Does the distributed architecture pose any challenges with respect to the effective participation of less powerful stakeholders and the global community¹s ability to govern in an effective and equitable manner? Looking beyond formalized collective frameworks, under what circumstances, if any, may private market power or spontaneously harmonized practices constitute forms of Internet governance? What is the current role of governance mechanisms for international telecommunications, and what might that role become in a future marked by convergence and potentially non-neutral next generation networks? 16:00-16:15 Closing of the Symposium 16:15-16:30 Coffee break 16:30-18:00 GigaNet Business Meeting (Open to current and prospective GigaNet members) ******************************************************* William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland http://www.cpsr.org/Members/wdrake ******************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw Wed Oct 25 07:36:47 2006 From: qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw (Qusai Al-Shatti) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:36:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] My new appointment Message-ID: <200610251136.OAA02058@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Dear Bertrand: Congratulation Bertrand and wish all the best, I hope this will help in improving the dialogue between civil society and other stakeholders. Regards, Qusai Al-Shatti --- Message Header --- The following message was sent by "Bertrand de La Chapelle" on Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:16:49 +0200. --- Original Message --- > Dear all, > > As the Athens Forum approaches, I am looking forward to seeing you all again > and continuing our debates and common endeavours. > > But before it takes place, I want to announce publicly on the list that > things have evolved on my side recently and that I have just been appointed > by the French government as its "Special Envoy for the Information Society", > (in French : D�l�gu� Sp�cial pour la Soci�t� de l'Information) > with the > responsibility to cover the various aspects of the post-WSIS and related > processes. > I have decided to accept this offer to return to formal diplomatic service > with the conviction that I can bring my past experiences in the business and > civil society sectors to this new role and thus contribute further > to the development of innovative multi-stakeholder processes, including > those decided in Tunis. > > The present period is different from the summit years where the challenge > was to get civil society accepted. Now, the multi-stakeholder principle is > accepted - at least in theory - by all governements. I can therefore pursue > the same vision in this new role as before : the challenge is to give life > to multi-stakeholderism and make it work concretely for the benefit of the > international community. > > I will participate in this new capacity in the upcoming Internet Governance > Forum in Athens and am looking forward to seeing many of you there again and > continue our interactions, including in the workshops. > > Best > > Bertrand > Dear all, > > As the Athens Forum approaches, I am looking forward to seeing you all again > and continuing our debates and common endeavours. > > But before it takes place, I want to announce publicly on the list that > things have evolved on my side recently and that I have just been appointed > by the French government as its "Special Envoy for the Information Society", > (in French : D�l�gu� Sp�cial pour la Soci�t� de l'Information) > with the > responsibility to cover the various aspects of the post-WSIS and related > processes. > I have decided to accept this offer to return to formal diplomatic service > with the conviction that I can bring my past experiences in the business and > civil society sectors to this new role and thus contribute further > to the development of innovative multi-stakeholder processes, including > those decided in Tunis. > > The present period is different from the summit years where the challenge > was to get civil society accepted. Now, the multi-stakeholder principle is > accepted - at least in theory - by all governements. I can therefore pursue > the same vision in this new role as before : the challenge is to give life > to multi-stakeholderism and make it work concretely for the benefit of the > international community. > > I will participate in this new capacity in the upcoming Internet Governance > Forum in Athens and am looking forward to seeing many of you there again and > continue our interactions, including in the workshops. > > Best > > Bertrand > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw Thu Oct 26 22:33:14 2006 From: qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw (Qusai Al-Shatti) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:33:14 +0300 Subject: [governance] National vs. International was Re: Program for IGC@IGF Message-ID: <200610270233.FAA12718@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Dear All: The discussion within this thread indicates that IG is a global issue in the first place and a national issue in the second place. Currently most of the attention is given to the International level were most of our effort have been directed. Yet, we need to make sure that at national level public policy related to IG should comply fully with what is agreed on internationally and that should be through multistakeholder participation. We need to deal with borders and sovereignty as long as there are countries! Many countries (especially developing countries) view IG as and International issue only while on national level it is a matter of resources management. This is why we should focus some of our attention in IG to national. Regards,, Qusai Al-Shatti --- Message Header --- The following message was sent by "Parminder" on Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:42:43 +0530. --- Original Message --- > > > > The reason seems to be that at the national level, there are > > > well-established democratic traditions with free, independent > > > media, > > > well-defined rules for transparency, checks and balances, and > > > accountability of governments to national parliaments. > > > > > > Much of this is not yet so well-developed at the > > > international level, > > > resulting in an increased success likelihood of the lobbying > > > efforts of greedy monopolistic companies. > > > > Nobert, > > > > So if what you say is indeed true (which I believe it is), then what we > obviously need is stronger and more clearly defined democratic public policy > spaces, structures and systems in the global arena as well, which are > connected to strong systems and institutions for transparency and extracting > accountability - which include international information sharing processes, > media, and multi-stakeholder processes of input and participation.. > > > > But, the prescriptions you have been offering (very sincere and > well-intentioned, no doubt) mostly speak only about things like 'light > weight', multi-stakeholder, 'coalition of the willing' kind of voluntary > processes, and no-government involvement(mostly), that just do not any way > meet the criteria of effective democratic public policy spaces.. Systems of > participation, transparency, volunteeristic multistakeholder systems are of > little use without effective, sufficiently well funded public policy > systems. and we cannot be speaking of one without the other. Well, you CAN > have them, but they may not serve much purpose, beyond some very limited > avenues of utility. > > > > Parminder > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > www.ITforChange.net > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:22 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: Re: [governance] National vs. International was Re: > > > Program for IGC at IGF > > > > > > Avri Doria wrote: > > > > On 24 okt 2006, at 08.39, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > > > > > How do we fend off greed, corruption or particularist > > > interests on > > > > > the international level? > > > > > > > > I think that transparency goes a long way here. > > > > > > Strongly agreed. > > > > > > > In the national setting it is very easy for the government > > > to stifle > > > > the press and even the net. On the international stage it > > > is more > > > > difficult, especially if groups like this keep up the > > > pressure. > > > > > > My observation here in Central Europe is that the influence > > > of greedy > > > particularist interests seems to be much stronger for policy > > > decisions > > > which are coordinated internationally than for those which > > > are only > > > discussed nationally. > > > > > > The reason seems to be that at the national level, there are > > > well-established democratic traditions with free, independent > > > media, > > > well-defined rules for transparency, checks and balances, and > > > accountability of governments to national parliaments. > > > > > > Much of this is not yet so well-developed at the > > > international level, > > > resulting in an increased success likelihood of the lobbying > > > efforts of greedy monopolistic companies. > > > > > > For an ICT-related example in the EU, see > > > http://NoBananaUnion.com/en/swpat-directive > > > > > > Here in Switzerland, a very similar process of political- > > > ideological > > > manipulation is at work related to the current revision > > > process of > > > the copyright law, where e.g. the attempt is made to > > > manipulate > > > politicians as well as the general public into thinking that > > > we have > > > to adopt legal protection for DRM systems because of > > > "international > > > standards". > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Norbert Bollow > > > http://Norbert.ch > > > President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG > > > http://SIUG.ch > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > The reason seems to be that at the national level, there are > > > well-established democratic traditions with free, independent > > > media, > > > well-defined rules for transparency, checks and balances, and > > > accountability of governments to national parliaments. > > > > > > Much of this is not yet so well-developed at the > > > international level, > > > resulting in an increased success likelihood of the lobbying > > > efforts of greedy monopolistic companies. > > > > Nobert, > > > > So if what you say is indeed true (which I believe it is), then what we > obviously need is stronger and more clearly defined democratic public policy > spaces, structures and systems in the global arena as well, which are > connected to strong systems and institutions for transparency and extracting > accountability - which include international information sharing processes, > media, and multi-stakeholder processes of input and participation.. > > > > But, the prescriptions you have been offering (very sincere and > well-intentioned, no doubt) mostly speak only about things like 'light > weight', multi-stakeholder, 'coalition of the willing' kind of voluntary > processes, and no-government involvement(mostly), that just do not any way > meet the criteria of effective democratic public policy spaces.. Systems of > participation, transparency, volunteeristic multistakeholder systems are of > little use without effective, sufficiently well funded public policy > systems. and we cannot be speaking of one without the other. Well, you CAN > have them, but they may not serve much purpose, beyond some very limited > avenues of utility. > > > > Parminder > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > www.ITforChange.net > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:22 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: Re: [governance] National vs. International was Re: > > > Program for IGC at IGF > > > > > > Avri Doria wrote: > > > > On 24 okt 2006, at 08.39, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > > > > > How do we fend off greed, corruption or particularist > > > interests on > > > > > the international level? > > > > > > > > I think that transparency goes a long way here. > > > > > > Strongly agreed. > > > > > > > In the national setting it is very easy for the government > > > to stifle > > > > the press and even the net. On the international stage it > > > is more > > > > difficult, especially if groups like this keep up the > > > pressure. > > > > > > My observation here in Central Europe is that the influence > > > of greedy > > > particularist interests seems to be much stronger for policy > > > decisions > > > which are coordinated internationally than for those which > > > are only > > > discussed nationally. > > > > > > The reason seems to be that at the national level, there are > > > well-established democratic traditions with free, independent > > > media, > > > well-defined rules for transparency, checks and balances, and > > > accountability of governments to national parliaments. > > > > > > Much of this is not yet so well-developed at the > > > international level, > > > resulting in an increased success likelihood of the lobbying > > > efforts of greedy monopolistic companies. > > > > > > For an ICT-related example in the EU, see > > > http://NoBananaUnion.com/en/swpat-directive > > > > > > Here in Switzerland, a very similar process of political- > > > ideological > > > manipulation is at work related to the current revision > > > process of > > > the copyright law, where e.g. the attempt is made to > > > manipulate > > > politicians as well as the general public into thinking that > > > we have > > > to adopt legal protection for DRM systems because of > > > "international > > > standards". > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Norbert Bollow > > > http://Norbert.ch > > > President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG > > > http://SIUG.ch > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw Thu Oct 26 22:34:51 2006 From: qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw (Qusai Al-Shatti) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:34:51 +0300 Subject: [governance] Caucus Statement: endorsement Message-ID: <200610270234.FAA12794@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Dear All: I strongly beleive that IGC should have an endorsed statement in the way Louis had mentioned that it should be consensual and effective. I would like to suggest that we add text within the statement pointing out that the IGF as a peocess should have clear objectives, goals and targets (in another word: an Agenda) within each point of its mandate (para 72, Tunis Agenda). This will eventually form a roadmap for its duration and we will be able to know what have been accomplished, were we are heading to and what will be discussed in every meeting. Regards,, Qusai --- Message Header --- The following message was sent by Louis Pouzin on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:10:03 -0700 (PDT). --- Original Message --- > While I have no strong feeling on style, I feel that some statement is a must. I would agree with any version which a) is consensual, b) has a better chance to be effective. > > Or else the IGF could be cast in a wrong mold (as per Parminder). > > Best > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > While I have no strong feeling on style, I feel that some statement is a must. I would agree with any version which a) is consensual, b) has a better chance to be effective. > > Or else the IGF could be cast in a wrong mold (as per Parminder). > > Best > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance