From pwilson at apnic.net Fri Sep 1 03:11:53 2006 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:11:53 +1000 Subject: [governance] Announcement: Panel session at APNIC 22, Kaohsiung, Taiwan Message-ID: <9344786E327A51028DA72A45@as-paul.apnic.net> [with apologies for duplicates] "IPv4 exhaustion: what's the real story?" APNIC 22 6 September 2006 9:30 - 10:30 Taiwan local time (UTC+8) Online participation available At the APNIC 22 meeting in Kaohsiung, Taiwan next week, we will be holding a special panel discussion, "IPv4 exhaustion: what's the real story?". The research community is predicting that the current free pool of IPv4 addresses will run out some time between 2009 and 2015. The APNIC 22 panel discussion will look at research done on the issues and examine the responses needed to cope with the exhaustion of the free pool. Please join us for this panel and put your comments or questions to the panelists. You can follow the panel via webcast, audio stream, and live transcript. During the discussion time, we invite you to talk to the panel participants via live chat. For more information, see: http://www.apnic.net/meetings/22/program/plenary.html ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson email: pwilson at apnic.net Director General, APNIC sip: apnic at voip.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ See you at APNIC 22! Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 4-8 Sep 2006 http://www.apnic.net/meetings ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From plzak at arin.net Fri Sep 1 03:44:41 2006 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 03:44:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] Announcement: Panel session at APNIC 22, Kaohsiung, Taiwan In-Reply-To: <9344786E327A51028DA72A45@as-paul.apnic.net> Message-ID: <20060901074440.455AE1FFCB@mercury.arin.net> A similar panel was conducted at the ARIN XVI meeting (26-27 Oct 2005). For those wishing to do a little homework before participating in the APNIC panel you can view a summary, the presentations, and the RealMedia of the event. It is located at http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XVI/ppm.html. The agenda topic is "The Future of IPv4 - Roundtable". This is a very important topic to the global community, I strongly urge you to attend this event that APNIC is conducting. Raymond A Plzak President and CEO ARIN > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 3:12 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; igovap at mail.apdip.net > Subject: [governance] Announcement: Panel session at APNIC 22, Kaohsiung, > Taiwan > > [with apologies for duplicates] > > "IPv4 exhaustion: what's the real story?" > > APNIC 22 > 6 September 2006 > 9:30 - 10:30 Taiwan local time (UTC+8) > Online participation available > > At the APNIC 22 meeting in Kaohsiung, Taiwan next week, we will be > holding a special panel discussion, "IPv4 exhaustion: what's the real > story?". > > The research community is predicting that the current free pool of IPv4 > addresses will run out some time between 2009 and 2015. The APNIC 22 > panel discussion will look at research done on the issues and examine > the responses needed to cope with the exhaustion of the free pool. > > Please join us for this panel and put your comments or questions to the > panelists. You can follow the panel via webcast, audio stream, and live > transcript. During the discussion time, we invite you to talk to the > panel participants via live chat. > > For more information, see: > > http://www.apnic.net/meetings/22/program/plenary.html > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson email: pwilson at apnic.net > Director General, APNIC sip: apnic at voip.apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > See you at APNIC 22! Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 4-8 Sep 2006 > http://www.apnic.net/meetings > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Fri Sep 1 12:04:46 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:04:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF workshop proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44F85A1E.202@bertola.eu.org> Adam Peake ha scritto: > > > IGF Workshop proposals received by the August 24 deadline. May be a > couple more to come. > > 34 proposals in total -- I wished there's been a few more, but > understand the difficulties involved in putting togther a proposal. For example - to bring my personal experience - I and Robin succeeded in putting together a proposal on the Internet Bill of Rights, but I could not manage to submit a proposal on trusted computing, due to the difficulty to find panelists, supporters etc. during summer time and in my spare time, and with the apparent risk that either you manage to find plenty of sponsors, prove your credibility and budget, etc, or your proposal will be rejected and all your efforts will have been wasted. But when I go out and discuss this, many say "how come you'll not be talking about trusted computing, it's a hot issue, it's unbelievable that such a matter can be ignored", etc. And I'm sure that if we set up a room for that in Athens, many would show up and have a lively and interesting discussion. So I'm wondering whether there could be the opportunity to set up informal discussions with somewhat softer requirements than those for workshops, especially if there will be free slots remaining. In this case, I raise my hand again for trusted computing, which is quite hot in the European tech scene; also, network neutrality, which AFAIK is really hot in the US, seems to be missing, isn't it? In general, I think it would be better to cover all important issues, even if in some cases with less perfect events, than have 30 great events of which 20 are, say, on meta-governance issues. If I may, as an engineer, at a first glance there seems to be too much sky-high pondering and not enough technology in this event, but perhaps that's normal given the environment. However, maybe you could try to rebalance things a little using any spare slots remaining. I strongly support the general idea that you should apply your criteria independently from the numbers. I refrained to submit my TC workshop proposal because I couldn't make it sufficiently strong, and now I see even weaker and less diverse proposals in the list. Or if you really want to accept some of them - for example, the WBU "content rights" proposal, which, as it is now, really worries me - you should ensure that the workshop is broadened and also includes the other points of view on the matter! I am sure there would be many of us willing to join and help balancing unbalanced workshops, if their current proposers accepted the idea. -- 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 db at dannybutt.net Sat Sep 2 00:06:27 2006 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 16:06:27 +1200 Subject: [governance] Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: <20060901103042.GB32221@tetard.starbsd.org> References: <20060831121920.3912FC9AF9@smtp1.electricembers.net> <20060901103042.GB32221@tetard.starbsd.org> Message-ID: <269707C6-BF47-43A3-A092-FAA210B0F662@dannybutt.net> Hi Phil Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I agree with you that VoIP is a poor rationale for QoS, and probably a poor example, though that may not be the case once videoconf picks up a bit? On the other hand, I understand from ISPs here that video/ entertainment is by far the largest consumer of bandwidth, and this is supported by the figures at e.g. (see the data on data June 06). If that's true, it only makes sense to use other entertainment business models for reference, seeing as this is the primary use of the resource, even if not the most critical. The question for me is how to then define the public interest issues within that context, and I think that's a sociopolitical rather than technical question as Parminder suggests. Best Danny On 01/09/2006, at 10:30 PM, Phil Regnauld wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 05:49:14PM +0530, Parminder wrote: >> >> Many technologists at first did not engage with public policy at >> all, and >> now when some dangers of such a position are very evident, they >> are ready to >> engage with it only in terms of some technical principles. And NN >> is a >> technical principle, and it may in some situations serve public >> interest and >> at other times it may not. > > Well, as far as analogies go, why not look at the bridge / toll > systems instead of the gaming console one (credit to one of my > acquaintances): > > You build and operate a large toll for an 8 lane bridge. Now you're > going to have the basic differentiated services: cars pay 5 bucks, > trucks 20 (adjust to your currency / barter animal). Fair enough, > trucks fill the road more, and use up the pavement more, etc... > > On top of that, you're against Road Neutrality. And you want to > make an extra buck. So you start to single out Walmart trucks. > "You guys are the biggest users of this bridge, you got tons of > trucks from all over the country crossing this bridge, so I'm going > to invoice Walmart. And if they don't pay, I'll just have have to > park you guys into a waiting area, and wait until a clear spot, say > 1 mile long, shows up on a lane, and then I'll send you through. > And it doesn't matter which freight company Walmart uses, it's my > bridge, you pay extra". > > This is typical telco behaviour. Their revenues got spanked by > VoIP, and while it's not been proven that they downright will > downprioritize SIP and RTSP (or outright block it, as some Wimax > providers have done here in Denmark), but they sure as hell don't > make an effort to ensure it gets equal treatment. So what do you > do ? You find another way to make money (fair is fair). But instead > of offering better services or trying to create new products, you > try and revive that old zombie from the end of the 90s: prioritized > traffic and the need to pay what amounts to metered access. Telcos > hate flat rates, it's a law of nature like nature hates vacuum. > And (please, anybody show me the numbers to prove me wrong) the > whole problem of QoS being needed for VoIP is bull. VoIP represents > too small a share of carrier bandwidth to be significant, and it > will only be a problem at the edge when the networks get congested > -- i.e. it's a problem that's solved between the ISP and the customer, > not end-to-end. Claiming the contrary is a return to the reserved > circuit, underused capacity of the bygone days of X25. > > I'm no defender of Net Neutrality as a law: I think it's preposterous > that lobbyists are even trying to pass this one, it shouldn't even > be necessary. But when carriers see they can't make the same bottom > line as they did before and decide to make businesses that do turn > a profit cough up in a discriminatory fashion, I call that cheap > tactics -- especially when it's known that they won't invest in > faster infrastructure because there's simply no incentive to do so, > not because they lack money. > > P. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 pr+governance at x0.dk Sun Sep 3 11:31:03 2006 From: pr+governance at x0.dk (Phil Regnauld) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 17:31:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: <269707C6-BF47-43A3-A092-FAA210B0F662@dannybutt.net> References: <20060831121920.3912FC9AF9@smtp1.electricembers.net> <20060901103042.GB32221@tetard.starbsd.org> <269707C6-BF47-43A3-A092-FAA210B0F662@dannybutt.net> Message-ID: <20060903153103.GA45489@tetard.starbsd.org> On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 04:06:27PM +1200, Danny Butt wrote: > > The question for me is how to then define the public interest issues > within that context, and I think that's a sociopolitical rather than > technical question as Parminder suggests. Ah, the National Cable & Telecommunication Association has that answer for you -- see the 30 second spot: http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?ContentID=3526 "Net Neutrality is BAD for consumers" "Net Neutrality means YOU pay" (they call Net Neutrality "Mumbo Jumbo" -- written in coloured letters, Google style). Thank heavens there's some rational information out there, to counter the disinformation of these "multi-billion dollar Silicon valley companies.". Phil ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From christine at apdip.net Mon Sep 4 05:05:09 2006 From: christine at apdip.net (Christine) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 16:05:09 +0700 Subject: [governance] Out Now: APDIP e-Note 9 - Internationalized Domain Names Message-ID: ========================================================================== APDIP e-Note 9 - Internationalized Domain Names By Danny Butt http://www.apdip.net/news/apdipenote9 ========================================================================== Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) have become a hot topic in the field of Internet governance. As the number of non-English speakers on the Internet grows exponentially, the limitations of the Domain Name System have become evident to many. This APDIP e-Note examines how IDNs relate to cultural diversity and the basic human right to communicate in one's own language on the Internet. While the bulk of the content on the Internet has been in English, this is rapidly changing. In China, for example, over 60 million of the nation's 100 million-plus users browse the web only in Chinese, yet top-level domain names remain in Roman script for all users. This APDIP e-Note discusses the ongoing debate on how best to allow users to navigate the Internet in their own language. Different systems available for multilingual domain names and future scenarios are also explored. APDIP e-Notes are brief snapshots that present analyses of specific issues related to ICTs for sustainable human development in the Asia- Pacific region. This online series introduces readers to the who, what, where, why and how of a wide range of current issues related to ICTs such as Internet governance, ICTs and poverty alleviation, e- governance, free and open source software, and many others. Download APDIP e-Note 9 from http://www.apdip.net/apdipenote/9.pdf Also available in this series, APDIP e-Note 1 - Voices from Asia-Pacific: Internet governance and sustainable human development by Akash Kapur and Christine Apikul, 2005. http://www.apdip.net/apdipenote/1.pdf All APDIP e-Notes are available at http://www.apdip.net/apdipenote/ All APDIP e-Resources are available at http://www.apdip.net/elibrary/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 4 05:18:23 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 11:18:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF: Another type of workshops? Message-ID: <44FBEF5F.6090505@bertola.eu.org> Hello, I was thinking a little on the matter of workshops and specifically of a couple of points that I already posted in a previous message: 1) There are workshop proposals that are interesting but imbalanced (ie the proposers are not a multistakeholder group, the proposed presentation only covers some of the points of view, etc.) 2) There are issues that are hot and everyone would expect them to see discussed, but no workshop proposals were made on them - the two examples I made were net neutrality (if I didn't miss anything) and trusted computing. One possible solution that I imagine is to create a different type of event, an "open room event" where one of the free workshop slots (or even half of it, this could be a shorter event) is allocated to one of the missing or not-fully-covered issues, one moderator is appointed to introduce the matter and manage the event, and then you have a free discussion from the floor. This could be a sort of "top-down" event scheduled by the AG to fill the gaps, in cooperation with people that volunteer (or are kindly asked) to be the moderator. It could be useful to expand the coverage of the IGF in terms of issues, and avoid the problem of having to accept incomplete proposals not to leave the matter uncovered. What do you think? I guess that the AG could discuss this idea at the forthcoming meeting. -- 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 acm.org Mon Sep 4 09:58:38 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:58:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update on charter vote Message-ID: hi, Just to give the list an update. The mechanisms for a mail ballot are ready, however there was a certain amount of agreement among those voting (or rather about 17 of those voting) that i should put a web front end on the ballot to make it easier. Unfortunately this requires javascript which i am learning for the purpose, so the front end is not ready yet. So the vote on the charter is waiting on a combination of my learning curve and my free time. So, hopefully i will soon get enough time to learn what i need to learn. Though if there is a wiz at Javascript who is willing to help, I would be very appreciative. 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 baptista at cynikal.net Mon Sep 4 15:22:51 2006 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:22:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Out Now: APDIP e-Note 9 - Internationalized Domain Names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Christine wrote: > rapidly changing. In China, for example, over 60 million of the nation's 100 > million-plus users browse the web only in Chinese, yet top-level domain > names remain in Roman script for all users. I don't understand this statement. Maybe you should forward to Danny. The chinese Ministry of Industry has been operating three top level domains in china for years now. http://www.inaic.com/index.php?p=chinese-tlds regards joe ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From db at dannybutt.net Mon Sep 4 18:18:42 2006 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:18:42 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [governance] Out Now: APDIP e-Note 9 - Internationalized Domain Names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <25344.202.14.32.38.1157408322.squirrel@webmail.dannybutt.net> Hi Joe Thanks. I believe there is some disagreement on that classification, e.g. In that respect, the Chinese language was possibly not the best choice for us to put in the abstract for the eNote, given the recent controversy about the Chinese Ministry's actions there - the sentence is a simplification that doesn't account for the alternate systems in effect. I hope that you will read the full note and find that there is due consideration given to the various alternative options. Regards, Danny think the Chinese language example was probably a poor one for us to put in the summary > > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Christine wrote: > >> rapidly changing. In China, for example, over 60 million of the nation's >> 100 >> million-plus users browse the web only in Chinese, yet top-level domain >> names remain in Roman script for all users. > > I don't understand this statement. Maybe you should forward to Danny. > The chinese Ministry of Industry has been operating three top level > domains in china for years now. > > http://www.inaic.com/index.php?p=chinese-tlds > > regards > joe > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Mon Sep 4 18:49:28 2006 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 00:49:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Out Now: APDIP e-Note 9 - Internationalized Domain Names In-Reply-To: <25344.202.14.32.38.1157408322.squirrel@webmail.dannybutt.net> References: <25344.202.14.32.38.1157408322.squirrel@webmail.dannybutt.net> Message-ID: <44FCAD78.50600@echnaton.serveftp.com> Hi Danny, just for curiousity, I am watching Status China Root soa("XN--55QX5D.","2006090412","CDNS3.CNNIC.NET.CN","210.52.214.86"). soa("XN--55QX5D.","2006090412","CDNS4.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.145.114.120"). soa("XN--55QX5D.","2006090412","CDNS5.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.139.76.55"). soa("XN--55QX5D.","2006090412","HAWK2.CNNIC.NET.CN","159.226.6.185"). soa("XN--FIQS8S.","2006090412","CDNS3.CNNIC.NET.CN","210.52.214.86"). soa("XN--FIQS8S.","2006090412","CDNS4.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.145.114.120"). soa("XN--FIQS8S.","2006090412","CDNS5.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.139.76.55"). soa("XN--FIQS8S.","2006090412","HAWK2.CNNIC.NET.CN","159.226.6.185"). soa("XN--IO0A7I.","2006090412","CDNS3.CNNIC.NET.CN","210.52.214.86"). soa("XN--IO0A7I.","2006090412","CDNS4.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.145.114.120"). soa("XN--IO0A7I.","2006090412","CDNS5.CNNIC.NET.CN","61.139.76.55"). soa("XN--IO0A7I.","2006090412","HAWK2.CNNIC.NET.CN","159.226.6.185"). The nameservers still do exist and answer. Other servers using IDN are Status Arab Root soa("XN--IGBHZH7GPA.","11","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--LGBBAT1AD8J.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGB2DDES.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBA3A5AZCI.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBA5B5CCEU.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBAH1A3HJKRD.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBAXP8FPL.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBB7FJB.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBB7FYAB.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBC0A9AZCG.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBCPQ6GPA1A.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBERP4A5D4AR.","2006061211","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBG8EDVM.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBU4CHG.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--NGBEE7IID.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--WGBL6A.","4","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--YGBI2AMMX.","9","AR-ROOT.NIC.NET.SA","212.26.18.12"). soa("XN--MGBAAM7A8H.","12652","NS1.UAENIC.AE","213.42.0.226"). soa("XN--MGBAAM7A8H.","12652","NS2.UAENIC.AE","195.229.0.186"). soa("XN--PGBS0DH.","2005062700","NS.ATI.TN","193.95.66.10"). soa("XN--PGBS0DH.","2005062700","NS2.ATI.TN","193.95.67.22"). Status I-DNS.NET soa("XN--3RC8E2BB9H.","2006090408","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131"). soa("XN--81B8B9A9C.","2006090408","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131"). soa("XN--C1AVG.","2006090408","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131"). soa("XN--E1APQ.","2006090408","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131"). soa("XN--G2B9A1A.","2006090408","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131"). soa("XN--I1B6B7E.","2006090408","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131"). soa("XN--J1AEF.","2006090408","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131"). soa("XN--P1AG.","2006090408","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131"). soa("XN--P1AI.","2006090408","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131"). soa("XN--QLC9A5A.","2006090408","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131"). soa("XN--USC8B9A.","2006090408","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131"). soa("XN--USCN1BV9BH3H.","2006090408","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131"). soa("XN--VF4B131B.","2006090408","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131"). soa("XN--ZB0BNW.","2006090408","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131"). soa("XN--ZV4B74Y.","2006090408","NSA.I-DNS.NET","64.62.142.131"). To be able to use these domains you can either either use on of the Racine Libres or you can simply tell bind to use stub domains with the respective nameservers. Kind regards Peter and Karin Dambier Danny Butt wrote: > Hi Joe > > Thanks. I believe there is some disagreement on that classification, e.g. > > > > In that respect, the Chinese language was possibly not the best choice for > us to put in the abstract for the eNote, given the recent controversy > about the Chinese Ministry's actions there - the sentence is a > simplification that doesn't account for the alternate systems in effect. I > hope that you will read the full note and find that there is due > consideration given to the various alternative options. > > Regards, > > Danny > > > think the Chinese language example was probably a poor one for us to put > in the summary > >>On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Christine wrote: >> >> >>>rapidly changing. In China, for example, over 60 million of the nation's >>>100 >>>million-plus users browse the web only in Chinese, yet top-level domain >>>names remain in Roman script for all users. >> >>I don't understand this statement. Maybe you should forward to Danny. >>The chinese Ministry of Industry has been operating three top level >>domains in china for years now. >> >>http://www.inaic.com/index.php?p=chinese-tlds >> >>regards >>joe >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 4 21:23:53 2006 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 21:23:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Out Now: APDIP e-Note 9 - Internationalized Domain Names In-Reply-To: <25344.202.14.32.38.1157408322.squirrel@webmail.dannybutt.net> References: <25344.202.14.32.38.1157408322.squirrel@webmail.dannybutt.net> Message-ID: Danny: The article you quote is nonsense - nothing more then a little icann propaganda. There are now 320 servers world wide that see the chinese tlds. That includes all the major isps in china. The chinese were the first to launch their own tlds. Today turk telecom is busy doing the same. The world is not waiting for icann to wake up. You should investigate this carefull because your write up is in error. I do in fact support what you have said - but your quote on china is definately in error. regards joe On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Danny Butt wrote: > Hi Joe > > Thanks. I believe there is some disagreement on that classification, e.g. > > > > In that respect, the Chinese language was possibly not the best choice for > us to put in the abstract for the eNote, given the recent controversy > about the Chinese Ministry's actions there - the sentence is a > simplification that doesn't account for the alternate systems in effect. I > hope that you will read the full note and find that there is due > consideration given to the various alternative options. > > Regards, > > Danny > > > think the Chinese language example was probably a poor one for us to put > in the summary > > > > On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Christine wrote: > > > >> rapidly changing. In China, for example, over 60 million of the nation's > >> 100 > >> million-plus users browse the web only in Chinese, yet top-level domain > >> names remain in Roman script for all users. > > > > I don't understand this statement. Maybe you should forward to Danny. > > The chinese Ministry of Industry has been operating three top level > > domains in china for years now. > > > > http://www.inaic.com/index.php?p=chinese-tlds > > > > regards > > joe > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Sep 5 17:31:43 2006 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 23:31:43 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] the continuing NN debate In-Reply-To: <20060831063418.B0F463D8A1C@spamfilter.bollow.ch> (parminder@itforchange.net) References: <20060831063418.B0F463D8A1C@spamfilter.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20060905213143.8664937356A@quill.bollow.ch> "Parminder" wrote: > So when our 'real' world is so regulated and filled with all kinds of law, I > cannot understand how the digital world - which is reconstituting our > 'reality' in so many ways - can be without laws and regulations. I think to > expect so is mere wishful thinking, and more importantly, contrary to our > common interests. I'm not arguing that the digital world should be without laws and regulations. I'm arguing that the current structures of national policy-making and international diplomacy cannot be trusted to create laws and regulations that do more good than harm. I'd propose that instead of rushing forward with the idea of a "Framework Convention", we should work on creating reasonable, accountable and transparent multistakeholder governance mechanisms which cannot easily be co-opted by special interests similar to how e.g. the EU Commission has been manipulated by the software patents lobby, see http://NoBananaUnion.com for some details on than. > > If yes, what's the strategy for getting this Framework Convention > > adopted, while preventing the really good, practically effective > > parts from being taken out prior to the adoption of the Framework > > Convention? > > The strategy is for us to be there and fight it out, abstaining is not a > solution. Wouldn't the details of the text of such a "Framework Convention" be likely to get decided at a diplomatic conference with little or no representation of NGOs? 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Sep 6 01:39:54 2006 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 08:39:54 +0300 Subject: [governance] the continuing NN debate In-Reply-To: <20060905213143.8664937356A@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20060831063418.B0F463D8A1C@spamfilter.bollow.ch> <20060905213143.8664937356A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: I have to say, I agree with all that Norbert has written below! On 9/6/06, Norbert Bollow wrote: > "Parminder" wrote: > > > Wouldn't the details of the text of such a "Framework Convention" > be likely to get decided at a diplomatic conference with little or > no representation of NGOs? Precisely! -- 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 psg.com Wed Sep 6 02:32:34 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 08:32:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] the continuing NN debate In-Reply-To: References: <20060831063418.B0F463D8A1C@spamfilter.bollow.ch> <20060905213143.8664937356A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: hi, personally, i think so too. i am afraid that governments would use the process of a Framework Convention to shut everyone else out. they still believe that they are the only actors with legitimacy. and since 'legitimacy' is self defined by governments, it stands to reason that they will not lightly give way. this is not to say, that they would not give token observer status to some few from CS and the private sector - especially the private sector whose company they seem to prefer. but neither the civil society nor the private sector participants would have any meaningful participation when it comes to deliberations or to making any of the decisions. a. On 6 sep 2006, at 07.39, McTim wrote: > I have to say, I agree with all that Norbert has written below! > > On 9/6/06, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> "Parminder" wrote: >> > >> >> Wouldn't the details of the text of such a "Framework Convention" >> be likely to get decided at a diplomatic conference with little or >> no representation of NGOs? > > Precisely! > > -- > 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 avri at acm.org Wed Sep 6 08:26:34 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 14:26:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Recommended Panelists for Athens Message-ID: Hi, For the past few days, Markus has been in the process of collecting recommendations for potential panelists for the main sessions of the Athens meeting. As he was going through the list, he noticed that there were few known civil society names on the list. He suggested including the names of those who had been nominated to the MAG but not chosen for the MAG to the list of potential panelists. I thought this was a good idea since these people had been chosen by our nomcom for participation in the IGF. Creating this list of possible panelists is part of an ongoing process and advisory group members are expected to make their own additons to the list at the meeting. Please feel free to send further good suggestions for panelists on the main themes of Openness, Security, Diversity and Access to the CS colleagues in the MAG. Note: The full list of recommended panelists still needs to be discussed by the advisory group and choices will be made later - so being included on the list is only a first step in the selection process. 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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu Wed Sep 6 10:05:12 2006 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 10:05:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] the continuing NN debate Message-ID: Norbert, You presuppose you know where a framework convention would go, and also that it would work like a typical un convention. The first I don't know, while the second is highly dubious. On the other hand specific regulatory intervention soon is Ok you say...so which path gets governments involved deeper and earlier? When we haven't yet agreed what the subject of the regulations is? Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> nb at bollow.ch 9/5/2006 5:31 PM >>> "Parminder" wrote: > So when our 'real' world is so regulated and filled with all kinds of law, I > cannot understand how the digital world - which is reconstituting our > 'reality' in so many ways - can be without laws and regulations. I think to > expect so is mere wishful thinking, and more importantly, contrary to our > common interests. I'm not arguing that the digital world should be without laws and regulations. I'm arguing that the current structures of national policy-making and international diplomacy cannot be trusted to create laws and regulations that do more good than harm. I'd propose that instead of rushing forward with the idea of a "Framework Convention", we should work on creating reasonable, accountable and transparent multistakeholder governance mechanisms which cannot easily be co-opted by special interests similar to how e.g. the EU Commission has been manipulated by the software patents lobby, see http://NoBananaUnion.com for some details on than. > > If yes, what's the strategy for getting this Framework Convention > > adopted, while preventing the really good, practically effective > > parts from being taken out prior to the adoption of the Framework > > Convention? > > The strategy is for us to be there and fight it out, abstaining is not a > solution. Wouldn't the details of the text of such a "Framework Convention" be likely to get decided at a diplomatic conference with little or no representation of NGOs? 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 nb at bollow.ch Wed Sep 6 11:21:54 2006 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 17:21:54 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] the continuing NN debate In-Reply-To: (LMcKnigh@syr.edu) References: Message-ID: <20060906152154.1B2814A393@quill.bollow.ch> Lee McKnight wrote: > You presuppose you know where a framework convention would go, and also > that it would work like a typical un convention. No, actually I don't presuppose to know these things. As I wrote, my position is that in the field of internet governance, "the current structures of national policy-making and international diplomacy cannot be trusted to create laws and regulations that do more good than harm." I have supported this position with a specific example (the EU software patents issue documented at http://NoBananaUnion.com ) and I can easily provide more examples if that is desired. To refute my view that this a valid argument against pursuing a "framework convention" at the current stage, you will need to present positive reasons why we should reasonably expect the proposed "framework convention" to become a good thing. > The first I don't know, while the second is highly dubious. Even if it doesn't "work like a typical un convention", what reason is there to assume that the text would be drafted by means of a fair and transparent multistakeholder process? > On the other hand specific regulatory intervention soon is Ok you > say...so which path gets governments involved deeper and earlier? When > we haven't yet agreed what the subject of the regulations is? What I'm proposing is to work on whatever can be done by means of transparent and accountable multistakeholder processes. There's a specific proposal from Switzerland in this direction, called "Internet Quality Labels". See http://intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/SwissInternetUserGroup.txt I'll also support every other initiative that provides for genuine multistakeholder decision-making processes with transparency and accountability. I have asked questions to determine whether this is the case for the "framework convention" idea. So far the answer seems to be: "No." 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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu Wed Sep 6 11:36:49 2006 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 11:36:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] the continuing NN debate Message-ID: Hey, just have a sec, so will not make a positivist argument just yet. A few replies: > The first I don't know, while the second is highly dubious. Even if it doesn't "work like a typical un convention", what reason is there to assume that the text would be drafted by means of a fair and transparent multistakeholder process? Lee: So now you assume a framework convention would draft text this decade? : ) Doubt it seriously if CS doesn;t play, and even if it does. > On the other hand specific regulatory intervention soon is Ok you > say...so which path gets governments involved deeper and earlier? When > we haven't yet agreed what the subject of the regulations is? What I'm proposing is to work on whatever can be done by means of transparent and accountable multistakeholder processes. Lee: cool, we agree Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Sep 6 14:54:19 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 14:54:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: the continuing NN debate In-Reply-To: References: <20060831063418.B0F463D8A1C@spamfilter.bollow.ch> <20060905213143.8664937356A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Of course, it is the _process_ of multi-stakeholder participation that IGF has opportunity to move forward - what are the conditions for that process to work, and so forth. Along that way, the extent that CS organizes itself to be an effective partner, particularly to trial innovations in process, with some robustness, can contribute to useful outcomes. David At 8:32 AM +0200 9/6/06, Avri Doria wrote: >hi, > >personally, i think so too. i am afraid that governments would use the process of a Framework Convention to shut everyone else out. they still believe that they are the only actors with legitimacy. and since 'legitimacy' is self defined by governments, it stands to reason that they will not lightly give way. > >this is not to say, that they would not give token observer status to some few from CS and the private sector - especially the private sector whose company they seem to prefer. but neither the civil society nor the private sector participants would have any meaningful participation when it comes to deliberations or to making any of the decisions. > >a. > >On 6 sep 2006, at 07.39, McTim wrote: > >>I have to say, I agree with all that Norbert has written below! >> >>On 9/6/06, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>"Parminder" wrote: >>> >> >>> >>>Wouldn't the details of the text of such a "Framework Convention" >>>be likely to get decided at a diplomatic conference with little or >>>no representation of NGOs? >> >>Precisely! >> >>-- >>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 Thu Sep 7 05:35:17 2006 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 11:35:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IQL Proposal (was: the continuing NN debate) In-Reply-To: (message from David Allen on Wed, 6 Sep 2006 14:54:19 -0400) References: <20060831063418.B0F463D8A1C@spamfilter.bollow.ch> <20060905213143.8664937356A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20060907093517.3BEB84CE6C@quill.bollow.ch> David Allen wrote: > Of course, it is the _process_ of multi-stakeholder participation > that IGF has opportunity to move forward - what are the conditions > for that process to work, and so forth. > > Along that way, the extent that CS organizes itself to be an > effective partner, particularly to trial innovations in process, > with some robustness, can contribute to useful outcomes. YES!!! I agree wholeheartedly, and this is in fact the reason why the Internet Quality Labels proposal http://intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/SwissInternetUserGroup.txt has such a big section on multistakeholder accountability. I'd like to request everyone's advice please on how to proceed with this in order to create a true multistakeholder process around this idea. My current plan for the next step is to ask various organizations, as well as individuals who have a reputation that implies some credibility, for endorsements, giving them the opportunity to publish on the IQL endorsements page a brief text outlining their paricular perspective on the matter. 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 drake at hei.unige.ch Fri Sep 8 09:55:14 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 15:55:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] CFP for Athens GigaNet Conference, Oct. 29 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Please distribute as appropriate Call for Proposals Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) First Annual Conference Divani Apollon Palace & Spa Hotel Athens, Greece 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 conferences to be held on site prior to the annual meetings of the new Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The first such conference will be held on 29 October 2006 in Athens, Greece prior to the inaugural IGF meeting . The final program, when available, will be posted on the IGF website and on the websites of relevant academic organizations. Attendance at the conference will be free of charge and open to all registered IGF participants. This is a call for proposals from scholars interested in speaking on one of the three round table panels to be held at the conference. The panels are described in the preliminary program below. The Program Committee will select four to five speakers per panel drawing on the following materials to be provided by applicants: 1) a one page maximum description of the proposed presentation indicating its specific relevance and value-added to the panel in question’s thematic focus; and 2) a one page summary curriculum vitae listing in particular the applicant’s current institutional affiliation(s), advanced degrees, scholarly publications relevant to Internet governance, and web sites, if available. These materials should be emailed directly to the respective panel chairs listed below by no later than Monday, 25 September, midnight GMT. The Program Committee will notify applicants of its decisions via email by 4 October. The selected speakers will give ten-minute presentations, after which there will be open discussion with audience members. While this is not required, speakers are welcome to provide a written text or Power Point presentation to be linked off of the conference web page. ---------- Preliminary Program and Roundtable Panel Descriptions 9:30-9:45 Welcome and Overview Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus, Denmark 9:45-11:15 Theorizing Internet Governance: The State of the Art Chair: Peng Hwa Ang, Singapore Internet Research Center Email: tphang [at] ntu.edu.sg 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, Syracuse University, USA Email: info [at] internetgovernance.org 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? Proposals outlining any other approach that provides insight into this aspect of the political battles over Internet governance are welcome. 13:00-14:30 Lunch break 14:30-16:00 The Distributed Architecture of Internet Governance Chair: William J. Drake, Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, Switzerland Email: drake [at] hei.unige.ch 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 Coffee break 16:15-17:45 GigaNet Business Meeting Moderator: Avri Doria, Luleâ University of Technology, Sweden 17:45-18:00 Closing -------------- 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 Sep 13 16:07:08 2006 From: qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw (Qusai Al-Shatti) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:07:08 +0300 Subject: [governance] Research Topic: Multistakeholder National Internet Commisions Message-ID: <200609132007.XAA19266@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Dear All, I am currently in the process of developing a research outline and an approach paper for the following research topic: " Most of developing countries do not have established National Internet Commisions (NICs) and those who have it are mostly governmental bodies that either have limited multistakeholder representation or do not have it at all. Overall NICs are acting mostly as a regulator for Internet services and ISPs and not as bodies with a development role and responisibilities for the Internet on a national level. The NICS role should be revamped to be a National Internet Governance body with balanced multistakholders representation that will oversight the national Internet activities and resources with the goal of fostering the Internet role in national development. Furhtermore, it is important to uderstand that Internet Governance is not only an International issue but it is also a national issue that is equally important and should be addressed and reflected on the roles of the NICs who eventually will be the the link and focal point between Global Internet Governance and National Int e! ! rnet Governance." Currently I am trying to develop an outline for the research as well as an approach paper. I would appreciate, if you can suggest to me some research resources and your opinion on the topic. Qusai Al-Shatti Deputy Chairman Kuwait Information Technology Society ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 14 11:15:23 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:15:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Charter vote - issues Message-ID: <14D558E3-D4F3-408A-8900-7C763B5C5E3C@acm.org> Hi, I have an apology to make. While it looked like it should be relatively simple for someone to put a web front end on the voting system, it will be more complicated then I thought. The problem is that for the votes to be counted they need to originate from a specific email address, i.e. the address with which you are subscribed to this list. Getting a front end to send from your specific address, especially if you use a web interface for email is almost impossible. I would need to set up new email accounts for each voter on the system I am using for evote, and that is something that I am unwilling to do at this point becasue: a) it is not my system but one I am being allowed to use and the addition of almost 200 new accounts is not a reasonable request for me to make b) doing it this way seems to be a kludge. I would prefer to work with some people to modify the eVote software so that a proper new interface could be created. This, however, would take time for coding and testing that I just don't have at the moment. So, we are back to an email vote using plain text email ballots. Again, apologies. I will initiate the vote shortly - on the igc- voters at igcaucus.org mailing list (probably Monday) - which will leave some time for people who object strongly to offer another solution. I know there are other, more appropriate, voting systems out there, but they are either not open source, cost money I don't have, or are just not being made available to me. This is the only solution I have at the moment. I still think eVote is a great tool for participatory on-line democracy, I just don't think it is, yet, a perfect match for what we need to do in the charter vote and in the subsequent coordinator elections. Again apologies for my inability to provide the right interface. I do hope, however, that we can get on with the process. I also apologize for taking much longer to complete this interim period then originally advertised. 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 Sep 14 11:34:15 2006 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:34:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Charter vote - issues In-Reply-To: <14D558E3-D4F3-408A-8900-7C763B5C5E3C@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Avri, There's no need to apologize once, much less four times. You are doing us all a huge favor by organizing a process that nobody else has the time or inclination to undertake. So many thanks for your efforts, look forward to the next step however you decide to work it. Best, Bill > From: Avri Doria > Reply-To: , Avri Doria > Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:15:23 -0400 > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: [governance] Charter vote - issues > > Hi, > > > I have an apology to make. While it looked like it should be > relatively simple for someone to put a web front end on the voting > system, it will be more complicated then I thought. The problem is > that for the votes to be counted they need to originate from a > specific email address, i.e. the address with which you are > subscribed to this list. Getting a front end to send from your > specific address, especially if you use a web interface for email is > almost impossible. I would need to set up new email accounts for > each voter on the system I am using for evote, and that is something > that I am unwilling to do at this point becasue: > a) it is not my system but one I am being allowed to use and the > addition of almost 200 new accounts is not a reasonable request for > me to make > b) doing it this way seems to be a kludge. I would prefer to work > with some people to modify the eVote software so that a proper new > interface could be created. This, however, would take time for > coding and testing that I just don't have at the moment. > > So, we are back to an email vote using plain text email ballots. > > Again, apologies. I will initiate the vote shortly - on the igc- > voters at igcaucus.org mailing list (probably Monday) - which will leave > some time for people who object strongly to offer another solution. > I know there are other, more appropriate, voting systems out there, > but they are either not open source, cost money I don't have, or are > just not being made available to me. This is the only solution I > have at the moment. I still think eVote is a great tool for > participatory on-line democracy, I just don't think it is, yet, a > perfect match for what we need to do in the charter vote and in the > subsequent coordinator elections. > > Again apologies for my inability to provide the right interface. I > do hope, however, that we can get on with the process. I also > apologize for taking much longer to complete this interim period then > originally advertised. > > 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 Sep 14 11:59:11 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:59:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Charter vote - issues In-Reply-To: <14D558E3-D4F3-408A-8900-7C763B5C5E3C@acm.org> References: <14D558E3-D4F3-408A-8900-7C763B5C5E3C@acm.org> Message-ID: <45097C4F.8060707@bertola.eu.org> Avri Doria ha scritto: > Again apologies for my inability to provide the right interface. I do > hope, however, that we can get on with the process. I also apologize > for taking much longer to complete this interim period then originally > advertised. It is also my fault - I tinkered with the files for one week as long as I had time for that, but in the available time I failed to understand how to make it work inside a proper web interface (it is costly to say so for an engineer ;-) ) Apologies. -- 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 jsarr at refer.sn Thu Sep 14 12:34:29 2006 From: jsarr at refer.sn (jsarr at refer.sn) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:34:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] Charter vote - issues In-Reply-To: <14D558E3-D4F3-408A-8900-7C763B5C5E3C@acm.org> References: <14D558E3-D4F3-408A-8900-7C763B5C5E3C@acm.org> Message-ID: <1158251669.45098495c1a9c@courrier.refer.sn> Chère Avri, Je pense que vous avez fait du bon travail pour nous permettre de voter par Internet dans de bonnes conditions. Je vous félicite donc. Pour ce qui concerne la résolution des problèmes techniques, des difficultés apparaîtront aussi longtemps que la réflexion sera exclusivement réservée au monde anglo-saxon. En éliminant systématiquement les non anglophones dans les débats, on diminue très sérieusement la ressource disponible. Salutations amicales et bon courage pour la suite. Joseph SARR ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- que Selon Avri Doria : > Hi, > > > I have an apology to make. While it looked like it should be > relatively simple for someone to put a web front end on the voting > system, it will be more complicated then I thought. The problem is > that for the votes to be counted they need to originate from a > specific email address, i.e. the address with which you are > subscribed to this list. Getting a front end to send from your > specific address, especially if you use a web interface for email is > almost impossible. I would need to set up new email accounts for > each voter on the system I am using for evote, and that is something > that I am unwilling to do at this point becasue: > a) it is not my system but one I am being allowed to use and the > addition of almost 200 new accounts is not a reasonable request for > me to make > b) doing it this way seems to be a kludge. I would prefer to work > with some people to modify the eVote software so that a proper new > interface could be created. This, however, would take time for > coding and testing that I just don't have at the moment. > > So, we are back to an email vote using plain text email ballots. > > Again, apologies. I will initiate the vote shortly - on the igc- > voters at igcaucus.org mailing list (probably Monday) - which will leave > some time for people who object strongly to offer another solution. > I know there are other, more appropriate, voting systems out there, > but they are either not open source, cost money I don't have, or are > just not being made available to me. This is the only solution I > have at the moment. I still think eVote is a great tool for > participatory on-line democracy, I just don't think it is, yet, a > perfect match for what we need to do in the charter vote and in the > subsequent coordinator elections. > > Again apologies for my inability to provide the right interface. I > do hope, however, that we can get on with the process. I also > apologize for taking much longer to complete this interim period then > originally advertised. > > 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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Thu Sep 14 12:43:36 2006 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:43:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Charter vote - issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I heartily support Bill's. An add that Vittorio neither need make an apology! The amount of effort is quite large. It makes an important difference to a better place for us all. Thanks indeed. My sense - only from a brief read - is that we could simply proceed with what you have in hand, Avri. I notice that, in the one vote so far, some did not understand creating a text-only email (and we all saw their votes ... even though the vote was 'open,' that is a little disconcerting). So, one lesson, if we just proceed, is to get a little detailed about text-only, or whatever caused the misfire. David At 5:34 PM +0200 9/14/06, William Drake wrote: >Hi Avri, > >There's no need to apologize once, much less four times. You are doing us >all a huge favor by organizing a process that nobody else has the time or >inclination to undertake. So many thanks for your efforts, look forward to >the next step however you decide to work it. > >Best, > >Bill > > >> From: Avri Doria >> Reply-To: , Avri Doria >> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:15:23 -0400 >> To: Governance Caucus >> Subject: [governance] Charter vote - issues >> >> Hi, >> >> >> I have an apology to make. While it looked like it should be >> relatively simple for someone to put a web front end on the voting >> system, it will be more complicated then I thought. The problem is >> that for the votes to be counted they need to originate from a >> specific email address, i.e. the address with which you are >> subscribed to this list. Getting a front end to send from your >> specific address, especially if you use a web interface for email is >> almost impossible. I would need to set up new email accounts for >> each voter on the system I am using for evote, and that is something >> that I am unwilling to do at this point becasue: >> a) it is not my system but one I am being allowed to use and the >> addition of almost 200 new accounts is not a reasonable request for >> me to make >> b) doing it this way seems to be a kludge. I would prefer to work >> with some people to modify the eVote software so that a proper new >> interface could be created. This, however, would take time for >> coding and testing that I just don't have at the moment. >> >> So, we are back to an email vote using plain text email ballots. >> >> Again, apologies. I will initiate the vote shortly - on the igc- >> voters at igcaucus.org mailing list (probably Monday) - which will leave >> some time for people who object strongly to offer another solution. >> I know there are other, more appropriate, voting systems out there, >> but they are either not open source, cost money I don't have, or are >> just not being made available to me. This is the only solution I >> have at the moment. I still think eVote is a great tool for >> participatory on-line democracy, I just don't think it is, yet, a >> perfect match for what we need to do in the charter vote and in the >> subsequent coordinator elections. >> >> Again apologies for my inability to provide the right interface. I >> do hope, however, that we can get on with the process. I also >> apologize for taking much longer to complete this interim period then >> originally advertised. >> >> 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 mueller at syr.edu Thu Sep 14 13:21:12 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:21:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] Charter vote - issues Message-ID: >>> drake at hei.unige.ch 9/14/2006 5:34:15 PM >>> >There's no need to apologize once, much less four times. >You are doing us all a huge favor by organizing a process >that nobody else has the time or inclination to undertake. Right! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 14 13:56:48 2006 From: qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw (Qusai Al-Shatti) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:56:48 +0300 Subject: [governance] Charter vote - issues Message-ID: <200609141756.UAA05882@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Dear Avri: There is nothing to apologize for, we all appreciate your wonderful work on the charter vote and we do understand that it is somehow complicated. So we thank you for your effort (same to Vittorio) and looking forward to proceed with the charter vote. Just a suggestion: can we make a test to check e-mail compatibilities before voting? Regards,, Qusai --- Message Header --- The following message was sent by Avri Doria on Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:15:23 -0400. --- Original Message --- > Hi, > > > I have an apology to make. While it looked like it should be > relatively simple for someone to put a web front end on the voting > system, it will be more complicated then I thought. The problem is > that for the votes to be counted they need to originate from a > specific email address, i.e. the address with which you are > subscribed to this list. Getting a front end to send from your > specific address, especially if you use a web interface for email is > almost impossible. I would need to set up new email accounts for > each voter on the system I am using for evote, and that is something > that I am unwilling to do at this point becasue: > a) it is not my system but one I am being allowed to use and the > addition of almost 200 new accounts is not a reasonable request for > me to make > b) doing it this way seems to be a kludge. I would prefer to work > with some people to modify the eVote software so that a proper new > interface could be created. This, however, would take time for > coding and testing that I just don't have at the moment. > > So, we are back to an email vote using plain text email ballots. > > Again, apologies. I will initiate the vote shortly - on the igc- > voters at igcaucus.org mailing list (probably Monday) - which will leave > some time for people who object strongly to offer another solution. > I know there are other, more appropriate, voting systems out there, > but they are either not open source, cost money I don't have, or are > just not being made available to me. This is the only solution I > have at the moment. I still think eVote is a great tool for > participatory on-line democracy, I just don't think it is, yet, a > perfect match for what we need to do in the charter vote and in the > subsequent coordinator elections. > > Again apologies for my inability to provide the right interface. I > do hope, however, that we can get on with the process. I also > apologize for taking much longer to complete this interim period then > originally advertised. > > 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 > Hi, > > > I have an apology to make. While it looked like it should be > relatively simple for someone to put a web front end on the voting > system, it will be more complicated then I thought. The problem is > that for the votes to be counted they need to originate from a > specific email address, i.e. the address with which you are > subscribed to this list. Getting a front end to send from your > specific address, especially if you use a web interface for email is > almost impossible. I would need to set up new email accounts for > each voter on the system I am using for evote, and that is something > that I am unwilling to do at this point becasue: > a) it is not my system but one I am being allowed to use and the > addition of almost 200 new accounts is not a reasonable request for > me to make > b) doing it this way seems to be a kludge. I would prefer to work > with some people to modify the eVote software so that a proper new > interface could be created. This, however, would take time for > coding and testing that I just don't have at the moment. > > So, we are back to an email vote using plain text email ballots. > > Again, apologies. I will initiate the vote shortly - on the igc- > voters at igcaucus.org mailing list (probably Monday) - which will leave > some time for people who object strongly to offer another solution. > I know there are other, more appropriate, voting systems out there, > but they are either not open source, cost money I don't have, or are > just not being made available to me. This is the only solution I > have at the moment. I still think eVote is a great tool for > participatory on-line democracy, I just don't think it is, yet, a > perfect match for what we need to do in the charter vote and in the > subsequent coordinator elections. > > Again apologies for my inability to provide the right interface. I > do hope, however, that we can get on with the process. I also > apologize for taking much longer to complete this interim period then > originally advertised. > > 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 nne75 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 14 14:20:36 2006 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:20:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Charter vote - issues - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060914182036.19316.qmail@web50212.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Avri, all You have done a good job. Here is my proposal (since I am one of those on the web interface because I run around a whole lot); we may send our votes directly to Avri's personal address. Voila Nnenna David Allen wrote: I heartily support Bill's. An add that Vittorio neither need make an apology! --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. -------------- 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 Thu Sep 14 14:54:33 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:54:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Charter vote - issues - In-Reply-To: <20060914182036.19316.qmail@web50212.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060914182036.19316.qmail@web50212.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6DA18272-AFA8-44AC-B8C3-A1D9D07F37FC@psg.com> Hi, Well the eVote system is still working, it just requires plain text email, which I believe everyone should be able to send. Personally I would prefer to use the eVote system as set up. I will set up a test vote for everyone so they can test sending plain text email also, thanks to all those who said nice things. I just hate not being able to deliver when i said i would. a. On 14 sep 2006, at 14.20, Nnenna wrote: > Hi Avri, all > > You have done a good job. Here is my proposal (since I am one of > those on the web interface because I run around a whole lot); we > may send our votes directly to Avri's personal address. > > Voila > > Nnenna > > David Allen wrote: > I heartily support Bill's. An add that Vittorio neither need make > an apology! > > > > Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. > Great rates starting at 1¢/min. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Fri Sep 15 08:33:21 2006 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 05:33:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Charter vote - issues - In-Reply-To: <6DA18272-AFA8-44AC-B8C3-A1D9D07F37FC@psg.com> Message-ID: <20060915123321.73314.qmail@web54715.mail.yahoo.com> No word to add to, or substract from, Bill's. For the rest, we are many to use webmail accounts such as the yahoo I'm using right now in plain text. You'd need to click 'Options' in the upper right-hand side corner (for yahoo), then 'General Preferences', scroll down to 'Composing E-mails' and click the radio-button 'Compose messages as plain text'. The path is more or less the same for most of the other webmail services, meaning that one should look for the relevant settings in the 'Preferences'. I'm also assuming that we are able to see if there was other notable issues (other that the need for using plain text and starting the voting message with "eVote") during the pilote vote we made to find out about the web interface. So if there wasn't any major issue with anyone's account, please let us proceed with the Charter vote. Mawaki --- Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Well the eVote system is still working, it just requires plain text > > email, which I believe everyone should be able to send. Personally > I > would prefer to use the eVote system as set up. I will set up a > test > vote for everyone so they can test sending plain text email > > also, thanks to all those who said nice things. I just hate not > being able to deliver when i said i would. > > a. > > On 14 sep 2006, at 14.20, Nnenna wrote: > > > Hi Avri, all > > > > You have done a good job. Here is my proposal (since I am one of > > > those on the web interface because I run around a whole lot); we > > > may send our votes directly to Avri's personal address. > > > > Voila > > > > Nnenna > > > > David Allen wrote: > > I heartily support Bill's. An add that Vittorio neither need make > > > an apology! > > > > > > > > Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. > > Great rates starting at 1¢/min. > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 Sat Sep 16 08:02:47 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 08:02:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] GNSO (ICANN) review Message-ID: (informational) Hi, I thought some of you might be interested in the recently announced publication of the independent review of ICANN GNSO (Generic Names supporting organization GNSO is one of the policy recommendation bodies with ICANN). This can be found at: http://icann.org/announcements/ announcement-15sep06.htm While i am still reading it, just started in fact, the top recommendation on page 10 seems one that might, in time, be of interest to this group. Specifically: cutting down the number of Constituencies from six to three, covering registration interests, business users and civil society; 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 mueller at syr.edu Mon Sep 18 05:32:20 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 05:32:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] An event on Security and Identity management 2 October Message-ID: Those of you in Geneva or nearby may be interested in this event. There is a registration fee but an appeal for a free entry and invocation of my name might get you in without it. 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Invitation & Programme.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 416251 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karenb at gn.apc.org Mon Sep 18 05:39:47 2006 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:39:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] An event on Security and Identity management 2 October In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20060918103851.01190e80@gn.apc.org> hi milton >Those of you in Geneva or nearby may be interested in this event. There >is a registration fee but an appeal for a free entry and invocation of >my name might get you in without it. looks interesting - but largely a sun microsystems afair? i'll forward this though to the folks we're working with on the privacy and identity management workshop proposal for the IGF 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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Mon Sep 18 13:01:06 2006 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:01:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] all IGF workshops accepted Message-ID: <450ED0D2.4090902@zedat.fu-berlin.de> http://www.intgovforum.org/ [NEW] Advisory Group Meeting The Advisory Group held a meeting in Geneva on 7 and 8 September 2006. It refined the draft programme for the inaugural meeting and developed criteria for the selection of speakers and panellists. More details will be made available on this Web site in due course. [NEW] Workshops The Advisory Group also discussed the proposals that have been submitted for workshops. Based on the number of proposals and the meeting facilities available, it provisionally agreed to offer slots to all workshop proposals. However, the Advisory Group had some questions with regard to some aspects of the proposals: * It was not always clear whether the guiding organizational principle for holding workshops, i.e. the multi-stakeholder approach, is truly respected in all cases. Some clarifications may therefore be need in some cases and some adjustments may be necessary in other cases . * The overall theme of the meeting - “Internet governance for development” was not given sufficient priority. All organizers are therefore encouraged to review their proposal under this aspect. * There was some overlap between some workshop proposals. In a first phase, all organizers are therefore encouraged to examine whether they would like to join forces with other institutions and merge their proposals. Any wishes to do so should be addressed to the IGF secretariat at: igf at intgovforum.org. In a second phase, the Advisory Group may make concrete proposals for merging some workshops. All organizers will be contacted shortly. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From pr+governance at x0.dk Fri Sep 1 06:30:42 2006 From: pr+governance at x0.dk (Phil Regnauld) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 12:30:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: <20060831121920.3912FC9AF9@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20060831121920.3912FC9AF9@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20060901103042.GB32221@tetard.starbsd.org> On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 05:49:14PM +0530, Parminder wrote: > > Many technologists at first did not engage with public policy at all, and > now when some dangers of such a position are very evident, they are ready to > engage with it only in terms of some technical principles. And NN is a > technical principle, and it may in some situations serve public interest and > at other times it may not. Well, as far as analogies go, why not look at the bridge / toll systems instead of the gaming console one (credit to one of my acquaintances): You build and operate a large toll for an 8 lane bridge. Now you're going to have the basic differentiated services: cars pay 5 bucks, trucks 20 (adjust to your currency / barter animal). Fair enough, trucks fill the road more, and use up the pavement more, etc... On top of that, you're against Road Neutrality. And you want to make an extra buck. So you start to single out Walmart trucks. "You guys are the biggest users of this bridge, you got tons of trucks from all over the country crossing this bridge, so I'm going to invoice Walmart. And if they don't pay, I'll just have have to park you guys into a waiting area, and wait until a clear spot, say 1 mile long, shows up on a lane, and then I'll send you through. And it doesn't matter which freight company Walmart uses, it's my bridge, you pay extra". This is typical telco behaviour. Their revenues got spanked by VoIP, and while it's not been proven that they downright will downprioritize SIP and RTSP (or outright block it, as some Wimax providers have done here in Denmark), but they sure as hell don't make an effort to ensure it gets equal treatment. So what do you do ? You find another way to make money (fair is fair). But instead of offering better services or trying to create new products, you try and revive that old zombie from the end of the 90s: prioritized traffic and the need to pay what amounts to metered access. Telcos hate flat rates, it's a law of nature like nature hates vacuum. And (please, anybody show me the numbers to prove me wrong) the whole problem of QoS being needed for VoIP is bull. VoIP represents too small a share of carrier bandwidth to be significant, and it will only be a problem at the edge when the networks get congested -- i.e. it's a problem that's solved between the ISP and the customer, not end-to-end. Claiming the contrary is a return to the reserved circuit, underused capacity of the bygone days of X25. I'm no defender of Net Neutrality as a law: I think it's preposterous that lobbyists are even trying to pass this one, it shouldn't even be necessary. But when carriers see they can't make the same bottom line as they did before and decide to make businesses that do turn a profit cough up in a discriminatory fashion, I call that cheap tactics -- especially when it's known that they won't invest in faster infrastructure because there's simply no incentive to do so, not because they lack money. P. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 18 15:08:51 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:08:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] charter Ballot Message-ID: <43AF6766-60BC-497F-AAA9-67D8589F233C@psg.com> Hi, Shortly, i will be initiating the charter ballots. The vote will segmented into 4 ballots: - basic charter 3 open unresolved topic from Charter discussions - method of selecting appeals team members (nomcom or ballot) - method of selecting nominees to external bodies (nomcom or ballot) - voting style - secret ballots or open ballot As written in the "Acceptance of the Charter" section of the proposed charter: - In order for the charter to succeed, at least 50 votes must be received with 2/3 or better approving. - Each of the other ballots will be decide by simple majority of those voting without a minimum vote requirement. Of course these votes will be moot if the charter does not pass. As discussed this will be a secret ballot, though the names of those who have voted will be published. The vote will be open for 2 weeks until the end of Monday 2 October 2006 - anytime zone. I will send out an email message announcing the immanent close of the ballot an hour before I close the vote on 3 October. I will send out periodic reminders of the ballot over the next 2 weeks. As those who have been following this process know, the voting list has been set up and tested by some of the voters. The test vote 'how is the weather' will remain open for anyone who still wishes to test the voting process to make sure that they have the format correct - plain text - subject line = to the name of the vote - first word in message must be eVote Please read the instructions included the ballot and please follow them. Please feel free to contact me with any problems. 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 mueller at syr.edu Tue Sep 19 13:13:15 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:13:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] An event on Security and Identity management 2 October Message-ID: No, an EPFL (Swisss tech. university) affair, although accepting sponsorship from corps involved always has its tradeoffs. Nevertheless, as these things go Sun is, uh, more "progressive"/open than certain others. Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> karenb at gn.apc.org 09/18/06 5:39 AM >>> hi milton >Those of you in Geneva or nearby may be interested in this event. There >is a registration fee but an appeal for a free entry and invocation of >my name might get you in without it. looks interesting - but largely a sun microsystems afair? i'll forward this though to the folks we're working with on the privacy and identity management workshop proposal for the IGF 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 mueller at syr.edu Tue Sep 19 13:28:50 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:28:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] oh those ballots Message-ID: Avri: You say in the ballots to send the ballots to igc-voters at igcaucus.org Then you say, > NOTE: These two steps are easy. Just use * > your reply-to key on this message! * But that is not true, if you use reply-to it sends a message to ïgc-voters-eVote at tla-group.com, which is not the right address - is it? So you have to hit "reply all" and then delete one of the addresses In general, the ballot is horribly difficult for a casual user to follow. The actual voting instructions come AFTER "poll instructions," which consist of coder gobbldegook, and AFTER instructions telling you how to find out how other people voted. I suspect that many people, by the time they work their way down to the actual voting instructions, will be thoroughly confused. Can you change the order of those elements? 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 Tue Sep 19 13:33:32 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:33:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] oh those ballots Message-ID: Oh, and if you don't put a space between the numeral and the Y or N, it doesn't work. sheesh. Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> mueller at syr.edu 09/19/06 1:28 PM >>> Avri: You say in the ballots to send the ballots to igc-voters at igcaucus.org Then you say, > NOTE: These two steps are easy. Just use * > your reply-to key on this message! * But that is not true, if you use reply-to it sends a message to ïgc-voters-eVote at tla-group.com, which is not the right address - is it? So you have to hit "reply all" and then delete one of the addresses In general, the ballot is horribly difficult for a casual user to follow. The actual voting instructions come AFTER "poll instructions," which consist of coder gobbldegook, and AFTER instructions telling you how to find out how other people voted. I suspect that many people, by the time they work their way down to the actual voting instructions, will be thoroughly confused. Can you change the order of those elements? 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 19 14:49:07 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:49:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] oh those ballots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3ED37DA6-D8F9-49E0-8717-B5FFD1E9A367@psg.com> Dear Dr. Mueller. I am sorry that you have had such difficulty with the ballots. I knew they would be difficult and that is why we have been running test on them for a few weeks. I was hoping that everyone would acclimate to the difficulties and would find all the fixable bugs before we started the charter vote. As I said, I was hoping to have a web interface that would mask the complexities. Unfortunately that was not possible in time for this vote. I do hope that it will be possible to simplify things for you in time before any future votes. However, when technical work is done on a volunteer basis, it is difficult to make demands. Specific answers to your comments can be found inline: On 19 sep 2006, at 13.28, Milton Mueller wrote: > Avri: > You say in the ballots to send the ballots to > igc-voters at igcaucus.org Which is the best alternative and the on I recommend people follow. > > Then you say, > >> NOTE: These two steps are easy. Just use * >> your reply-to key on this message! * > > But that is not true, if you use reply-to > it sends a message to ïgc-voters-eVote at tla-group.com, which is > not the right address - is it? Thank you for pointing this out. I have changed this so that it should work. I.e. this is now set as an alias for igc-voters at igcaucus.org > > So you have to hit "reply all" and then delete one of the addresses Well that is certainly one way to do it. Others may have found other solutions to the problem. > > In general, the ballot is horribly difficult for a casual user to > follow. Yes sir, I understand. That is why I had hoped to make it easier for you. That is also why I had a practice vote and why I sent sample ballots out several weeks ago so that everyone could comment before the voting started. I just regret that this was not enough to prevent your difficulties. > The actual voting instructions come AFTER "poll instructions," > which consist of coder gobbldegook, and AFTER instructions telling > you how to find out how other people voted. I suspect that many > people, by the time they work their way down to the actual voting > instructions, will be thoroughly confused. Can you change the order > of those elements? At this point, most unfortunately, no. that is, not without stopping and restarting the vote and reworking some of the text generation code. This is specifically why I asked people to look at the ballots on 23 August. At that point I still could have tried to make changes. Unfortunately it is too late for me to do so at this point. > Oh, and if you don't put a space between the numeral and the Y or > N, it doesn't work. sheesh. > Please accept my deepest apologies for any pain and suffering you have experienced in dealing with this ballot. I will endeavor to improve the situation before any future ballots. I do hope the difficulties you have experienced will not cause you to abandon the attempt to vote on the charter. Sincerely yours, staff____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From shantanoo at gmail.com Tue Sep 19 14:56:25 2006 From: shantanoo at gmail.com (Shantanoo Mahajan) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:26:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: oh those ballots In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060919185625.GA2907@madhosh.dhoomketu.net.in> +++ Milton Mueller [19-09-06 13:28 -0400]: | Avri: | You say in the ballots to send the ballots to | igc-voters at igcaucus.org | | Then you say, | | > NOTE: These two steps are easy. Just use * | > your reply-to key on this message! * | | But that is not true, if you use reply-to | it sends a message to ?gc-voters-eVote at tla-group.com, which is | not the right address - is it? | | So you have to hit "reply all" and then delete one of the addresses You can try replying to this e-mail. 'Reply-To:' header is set to igc-voters at igcacus.org. If it works then I think there was error while composing the e-mail. -- Assume no one can/will keep a secret. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 19 15:07:40 2006 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:07:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: oh those ballots In-Reply-To: <20060919185625.GA2907@madhosh.dhoomketu.net.in> References: <20060919185625.GA2907@madhosh.dhoomketu.net.in> Message-ID: <3C8591F0-B268-47DE-AAA0-0A3101C40A9A@psg.com> Hi, On 19 sep 2006, at 14.56, Shantanoo Mahajan wrote: > > You can try replying to this e-mail. 'Reply-To:' header is set to > igc-voters at igcacus.org. If it works then I think there was error while > composing the e-mail. Two things; - I think that i fixed that a few weeks ago. The reply-to header should read igc-voters at igcaucus.org . I had a misspelling it it a while back I just checked and it looks fixed. - unfortunately i have noticed that not all mailers seem to pick up the reply-to header and some just reply to the sender. I think this is what was happening to the previous commenter. 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 mueller at syr.edu Wed Sep 20 04:43:10 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 04:43:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] oh those ballots Message-ID: Avri: Sorry if you took offense. My point was not that I had difficulty, becuase it was relatively straightforward for me to figure out what went wrong. My concern was with many other people who might be prevented from voting altogether by these difficulties. As I've said publicly and privately before, I appreciate your volunteer work. I thought that it would help to point out these problems. sorry if I did it in a way that made you feel bad. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Sep 20 12:54:06 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:54:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Voting progress on charter after day 1 Message-ID: Hi, I know it has only been a day but I wanted to send an update and a reminder. Update: - So far 11 people have voted. This is a good start at the minimum threshold of 50 votes that are required for the vote to count. - I have fixed one misfeature that did not allow some voters to hit return (i.e those users whose mail systems ignore the X-reply-to header) Reminder: 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 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 From mandjelkovic at iisd.ca Wed Sep 20 13:17:46 2006 From: mandjelkovic at iisd.ca (Maja Andjelkovic) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:17:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] EU Parliament's meeting on Internet Governance and Civil Society Message-ID: <47AB1D483BC00940AC5DE54F9587ACAD024AA08B@proton.iisd.ca> -----Original Message----- From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org [mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org] On Behalf Of Michelle Childs Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 11:00 AM To: a2k at lists.essential.org Subject: [A2k] EU Parliament's meeting on Internet Governance and Civil Society http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/doc/epposter.pdf 10 October 2006 . Internet Governance and the role of the civil society Brussels, Belgium The European Parliament's Commitee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) is organising this meeting with civil society on 10th October. The meeting will be chaired by Catherine Trautmann, Member of the European Parliament. More details will soon be available. The flyer says that it will be from 3- 6pm Michelle -- Michelle Childs -Head of European Affairs Consumer Project on Technology in London 24, Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX,UK. Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252. Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607 http://www.cptech.org Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA .Tel.: +1.202.332.2670,Fax: +1.202.332.2673 Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva 1 Route des Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 791 6727 -- Michelle Childs -Head of European Affairs Consumer Project on Technology in London 24, Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX,UK. Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252. Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607 http://www.cptech.org Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA .Tel.: +1.202.332.2670,Fax: +1.202.332.2673 Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva 1 Route des Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 791 6727 _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 20 14:00:15 2006 From: info at INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG (IGP Info) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:00:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] [IGP-ANNOUNCE] LSE report released: Another ICANN reform? Message-ID: ================================= Internet Governance Project Alert ================================= September 20, 2006 Another ICANN Reform? The London School of Economics Public Policy Group finally released its long-awaited assessment of the GNSO, ICANN’s representative organ for making global domain names policy. The impartial X-ray the LSE group administered on the GNSO is, on the whole, excellent as an analysis of how things are. Many of the recommendations are good, too. But on the most critical issue of all * the distribution of voting power among GNSO constituencies * the LSE has put forward recommendations that cause serious concern. In essence, the LSE report suggests that GNSO be restructured into three basic groupings: the registration supply industry, business interests, and civil society. This is, as the report suggests, a cleaner and more flexible division of the world than now exists. It recommends repackaging participation in DNS policy as being a member of ICANN, not of the GNSO, which the public has never heard of. The GNSO Council would be reduced in size to 16 from its present 21. The report tells ICANN to financially support the participation of the members of this smaller Council. These proposals are sensible; one could even say that they are a breath of fresh air into a coagulated system. But the report proposes that registration suppliers and business users be given 5 votes on the policy making Council, while civil society * the only voice for the general public * be given only 3. It also proposes to raise the threshold for a “consensus policy” to 75% of the vote. This means that supplier interests and business interests could, if only 4 of their representatives agreed, prevent a 75% majority from forming and thus block any policy. The public interest advocates in civil society, even if they were completely unified, could not exercise such a veto. The existence of three “at large” GNSO Council members appointed by the Nominating Committee compensates for this inequality to some degree. But the NomCom-appointed Council members can come from any constituency; the NomCom contains diverse interests and is not guaranteed to appoint members sympathetic to civil society. It is reasonable that the registration industry, whose survival depends entirely on ICANN contracts and policies, have some kind of special status in the outcome of policies. They need to be protected against various forms of crippling regulation or expropriation at the hands of GNSO Council legislators who do not have to directly bear the costs of their policies. But there is no legitimate reason why business users should be given the same veto power and civil society groups denied it. Nothing in the factual findings of the report justifies this discrimination. The report does not even mount an argument for it. The report pretends to criticize weighted voted for registries and registrars in the current system. But the LSE proposals do not eliminate weighted voting. They simply redistribute the weighting. Giving 5 votes to one sector and 3 to another is weighted voting. As I show below, the net beneficiaries of the redistribution are the business interests. The net losers are registries and registrars. For civil society, which previously had only 3 votes out of a total of 21, the overall result is basically a wash, or perhaps a slight gain. Under the current GNSO structure public interest advocates have 14% of the votes; the LSE proposal would increase its share of overall votes to 19%. Funding participation would also be a boon. But the results could be worse than a mere running of the numbers suggests. For the new “registration” industry constituency would be composed of both registries and registrars. Anyone who knows the politics and economics of the domain name industry knows that those two interest groups are often in disagreement. Frequently their fundamental economic interests are in conflict. Just look at the VeriSign settlement, for example. If these two groups are put in the same room and forced to elect five representatives it will be interesting to see the results. In some respects, requiring them to work together could be quite healthy. A consolidated business constituency, on the other hand, is likely to be completely homogeneous, dominated by western multinational corporations and their global associations such as ICC and WITSA. Their main if not exclusive concern will be trademark and other static, protectionist concerns. Consolidating those constituencies won’t change much of anything, because they are already consolidated! (Indeed, one of the loveliest aspects of the report is its documentation of the uniformity and narrow level of participation of the three business user constituencies.) So the proposed new GNSO structure would effectively give the AT&Ts, Disneys and International Chamber of Commerce’s an effective veto on anything the GNSO did, while the relative power of the supply industry would be greatly decreased. Did the LSE people really intend this, or did they get influenced by some behind-the scenes arm-twisting by certain vocal business advocates or ICANN staff or board members? One can only speculate. The fundamental flaw in this proposal is the idea of raising the consensus policy threshold. It is surprising that the professional political scientists at LSE would buy into the notion that domain name policies affecting the distribution of millions of dollars of costs and benefits can be set by “consensus” rather than workable political majorities or reasonable supermajorities. ICANN is not IETF. In technical standardization, the overriding benefits of a standard give everyone an incentive to agree; in most domain name policy decisions there is no such incentive. The Federal Communications Commission does not wait for consensus or even a supermajority to emerge when it regulates. And the view that ICANN is not a regulator is not a view that anyone with knowledge of the system can hold anymore. The report documents at length the inordinate amount of time it takes the GNSO to come to a conclusion. The cause of this problem is simple: GNSO is composed of interest groups which have no incentive to come to an agreement. This problem would be dramatically worsened by raising the threshold for agreement. When it comes to analysis of how the GNSO works now, this report has some real gems. GNSO is really the only "bottom up" policy making process in the ICANN structure. Yet the report documents the incredibly small amount of attention paid to GNSO by the ICANN Board, and shows that there are few institutionalized channels for communication between the Board and GNSO. The visibility of the GNSO to the public, the report shows, is abysmally low. The report’s researchers wrestled their way through the tangled skein of WHOIS task forces in order to calculate the number of hours spent, and estimated the cost at $7 million in person-hours. As someone who has contributed greatly to this donation to ICANN's budget I appreciate the quantification. And it is about time someone talked about rational document management in the context of ICANN's policy making processes. There are some indications that key ICANN decision makers had access to the report before others, and thus that its recommendations are not simply those of an impartial outsider but were vetted to conform to a direction in which certain people want to go. This is speculation of course. But it is speculation from someone with 8 years of experience in the way ICANN operates. Dr. Milton Mueller, Partner Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org ========================= 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 vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Sep 21 07:47:32 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:47:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Antispam practices Message-ID: <45127BD4.8030004@bertola.eu.org> Hello, I wanted to share the nasty experience I had today with anti-spam blacklists. This morning I was working from home, connected through one of Italy's major ISPs via a DSL line. When I tried to send email as usual, the mail server of my own company started to reject them, as my IP address appeared in a couple of international anti-spam blacklists. I checked the sanity of my systems - both my laptop and my Linux gateway to the world - and I checked the blacklists; it turns out that, yesterday, a previous user of the same IP (which is dynamically attributed each time you connect, and, given the quality of our copper, my gateway disconnects and reconnects relatively often) had been using it to spam (voluntarily or not). So I go to the website suggested in the error message (cbl.abuseat.org), I try to delist my IP and... apparently, since it is a dynamic IP address, they would refuse to do so, or even if they accepted, according to their website, it is likely that the IP would be blacklisted again quite soon. In this case, I was trying to connect with my company's mail server, so there were plenty of possible solutions. However, given the ridiculous policy of these people, I chose to disable these blacklists all at once. But if, by chance, I had been using my own gateway as outgoing mail server, something I often do, I would have been completely shut out of the Internet for what regards email, without having any chance to get this fixed, apart from finding patchy workarounds such as disconnecting and reconnecting to get another IP address (which could have been blacklisted as well). Well, there is a "proposed" solution (which means, they unilaterally decide you have to do things that way) on the blacklist's website: stop using your own server and use your ISP's one. Now, you might have noticed that just yesterday, here in Italy, the head of security of the major national telco was arrested for illegally intercepting and recording phone calls and emails of thousands of people, so that does look like a sound suggestion, really. (While discussing this accident with a nerder friend involved in the anti-spam circles, he replied "but why do you care to be intercepted, if you don't have anything to hide". Oh well, you really got the point about privacy!) And what if my ISP didn't provide reliable mail servers, or didn't provide them at all? Should then I change ISP? And what else do you want to decide for me? The color of my shirt? Practically, these people are suggesting that I should give up the basic principle of the Internet, and my right to set up my own servers and services at any public IP address, and pay someone else to send my mail, only because my IP address is dynamic. And I don't know about elsewhere, but here, many ISPs won't even sell you a fixed IP address, unless you are a corporate customer. Ah, sure, I forgot I should get the ISP they like, not I. But what really gets me mad is that this policy, which indeed deeply affects what I can or cannot do with the Internet, was never discussed with me, meaning, the final users. I've been attending a good number of the existing Internet governance forums around, but where there ever was an open discussion and subsequent broad consensus on the correct policies for blacklisting and delisting? This policy affects me in deep, how can I influence it? Sure, there is a comment form on the CBL website, accompanied by the message: "WARNING! Comments are not read routinely and will not be responded to.". Thanks for the kindness. Please don't misunderstand me. I realize the great service that blacklists provide, for free. I realize in full the technical difficulty of managing this situation, and of fighting spam with the current email protocols. But I do not support the idea that there can be self-appointed sheriffs of the Internet, that can in fact block (censor) your bits according to any policy they like. Sure, one could think that blacklisting won't be used if it's not reasonable, but if you're just an individual being unjustly blocked, which sysadmin will ever care to alter its default mail server configuration just because of you? And how do you ask for that, if you can't send email? And who ensures that, in the middle of ordinary spam blockings, there will not be networks or individuals that are being blocked for their opinions or for political judgements or to alter market competition? I should have the right not to be blacklisted if I didn't do anything. If blacklist managers can't handle the operational requirements to do so, then please don't run a blacklist. I hope we can have a fruitful discussion on this specific point at the next IGF in Athens. And volunteer for that, wholeheartedly. 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 plzak at arin.net Thu Sep 21 08:39:50 2006 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:39:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Antispam practices In-Reply-To: <45127BD4.8030004@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <20060921123951.3A5E21FFC0@mercury.arin.net> At the upcoming ARIN Public Policy meeting in St Louis, 11 - 13 October, there will be a panel discussing blacklisting. Members of the panel will be from various parts of the community that are affected by or are involved in the process. All are invited to attend. For those who can not attend in person the meeting will be webcast. Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu.org] > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 7:48 AM > To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: [governance] Antispam practices > > Hello, > > I wanted to share the nasty experience I had today with anti-spam > blacklists. > > This morning I was working from home, connected through one of Italy's > major ISPs via a DSL line. When I tried to send email as usual, the mail > server of my own company started to reject them, as my IP address > appeared in a couple of international anti-spam blacklists. > > I checked the sanity of my systems - both my laptop and my Linux gateway > to the world - and I checked the blacklists; it turns out that, > yesterday, a previous user of the same IP (which is dynamically > attributed each time you connect, and, given the quality of our copper, > my gateway disconnects and reconnects relatively often) had been using > it to spam (voluntarily or not). > > So I go to the website suggested in the error message (cbl.abuseat.org), > I try to delist my IP and... apparently, since it is a dynamic IP > address, they would refuse to do so, or even if they accepted, according > to their website, it is likely that the IP would be blacklisted again > quite soon. > > In this case, I was trying to connect with my company's mail server, so > there were plenty of possible solutions. However, given the ridiculous > policy of these people, I chose to disable these blacklists all at once. > But if, by chance, I had been using my own gateway as outgoing mail > server, something I often do, I would have been completely shut out of > the Internet for what regards email, without having any chance to get > this fixed, apart from finding patchy workarounds such as disconnecting > and reconnecting to get another IP address (which could have been > blacklisted as well). > > Well, there is a "proposed" solution (which means, they unilaterally > decide you have to do things that way) on the blacklist's website: stop > using your own server and use your ISP's one. Now, you might have > noticed that just yesterday, here in Italy, the head of security of the > major national telco was arrested for illegally intercepting and > recording phone calls and emails of thousands of people, so that does > look like a sound suggestion, really. (While discussing this accident > with a nerder friend involved in the anti-spam circles, he replied "but > why do you care to be intercepted, if you don't have anything to hide". > Oh well, you really got the point about privacy!) And what if my ISP > didn't provide reliable mail servers, or didn't provide them at all? > Should then I change ISP? And what else do you want to decide for me? > The color of my shirt? > > Practically, these people are suggesting that I should give up the basic > principle of the Internet, and my right to set up my own servers and > services at any public IP address, and pay someone else to send my mail, > only because my IP address is dynamic. And I don't know about elsewhere, > but here, many ISPs won't even sell you a fixed IP address, unless you > are a corporate customer. Ah, sure, I forgot I should get the ISP they > like, not I. > > But what really gets me mad is that this policy, which indeed deeply > affects what I can or cannot do with the Internet, was never discussed > with me, meaning, the final users. I've been attending a good number of > the existing Internet governance forums around, but where there ever was > an open discussion and subsequent broad consensus on the correct > policies for blacklisting and delisting? This policy affects me in deep, > how can I influence it? Sure, there is a comment form on the CBL > website, accompanied by the message: "WARNING! Comments are not read > routinely and will not be responded to.". Thanks for the kindness. > > Please don't misunderstand me. I realize the great service that > blacklists provide, for free. I realize in full the technical difficulty > of managing this situation, and of fighting spam with the current email > protocols. But I do not support the idea that there can be > self-appointed sheriffs of the Internet, that can in fact block (censor) > your bits according to any policy they like. Sure, one could think that > blacklisting won't be used if it's not reasonable, but if you're just an > individual being unjustly blocked, which sysadmin will ever care to > alter its default mail server configuration just because of you? And how > do you ask for that, if you can't send email? And who ensures that, in > the middle of ordinary spam blockings, there will not be networks or > individuals that are being blocked for their opinions or for political > judgements or to alter market competition? > > I should have the right not to be blacklisted if I didn't do anything. > If blacklist managers can't handle the operational requirements to do > so, then please don't run a blacklist. > > I hope we can have a fruitful discussion on this specific point at the > next IGF in Athens. And volunteer for that, wholeheartedly. > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Thu Sep 21 12:35:54 2006 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:35:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Antispam practices In-Reply-To: <45127BD4.8030004@bertola.eu.org> References: <45127BD4.8030004@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <4512BF6A.7050003@echnaton.serveftp.com> Hi Vittorio, I have survived very much the same. That is why I finally have my own email system here on this system on a dynamic ip-address. I have seen it imposssible to send emails to friends with an AOL account whatever system I use: yahoo.ca, gmx.de, wanadoo.fr and others so it does not matter. Depending where I want to send I might have to use the other mailers. It is nasty to have to send emails more than one and to print them finally and send them via the Turn & Taxis post office. It least I have found out I dont lose received emails on my local system and nobody can ask my ISP about my emails. I should like to come to Athens but I am afraid I cannot afford it. Nevertheless if I can support you, please tell me. I believe the mailblockers are worse than the spammers in the first place. Together with ISPs blocking port 25 SMPT they shure will bring and end to email. Maybe we can revive uucp? Kind regards Peter and Karin Vittorio, Bertola wrote: > Hello, > > I wanted to share the nasty experience I had today with anti-spam > blacklists. > > This morning I was working from home, connected through one of Italy's > major ISPs via a DSL line. When I tried to send email as usual, the mail > server of my own company started to reject them, as my IP address > appeared in a couple of international anti-spam blacklists. > > I checked the sanity of my systems - both my laptop and my Linux gateway > to the world - and I checked the blacklists; it turns out that, > yesterday, a previous user of the same IP (which is dynamically > attributed each time you connect, and, given the quality of our copper, > my gateway disconnects and reconnects relatively often) had been using > it to spam (voluntarily or not). > > So I go to the website suggested in the error message (cbl.abuseat.org), > I try to delist my IP and... apparently, since it is a dynamic IP > address, they would refuse to do so, or even if they accepted, according > to their website, it is likely that the IP would be blacklisted again > quite soon. > > In this case, I was trying to connect with my company's mail server, so > there were plenty of possible solutions. However, given the ridiculous > policy of these people, I chose to disable these blacklists all at once. > But if, by chance, I had been using my own gateway as outgoing mail > server, something I often do, I would have been completely shut out of > the Internet for what regards email, without having any chance to get > this fixed, apart from finding patchy workarounds such as disconnecting > and reconnecting to get another IP address (which could have been > blacklisted as well). > > Well, there is a "proposed" solution (which means, they unilaterally > decide you have to do things that way) on the blacklist's website: stop > using your own server and use your ISP's one. Now, you might have > noticed that just yesterday, here in Italy, the head of security of the > major national telco was arrested for illegally intercepting and > recording phone calls and emails of thousands of people, so that does > look like a sound suggestion, really. (While discussing this accident > with a nerder friend involved in the anti-spam circles, he replied "but > why do you care to be intercepted, if you don't have anything to hide". > Oh well, you really got the point about privacy!) And what if my ISP > didn't provide reliable mail servers, or didn't provide them at all? > Should then I change ISP? And what else do you want to decide for me? > The color of my shirt? > > Practically, these people are suggesting that I should give up the basic > principle of the Internet, and my right to set up my own servers and > services at any public IP address, and pay someone else to send my mail, > only because my IP address is dynamic. And I don't know about elsewhere, > but here, many ISPs won't even sell you a fixed IP address, unless you > are a corporate customer. Ah, sure, I forgot I should get the ISP they > like, not I. > > But what really gets me mad is that this policy, which indeed deeply > affects what I can or cannot do with the Internet, was never discussed > with me, meaning, the final users. I've been attending a good number of > the existing Internet governance forums around, but where there ever was > an open discussion and subsequent broad consensus on the correct > policies for blacklisting and delisting? This policy affects me in deep, > how can I influence it? Sure, there is a comment form on the CBL > website, accompanied by the message: "WARNING! Comments are not read > routinely and will not be responded to.". Thanks for the kindness. > > Please don't misunderstand me. I realize the great service that > blacklists provide, for free. I realize in full the technical difficulty > of managing this situation, and of fighting spam with the current email > protocols. But I do not support the idea that there can be > self-appointed sheriffs of the Internet, that can in fact block (censor) > your bits according to any policy they like. Sure, one could think that > blacklisting won't be used if it's not reasonable, but if you're just an > individual being unjustly blocked, which sysadmin will ever care to > alter its default mail server configuration just because of you? And how > do you ask for that, if you can't send email? And who ensures that, in > the middle of ordinary spam blockings, there will not be networks or > individuals that are being blocked for their opinions or for political > judgements or to alter market competition? > > I should have the right not to be blacklisted if I didn't do anything. > If blacklist managers can't handle the operational requirements to do > so, then please don't run a blacklist. > > I hope we can have a fruitful discussion on this specific point at the > next IGF in Athens. And volunteer for that, wholeheartedly. > > Ciao, -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 22 10:48:24 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:48:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Voting progress on charter on day 4 Message-ID: <6FF4D353-5A24-4BBF-BF00-DB5477716560@acm.org> Hi, It is now the 4th day in the voting so I figured it was time for another update and the periodic reminder. Update: - So far 17 people have voted. This is 34% of the minimum threshold of 50 votes that are required for the vote to count. Assuming that the rate of voting continues, we should be able to reach the threshold. It should be noted that 17 is a bare 10% of those who are on the voters list. - I have added one person to the voting list who was qualified by virtue of having joined the list before the 24 July cutoff, but who had not given me a personal name to go along with their email name by the time I created the voter's list. - I removed my duplicate entry from the voter list - while i never intend to vote twice (as i did in the test votes - canceling my vote out with contradictory votes), it just looked bad - at least to me. - I removed the list service accounts (igc-voters-eVote and igc- voters-admin) from the voters list. Since I am the only one who could have voted from those, it would have given me 4 possible votes. that would really look bad. - I synced the list with the mailman list allowing one person who had changed subscription address to be added to the voters list. ---There may be a side effect of this. At least one person had set their account to vacation (eVote vacation) which is supposed to prevent them from receiving email without removing their ability to vote in the future should they want to. I think the act of sync'ing removed the vacation setting - i am not sure why this would happen and think it a bug. If anyone is having trouble getting the vacation setting to work or to stick - let me know. I am not sure what I can do about it at this point other then report the bug. Reminder: 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 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 From pr+governance at x0.dk Sat Sep 23 12:44:40 2006 From: pr+governance at x0.dk (Phil Regnauld) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:44:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] Antispam practices In-Reply-To: <45127BD4.8030004@bertola.eu.org> References: <45127BD4.8030004@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <20060923164440.GB75514@tetard.starbsd.org> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:47:32PM +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > But I do not support the idea that there can be > self-appointed sheriffs of the Internet, that can in fact block (censor) > your bits according to any policy they like. As you point out yourself later, they may pretend to be sheriffs, but they don't make the "law@". Nobody forces anyone to use blacklists, it's just stupid that some ISPs use rogue/aggressive blacklists. It says more about the ISP, and a good hint that you should not buy their service. > I should have the right not to be blacklisted if I didn't do anything. > If blacklist managers can't handle the operational requirements to do > so, then please don't run a blacklist. The responsibility is not there, unfortunately. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From aizu at anr.org Sun Sep 24 12:13:07 2006 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 01:13:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] EU Parliament's meeting on Internet Governance and Civil Society In-Reply-To: References: <47AB1D483BC00940AC5DE54F9587ACAD024AA08B@proton.iisd.ca> Message-ID: Hi, I saw the notice on EU's DG InfoSoc website. Is there any one involved with this event from the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus? It doesn't seem like... izumi 2006/9/21, Maja Andjelkovic : > > > -----Original Message----- > From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org > [mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org] On Behalf Of Michelle Childs > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 11:00 AM > To: a2k at lists.essential.org > Subject: [A2k] EU Parliament's meeting on Internet Governance and Civil > Society > > > > http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/doc/epposter.pdf > 10 October 2006 . > Internet Governance and the role of the civil society Brussels, Belgium > The European Parliament's Commitee on Industry, Research and Energy > (ITRE) is organising this meeting with civil society on 10th October. > The meeting will be chaired by Catherine Trautmann, Member of the > European Parliament. > More details will soon be available. The flyer says that it will be > from > 3- 6pm > > Michelle > > -- > Michelle Childs -Head of European Affairs Consumer Project on Technology > in London 24, Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX,UK. > Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252. > Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607 http://www.cptech.org > > Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC > 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA .Tel.: > +1.202.332.2670,Fax: +1.202.332.2673 > > Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva > 1 Route des Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland > Tel: +41 22 791 6727 > > > > > > > -- > Michelle Childs -Head of European Affairs Consumer Project on Technology > in London 24, Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX,UK. > Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252. > Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607 http://www.cptech.org > > Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC > 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA .Tel.: > +1.202.332.2670,Fax: +1.202.332.2673 > > Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva > 1 Route des Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland > Tel: +41 22 791 6727 > > > > _______________________________________________ > A2k mailing list > A2k at lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 patrick at vande-walle.eu Mon Sep 25 04:19:08 2006 From: patrick at vande-walle.eu (Patrick Vande Walle) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:19:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Antispam practices In-Reply-To: <45127BD4.8030004@bertola.eu.org> References: <45127BD4.8030004@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <451790FC.6060505@vande-walle.eu> Vittorio Bertola wrote: Vittorio, While I sympathize with the issues you have gone through, I would not blame the DNSBLs for this. It is a well known fact that a whole lot of machines on DSL are used as spam/virus proxies. Most users of the infected machines are unaware their computer has been hijacked. Forcing connections to go through well maintained and identified SMTP servers allows to clean up and/or limit the number of outgoing messages in order to defeat spamming and virus spreading. There are several workarounds, but this would be OT, so contact me offline if you wish. > Practically, these people are suggesting that I should give up the basic > principle of the Internet, and my right to set up my own servers and > services at any public IP address, Not entirely. There are additional constraints. At the very least, your SMTP server should conform to RFCs. It should have a valid DNS PTR record bearing your machine's name and not 123.456.789.012-dsl.myisp.com. You cannot achieve that with a dynamic IP. > where there ever was > an open discussion and subsequent broad consensus on the correct > policies for blacklisting and delisting? On this I agree, there has never been a debate. > I should have the right not to be blacklisted if I didn't do anything. Correct. But please complain to your ISP. They should find out and expel those users who do not conform to their AUP (no spam, no viruses). They would loose a customer in the process, which is probably why this sort of pro-active attitude never happens. > I hope we can have a fruitful discussion on this specific point at the > next IGF in Athens. And volunteer for that, wholeheartedly. So do I. Patrick BTW: if you are being blacklisted by my server, try pat.vande-walle at gmail.com as an alternative address. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 25 04:49:28 2006 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:49:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Antispam practices In-Reply-To: <451790FC.6060505@vande-walle.eu> References: <45127BD4.8030004@bertola.eu.org> <451790FC.6060505@vande-walle.eu> Message-ID: <20060925084928.GA16379@nic.fr> On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 10:19:08AM +0200, Patrick Vande Walle wrote a message of 54 lines which said: > Forcing connections to go through well maintained and identified > SMTP servers ISP server != well-maintained server. Actually, a reason why many people do *not* want to go through the ISP email servers is because they are not well-maintained: they lose or delay messages and you have no way of knowing it, no observation is possible. More on-topic for this list: more and more ISP force users to go through their servers for various reasons (the last trend is to block port 53 and to force users to use the ISP's DNS servers, then to have wildcards in these servers, a la Earthlink). This is clearly a serious and on-topic issue for this group. > It should have a valid DNS PTR record bearing your machine's name > and not 123.456.789.012-dsl.myisp.com. No RFC ever said so. The possible future RFC (see http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-00.txt) does not say so. > You cannot achieve that with a dynamic IP. You can, with dynamic DNS. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From patrick at vande-walle.eu Mon Sep 25 05:36:18 2006 From: patrick at vande-walle.eu (Patrick Vande Walle) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 11:36:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Antispam practices In-Reply-To: <20060925084928.GA16379@nic.fr> References: <45127BD4.8030004@bertola.eu.org> <451790FC.6060505@vande-walle.eu> <20060925084928.GA16379@nic.fr> Message-ID: <4517A312.8080502@vande-walle.eu> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > More on-topic for this list: more and more ISP force users to go > through their servers for various reasons Agree with you. Same applies to hardware manufacturers of DSL modems which do not allow you to change the DHCP-assigned DNS server. Patrick ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From shantanoo at gmail.com Mon Sep 25 06:40:53 2006 From: shantanoo at gmail.com (Shantanoo Mahajan) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:10:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Antispam practices In-Reply-To: <20060925084928.GA16379@nic.fr> References: <45127BD4.8030004@bertola.eu.org> <451790FC.6060505@vande-walle.eu> <20060925084928.GA16379@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20060925104053.GA2857@madhosh.dhoomketu.net.in> +++ Stephane Bortzmeyer [25-09-06 10:49 +0200]: | On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 10:19:08AM +0200, | Patrick Vande Walle wrote | a message of 54 lines which said: | | > Forcing connections to go through well maintained and identified | > SMTP servers | | ISP server != well-maintained server. Actually, a reason why many | people do *not* want to go through the ISP email servers is because | they are not well-maintained: they lose or delay messages and you have | no way of knowing it, no observation is possible. | | More on-topic for this list: more and more ISP force users to go | through their servers for various reasons (the last trend is to block | port 53 and to force users to use the ISP's DNS servers, then to have | wildcards in these servers, a la Earthlink). This is clearly a serious | and on-topic issue for this group. Few issues while using ISP's SMTP: - Unmainted (as mentioned above) - Message size limit (my ISP has 3 MB size limit, which many times is the reason of not using it) - Delays (as mentioned above) - Many won't allow you to change the 'From:' field. e.g. shantanoo+nospam at gmail dot com comes to shantanoo at gmail dot com. I (used to) prefer (when I had less bandwidth) to use different from address so that it becomes easy for me to filter the e-mails. | | > It should have a valid DNS PTR record bearing your machine's name | > and not 123.456.789.012-dsl.myisp.com. But reverse PTR is has to be given by the ISP. Nowadays manys ISPs are providing reverse PTR but not all do that. | | No RFC ever said so. The possible future RFC (see | http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-00.txt) | does not say so. | | > You cannot achieve that with a dynamic IP. | | You can, with dynamic DNS. This takes care of forward PTR only. Possible additional solutions which I think are: - open SPF (easily implemented) - Yahoo! domainkeys (more secure(?)) IMO, once IPv6 is implemented, every user will have static IP. That will help reduce the spam drastically quite easily. Shantanoo -- Few minds wear out; more rust out. ~Christian N. Bovee ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 25 09:21:51 2006 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:21:51 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Antispam practices In-Reply-To: <20060925084928.GA16379@nic.fr> References: <45127BD4.8030004@bertola.eu.org> <451790FC.6060505@vande-walle.eu> <20060925084928.GA16379@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20060925132151.GE12233@tapani.tarvainen.info> On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 10:49:28AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer (bortzmeyer at internatif.org) wrote: > More on-topic for this list: more and more ISP force users to go > through their servers for various reasons (the last trend is to block > port 53 and to force users to use the ISP's DNS servers, then to have > wildcards in these servers, a la Earthlink). This is clearly a serious > and on-topic issue for this group. Yes. Indeed, as I see it, the problem lies more with ISPs than with DNSBLs - after all, you can't really demand that the fact your IP is dynamic or that it belongs to a poorly-run ISP should be kept secret, nor that individual mail server admins that they should not use that information. What follows, inevitably, is that as long as dynamic IPs and certain ISPs are big sources of spam, that they end up blocked, along with a number of innocent bystanders, like Vittorio. Trying to solve that by forbidding blacklist maintenance or by forbidding their use is also very problematic from political point of view: it is like forbidding organizing consumer boycotts, a rather radical restriction of freedom of expression. After all, nobody running a mail server is forced to use any blacklist, it is just information they can use or ignore - like a suggestion to boycott a manufacturer for whatever reason. Of course things are Philosophical points aside, ISPs are also an easier target for legislation or boycotts or indeed any measure you can think of than blacklist maintainers or mail servers using them. So, I'd suggest it'd be more useful to try to get ISPs to behave, including providing static IPs without unreasonable extra cost, maintaining PTR records properly, not blocking ports without good reason, &c. -- 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 avri at acm.org Tue Sep 26 00:55:21 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:55:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] Voting progress on charter after 1 week Message-ID: <70B4EEC1-0467-4B1B-AACF-B02F45BE725D@acm.org> Hi, The first week in the voting has now ended, with one week to go. Time, therefore, for another update and the periodic reminder on the voting process. (note: just in case people are ignoring the end of this message (i might if i wasn't writing it), it contains explicit directions on how to vote and this time contains examples of what your messages should look like depending on how you wish to vote) Update: - So far 23 people have voted. Many thanks to those of you who have voted. This is 46% of the minimum threshold of 50 votes that are required for the vote to count. Assuming that this rate of voting continues, we will not quite reach this threshold. It should be noted that 23 is only 13% of those who are on the voters list. Please vote. - 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 From vb at bertola.eu.org Tue Sep 26 13:40:20 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:40:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Antispam practices In-Reply-To: <20060925132151.GE12233@tapani.tarvainen.info> References: <45127BD4.8030004@bertola.eu.org> <451790FC.6060505@vande-walle.eu> <20060925084928.GA16379@nic.fr> <20060925132151.GE12233@tapani.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <45196604.1070208@bertola.eu.org> I'm glad I sparkled an interesting debate on such a specific and important policy issue, including (finally!) the technical level :) So I'm not replying to you in particular, just getting into the stream: Tapani Tarvainen ha scritto: > Yes. Indeed, as I see it, the problem lies more with ISPs than with > DNSBLs - after all, you can't really demand that the fact your IP is > dynamic or that it belongs to a poorly-run ISP should be kept secret, > nor that individual mail server admins that they should not use that > information. > > What follows, inevitably, is that as long as dynamic IPs and certain > ISPs are big sources of spam, that they end up blocked, along with > a number of innocent bystanders, like Vittorio. > > Trying to solve that by forbidding blacklist maintenance or by > forbidding their use is also very problematic from political point of > view: it is like forbidding organizing consumer boycotts, a rather > radical restriction of freedom of expression. To me, this does not look like boycott, since it is not that you are stopping to buy some ISP's products (something that affects only you and the company you are boycotting): you are actively shutting out of the network all customers of that ISP, by blocking their traffic. It does not affect only you and the company, but all customers of that company: in other words, you are forcing everyone else to boycott that company as well, and this goes well beyond your freedom of expression. It looks to me (with due proportions) more like racism: since a certain number of members of a group did not behave well, we actively prosecute all members of that group, just because they are members of that group. In some cases, it even gets down to plain assertions that "dumb users should not be allowed on the Internet" and so on - as if connecting to the Internet with a Windows machine (and all the 'security' that Microsoft allows), on a €20 dynamic DSL line, without understanding a word about technicalities, was a fault per se. Also, I am very interested in the principle point about having users forced to go through their ISPs. Actually, ISPs love this perspective - it's the walled garden they are longing for. I'm sure that some of them are quite happy about these blacklisting attitudes and other Internet accidents, so that they can go back to their customers and say, "look? don't try to do things on your own, rely on us". I'm not sure that this is what we should promote. > After all, nobody > running a mail server is forced to use any blacklist, it is just > information they can use or ignore - like a suggestion to boycott > a manufacturer for whatever reason. Sure, but, in practice, most mail servers come with blacklists enabled out of the box, and no sysadmin would care to remove them only because of some "collaterally damaged" users. In the end, it all gets down to common sense. If everyone did not push things to the limit, the Internet would not break :) > Philosophical points aside, ISPs are also an easier target for > legislation or boycotts or indeed any measure you can think of > than blacklist maintainers or mail servers using them. > > So, I'd suggest it'd be more useful to try to get ISPs to behave, > including providing static IPs without unreasonable extra cost, > maintaining PTR records properly, not blocking ports without > good reason, &c. Certainly some regulation (or maybe, best practices) should be agreed for what regards ISP practices, but you can't force ISPs not to use dynamic IP(v4) ranges, can you? So the basic issue with blacklisting IP ranges just because they're dynamic will stay. By the way - to add one more anecdote - there was an interesting discussion between my CEO and my sysadmin (we're a very small company...) earlier today. This is absolutely true, almost word by word (translated to English of course ;) ). My CEO complained about not receiving a newsletter from the most valued Italian telco consultancy firm, of which we are good friends, so we even get it for free while others pay. The sysadmin checked and replied: "It's correct you didn't receive it, since it is spam." CEO: "Spam? What spam? People pay hundreds of euros per year to get it!" SysOp: "It is spam, because it scored 4.192 points when being checked by SpamAssassin, and our threshold is 4." CEO: "SpamWhat? I can tell you it's not spam, it's pretty important information!" SysOp: "Let me check... It is spam because, even if the Bayesian check is -2.599, it fails these three tests: -DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=1.247 -INVALID_DATE=2.193 -RCVD_IN_WHOIS_BOGONS=2.43" CEO: "What the hell are you talking about?" SysOp: "Well, there are these rules that define what is or is not spam, and these three rules define that this message is spam: the first problem is that the date of the message is 12 to 24 hours earlier than it was mailed..." CEO: "Of course it is, they write it one day and send it the following morning!" SysOp: "The second problem is that the date is invalid!" CEO: "Invalid?" SysOp: "Sure, it is, look here! You see? The header in the message says "Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18.48.13 +0200", while the standard would require it to be "Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:48:13 +0200": it is using dots instead of colons to separate hours and minutes in the time!" CEO (astonished): "And that turns its content into spam?" SysOp: "Sure! And then there's the third problem, that here" - looks in the middle of a bunch of unreadable headers - "the IP address of the machine used to send it is 1.92.21.178, it is a forbidden address!" CEO: "Forbidden?" SysOp: "Yes, if you go to IANA..." CEO: "I what?" SysOp (looking annoyed): "IANA, the people who give the addresses... Anyway, this is a reserved network, no one can use it!" CEO: "But why are they using it, then?" SysOp: "Well, it means they're using Fastweb" - one of the biggest Italian ISPs - "Fastweb gives to all its customers private addresses, but this is wrong, they're using forbidden addresses!" CEO: "So all the emails we receive from that million of people using Fastweb are marked as spam?" SysOp: "Well, not marked, but there's this rule that gives them points that make it easier for them to be spam..." CEO (laughing): "And does it make sense to you?" SysOp: "Of course, Fastweb should not use those addresses, it's forbidden by standards!" CEO (giving up): "So what can you do? Can you turn off these rules so that I can receive future installments of this newsletter?" SysOp (looking shocked): "Of course not! We would accept spam, that's impossible!" CEO: "But it always comes from the same email address, can you make it so that if it comes from this address, it can pass through and not be marked as spam?" SysOp (looking more shocked): "No, I can't add a special rule just for that, you know, these rules are being developed for months with lots of powerful algorithms, you shouldn't mess with them, these rules are right by default!" CEO (desperate): "So what should I do?" SysOp: "Well, you should go and sell a consultancy to these marketing people that send the newsletter, since they definitely can't send email!" CEO: "A consultancy?" SysOp: "Of course! We should advise them on how to buy a new messaging software that creates the correct date headers, and also on how to switch ISP to another one, that does not use private addresses!" CEO: "So they should pay us to allow us to receive a newsletter for which people usually pay?!?" Needless to say, I had to calm down my CEO to prevent him from firing the sysadmin on the spot... 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 patrick at vande-walle.eu Wed Sep 27 09:25:18 2006 From: patrick at vande-walle.eu (Patrick Vande Walle) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:25:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Antispam practices In-Reply-To: <45196604.1070208@bertola.eu.org> References: <45127BD4.8030004@bertola.eu.org> <451790FC.6060505@vande-walle.eu> <20060925084928.GA16379@nic.fr> <20060925132151.GE12233@tapani.tarvainen.info> <45196604.1070208@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <451A7BBE.5010208@vande-walle.eu> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > To me, this does not look like boycott, since it is not that you are > stopping to buy some ISP's products (something that affects only you and > the company you are boycotting): you are actively shutting out of the > network all customers of that ISP, by blocking their traffic. Look at it another way: if your ISP is behaving in a manner that does not suit the way you want to use the Internet (by blocking ports, using blacklists, etc), you are free to switch to a competitor. In the end, when the ISP will notice it loses customers and revenue because of its behaviour, it may want to change its current practice. This is effectively an indirect boycott, although I agree honest customers are being held hostage in this situation. Of course, this does not solve the issue on the spot but it may force the ISPs to change their policies and behaviour on a longer term. Patrick ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Wed Sep 27 10:14:11 2006 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:14:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Antispam practices In-Reply-To: <451A7BBE.5010208@vande-walle.eu> References: <45127BD4.8030004@bertola.eu.org> <451790FC.6060505@vande-walle.eu> <20060925084928.GA16379@nic.fr> <20060925132151.GE12233@tapani.tarvainen.info> <45196604.1070208@bertola.eu.org> <451A7BBE.5010208@vande-walle.eu> Message-ID: <451A8733.7070206@echnaton.serveftp.com> I dont think it is a good idea to use the mailer of my isp. First I could not even use it because they would not support Linux. That is some time ago. Next I needed to access my email both from work and home. My ISP would not do that either. And then I urgently needed to access my email from overseas. No way. Next, after moving I wont be able to access the mailer of my ISP any longer. I am glad I never used it in the first place. Ok, and what about my competitian telling my ISP I had stolen some music and they urgently needed to look into my emails? That is why I shall never use somebody elses mailer, but only my own here in my room. Interestingly enough there are people arround who cannot be reached except with your own personal mailer, even if it is on a dynamic IP-address. Kind regards Peter and Karin Patrick Vande Walle wrote: > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > >>To me, this does not look like boycott, since it is not that you are >>stopping to buy some ISP's products (something that affects only you and >>the company you are boycotting): you are actively shutting out of the >>network all customers of that ISP, by blocking their traffic. > > > Look at it another way: if your ISP is behaving in a manner that does > not suit the way you want to use the Internet (by blocking ports, using > blacklists, etc), you are free to switch to a competitor. > > In the end, when the ISP will notice it loses customers and revenue > because of its behaviour, it may want to change its current practice. > This is effectively an indirect boycott, although I agree honest > customers are being held hostage in this situation. > > Of course, this does not solve the issue on the spot but it may force > the ISPs to change their policies and behaviour on a longer term. > > Patrick > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ http://www.cesidianroot.com/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Thu Sep 28 01:42:53 2006 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (tapani.tarvainen at effi.org) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:42:53 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Antispam practices In-Reply-To: <45196604.1070208@bertola.eu.org> References: <45127BD4.8030004@bertola.eu.org> <451790FC.6060505@vande-walle.eu> <20060925084928.GA16379@nic.fr> <20060925132151.GE12233@tapani.tarvainen.info> <45196604.1070208@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <20060928054253.GA4660@tapani.tarvainen.info> On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 07:40:20PM +0200, Vittorio Bertola (vb at bertola.eu.org) wrote: > I'm glad I sparkled an interesting debate on such a specific and > important policy issue, including (finally!) the technical level :) I can get as technical as you like in this (probably more so, all the way down to SpamAssassin or sendmail code and the like). But I'll stay on a a bit more abstract level for now. > >forbidding blacklist maintenance or by > >forbidding their use is also very problematic from political point of > >view: it is like forbidding organizing consumer boycotts, a rather > >radical restriction of freedom of expression. > > To me, this does not look like boycott, since it is not that you are > stopping to buy some ISP's products (something that affects only you and > the company you are boycotting): you are actively shutting out of the > network all customers of that ISP, by blocking their traffic. It does > not affect only you and the company, but all customers of that company: > in other words, you are forcing everyone else to boycott that company as > well, and this goes well beyond your freedom of expression. Who am I forcing to do what, if I refuse mail from some IP? OK, I'm forcing those who want to send mail to me to find other means. But I think I'm within my rights to do that. For comparison: A courier firm makes deal with US Post to handle packages destined to Finland. They do it cheaply, but there's a catch: they charge recipients, too - without telling senders about it. (This has actually happened, by the way.) May I now refuse to deal with that, and tell people they'd better send packets to me some other way, and even boycott (as in not buying stuff from) companies that insist on using it? May I also publicise information about the courier company and its annoying practices and suggest others boycott it, too, along with all its clients, even if they had nothing to do with the change and may not even know about it? The comparison is apt: accepting email from spam-prone address spaces is also expensive. > It looks to me (with due proportions) more like racism: since a certain > number of members of a group did not behave well, we actively prosecute > all members of that group, just because they are members of that group. It's not like racism because the group is not something you are born into. And few people have deep feelings about their IPs. Sure, sometimes there's not much choice in practice. If the only job you can get is in a misbehaving company, you'll be hurt by boycotts directed at the company, without much fault of your own. Should we refraining from boycott because of that? Sometimes "collateral damage" cannot be avoided. In the present case, innocents will suffer also if dynamic IPs are not blacklisted, indeed even more so: dynamic IPs are *the* major source of spam today, and spam can effectively make email useless to even more innocent people. > In some cases, it even gets down to plain assertions that "dumb users > should not be allowed on the Internet" and so on - as if connecting to > the Internet with a Windows machine (and all the 'security' that > Microsoft allows), on a €20 dynamic DSL line, without understanding a > word about technicalities, was a fault per se. Which it of course isn't. But the only way to allow technically naïve people to connect is by providing them safe email and other services by someone, and easily - which in effect means ISP has to arrange it, and make it automatic, default. > Also, I am very interested in the principle point about having users > forced to go through their ISPs. That is indeed bad in my book also. But setting it as default, so that if you don't have the technical skill to manage your own mail server or whatnot, is a different thing, as long as those who want can get the ports open. (Yes, I understand very well why some people prefer to run their own mail servers. I am one of them.) Indeed, an ISP that took good care of their dynamic pool might be able to keep it out of blacklists. But I can't think of any way to do that other than restricting ports by default, open only on request. Incidentally, I run my own mail server in my home, behind an ISDL line that blocks incoming smtp port (but not outgoing, for some weird reason). Now I am able to work around that by arranging relays using non-standard ports, but I know that for some it would be prohibitively expensive or otherwise effectively impossible. > >After all, nobody > >running a mail server is forced to use any blacklist, it is just > >information they can use or ignore - like a suggestion to boycott > >a manufacturer for whatever reason. > > Sure, but, in practice, most mail servers come with blacklists enabled > out of the box, I doubt that very much - do you have some statistics? Tools to use them are generally easily available, though, and commonly used, but not enabled by default, in my experience. > and no sysadmin would care to remove them only because > of some "collaterally damaged" users. The ones I use allow making user-specific exceptions. > In the end, it all gets down to common sense. If everyone did not push > things to the limit, the Internet would not break :) :-) Unfortunately, common sense not common enough these days. :-( > but you can't force ISPs not to use dynamic IP(v4) ranges, can you? Actually, I think you could. I'm not arguing it'd be a good idea or politically feasible, but technically it'd be possible and I can imagine even political will to do it. (In effect it'd mean requiring ISPs to maintain lists of their clients' MAC addresses and mapping them to specific IPs. I know of one doing this so it's not impossible, and it could be sold to politicians as means of making it easier to catch criminals.) > So the basic issue with blacklisting IP ranges just because they're > dynamic will stay. What would you do? Make it illegal to publish information about which IPs are dynamic? Make it illegal to filter mail on the basis of sender IP? How about instead requiring ISPs to provide static IPs and/or open ports to customers who request it, at no (significant) extra cost? (Perhaps requiring signature on some kind of "I understand what this means and take responsibility" -type paper would be OK.) > By the way - to add one more anecdote - there was an interesting > discussion between my CEO and my sysadmin (we're a very small > company...) earlier today. This is absolutely true, almost word by word :-) Language barriers between CEOs (or even lesser bosses) and sysadmins are notorious. However: > SysOp (looking more shocked): "No, I can't add a special rule just for > that, you know, these rules are being developed for months with lots of > powerful algorithms, you shouldn't mess with them, these rules are right > by default!" I rather suspect the sysadmin was pretending here. Setting up exceptions to spam rules isn't that hard. -- 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 peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Thu Sep 28 02:28:14 2006 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:28:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Antispam practices In-Reply-To: <20060928054253.GA4660@tapani.tarvainen.info> References: <45127BD4.8030004@bertola.eu.org> <451790FC.6060505@vande-walle.eu> <20060925084928.GA16379@nic.fr> <20060925132151.GE12233@tapani.tarvainen.info> <45196604.1070208@bertola.eu.org> <20060928054253.GA4660@tapani.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <451B6B7E.3080207@echnaton.serveftp.com> tapani.tarvainen at effi.org wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 07:40:20PM +0200, Vittorio Bertola (vb at bertola.eu.org) wrote: > >>I'm glad I sparkled an interesting debate on such a specific and >>important policy issue, including (finally!) the technical level :) > > > I can get as technical as you like in this (probably more so, > all the way down to SpamAssassin or sendmail code and the like). > But I'll stay on a a bit more abstract level for now. > > >>>forbidding blacklist maintenance or by >>>forbidding their use is also very problematic from political point of >>>view: it is like forbidding organizing consumer boycotts, a rather >>>radical restriction of freedom of expression. >> >>To me, this does not look like boycott, since it is not that you are >>stopping to buy some ISP's products (something that affects only you and >>the company you are boycotting): you are actively shutting out of the >>network all customers of that ISP, by blocking their traffic. It does >>not affect only you and the company, but all customers of that company: >>in other words, you are forcing everyone else to boycott that company as >>well, and this goes well beyond your freedom of expression. > > > Who am I forcing to do what, if I refuse mail from some IP? > > OK, I'm forcing those who want to send mail to me to find other means. > But I think I'm within my rights to do that. You are one of those guys who force me to have some 20 mailers, depending to whom I want to send. It is nasty to have to use some 20 mailers but when you dont want everybody to snoop into your personal mail your are forced to run your own mailer. That is what I am doing. Ok, this mailer cannot send to you. Now I have to get a gmail account with a nonesense name to send you emails. I have already another one for the AOL guys who can only receive mail from AOL or spammers. Curiously enough it is my local mailer on its dynamic ip-address who gets the fewest spam and it is the big ones who get the most. They seem to except only spam and no private mailes. That is why they are mailblockers and not spamfilters. > > For comparison: > > A courier firm makes deal with US Post to handle packages destined > to Finland. They do it cheaply, but there's a catch: they charge > recipients, too - without telling senders about it. > (This has actually happened, by the way.) > > May I now refuse to deal with that, and tell people they'd better > send packets to me some other way, and even boycott (as in not > buying stuff from) companies that insist on using it? > Yes, Santa Claus will boycott you. No Christmas gifts this your. But please go outside and look into your letterbox at least once every day because a lot of people tend to print their bounced email send send them by avian carriers :) > May I also publicise information about the courier company and > its annoying practices and suggest others boycott it, too, > along with all its clients, even if they had nothing to do > with the change and may not even know about it? > If I am allowed to publicise your annoying practices and ask them to exclude you from newsletters because you bounce them anyway. > The comparison is apt: accepting email from spam-prone > address spaces is also expensive. > That is what I am doing right now. I have found out it is much easier to sort out the spam than having to look into the spamfolder for lost emails. There are other means like greylists ... > >>It looks to me (with due proportions) more like racism: since a certain >>number of members of a group did not behave well, we actively prosecute >>all members of that group, just because they are members of that group. It is a religious war. Some people giving up email completly because it has shown not to work any longer - others trying to fix it. The guys trying to fix it fall into different cults using different means to kill each other. > It's not like racism because the group is not something you are born > into. And few people have deep feelings about their IPs. > > Sure, sometimes there's not much choice in practice. If the only > job you can get is in a misbehaving company, you'll be hurt by > boycotts directed at the company, without much fault of your own. > Should we refraining from boycott because of that? > It is not at all about companies. It is about people. People trying to get things done the way they like it, have to run their own mailers or they can CC all the big brothers. > Sometimes "collateral damage" cannot be avoided. > In the present case, innocents will suffer also if > dynamic IPs are not blacklisted, indeed even more so: > dynamic IPs are *the* major source of spam today, > and spam can effectively make email useless to > even more innocent people. > > >>In some cases, it even gets down to plain assertions that "dumb users >>should not be allowed on the Internet" and so on - as if connecting to >>the Internet with a Windows machine (and all the 'security' that >>Microsoft allows), on a €20 dynamic DSL line, without understanding a >>word about technicalities, was a fault per se. > > > Which it of course isn't. But the only way to allow technically naïve > people to connect is by providing them safe email and other services by > someone, and easily - which in effect means ISP has to arrange it, > and make it automatic, default. > > >>Also, I am very interested in the principle point about having users >>forced to go through their ISPs. > I could not use it because they did not support linux. And my ISP is more often on everybodies blacklist than not. > > That is indeed bad in my book also. But setting it as default, so > that if you don't have the technical skill to manage your own mail > server or whatnot, is a different thing, as long as those who want > can get the ports open. (Yes, I understand very well why some > people prefer to run their own mail servers. I am one of them.) > > Indeed, an ISP that took good care of their dynamic pool might be able > to keep it out of blacklists. But I can't think of any way to do that > other than restricting ports by default, open only on request. > > Incidentally, I run my own mail server in my home, behind an ISDL line > that blocks incoming smtp port (but not outgoing, for some weird > reason). Now I am able to work around that by arranging relays using > non-standard ports, but I know that for some it would be prohibitively > expensive or otherwise effectively impossible. > > >>>After all, nobody >>>running a mail server is forced to use any blacklist, it is just >>>information they can use or ignore - like a suggestion to boycott >>>a manufacturer for whatever reason. >> >>Sure, but, in practice, most mail servers come with blacklists enabled >>out of the box, > > > I doubt that very much - do you have some statistics? > Tools to use them are generally easily available, though, > and commonly used, but not enabled by default, in my experience. > > >>and no sysadmin would care to remove them only because >>of some "collaterally damaged" users. > > > The ones I use allow making user-specific exceptions. > > >>In the end, it all gets down to common sense. If everyone did not push >>things to the limit, the Internet would not break :) > > > :-) > > Unfortunately, common sense not common enough these days. :-( > > >>but you can't force ISPs not to use dynamic IP(v4) ranges, can you? > > > Actually, I think you could. I'm not arguing it'd be a good idea or > politically feasible, but technically it'd be possible and I can > imagine even political will to do it. (In effect it'd mean requiring > ISPs to maintain lists of their clients' MAC addresses and mapping > them to specific IPs. I know of one doing this so it's not impossible, > and it could be sold to politicians as means of making it easier to > catch criminals.) > > >>So the basic issue with blacklisting IP ranges just because they're >>dynamic will stay. > > > What would you do? > Make it illegal to publish information about which IPs are dynamic? > Make it illegal to filter mail on the basis of sender IP? > > How about instead requiring ISPs to provide static IPs and/or open > ports to customers who request it, at no (significant) extra cost? > (Perhaps requiring signature on some kind of "I understand what > this means and take responsibility" -type paper would be OK.) > > >>By the way - to add one more anecdote - there was an interesting >>discussion between my CEO and my sysadmin (we're a very small >>company...) earlier today. This is absolutely true, almost word by word > > > :-) > > Language barriers between CEOs (or even lesser bosses) and sysadmins > are notorious. However: > > >>SysOp (looking more shocked): "No, I can't add a special rule just for >>that, you know, these rules are being developed for months with lots of >>powerful algorithms, you shouldn't mess with them, these rules are right >>by default!" > > > I rather suspect the sysadmin was pretending here. > Setting up exceptions to spam rules isn't that hard. > Try my ISP "dtag.de". It is the biggest guy in germay but I remember calls to their hotline. I dont think they do even know what spam is. Kind regards Peter and Karin -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ http://www.cesidianroot.com/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From patrick at vande-walle.eu Thu Sep 28 04:40:10 2006 From: patrick at vande-walle.eu (Patrick Vande Walle) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:40:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Antispam practices In-Reply-To: <451B6B7E.3080207@echnaton.serveftp.com> References: <45127BD4.8030004@bertola.eu.org> <451790FC.6060505@vande-walle.eu> <20060925084928.GA16379@nic.fr> <20060925132151.GE12233@tapani.tarvainen.info> <45196604.1070208@bertola.eu.org> <20060928054253.GA4660@tapani.tarvainen.info> <451B6B7E.3080207@echnaton.serveftp.com> Message-ID: <451B8A6A.5090601@vande-walle.eu> Peter Dambier wrote: > I could not use it because they did not support linux. > And my ISP is more often on everybodies blacklist than not. > Try my ISP "dtag.de". It is the biggest guy in germay but I remember > calls to their hotline. I dont think they do even know what spam is. I think that the ISP model is slowly shifting to a clear split between access (ie providing IP connectivity) and services (e-mail, hosting etc). In the past, ISPs did provide connectivity, along with e-mail, home page hosting, Usenet news, DNS, etc. What we see now are alternative providers for these services (Blogger, MSN Spaces, Hotmail, Gmail, etc). For those who do not wish to use these services, they have the opportunity to rent a shared host for less than EUR 10/USD 12 per month and be in total control. The good news is that ISPs which concentrate on just providing access could usually do it cheaper because they would not have to maintain the infrastructure to offer additional services. The bad news is that many ISPs think the 10-year old all-inclusive package still applies and that it is what their customers expect. Until they wake up to the new model, the only thing we can do is vote with our feet. Patrick ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Thu Sep 28 04:45:17 2006 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (tapani.tarvainen at effi.org) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:45:17 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Antispam practices In-Reply-To: <451B6B7E.3080207@echnaton.serveftp.com> References: <45127BD4.8030004@bertola.eu.org> <451790FC.6060505@vande-walle.eu> <20060925084928.GA16379@nic.fr> <20060925132151.GE12233@tapani.tarvainen.info> <45196604.1070208@bertola.eu.org> <20060928054253.GA4660@tapani.tarvainen.info> <451B6B7E.3080207@echnaton.serveftp.com> Message-ID: <20060928084517.GB4660@tapani.tarvainen.info> On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 08:28:14AM +0200, Peter Dambier (peter at echnaton.serveftp.com) wrote: > >Who am I forcing to do what, if I refuse mail from some IP? > > > >OK, I'm forcing those who want to send mail to me to find other means. > >But I think I'm within my rights to do that. > > You are one of those guys who force me to have some 20 mailers, depending > to whom I want to send. Who is forcing you to send mail to me? And what gives you the right to insist I accept it - especially since I have to pay for accepting it? > >May I also publicise information about the courier company and > >its annoying practices and suggest others boycott it, too, > If I am allowed to publicise your annoying practices and > ask them to exclude you from newsletters because you bounce > them anyway. Indeed you are - and please do. I don't want any newsletters I haven't specifically asked for (and when I do that, I make sure my spam filters will let them through). > >accepting email from spam-prone > >address spaces is also expensive. > That is what I am doing right now. I have found out it is much > easier to sort out the spam than having to look into the spamfolder > for lost emails. You don't get enough spam. My spam filter collects about 2000 spam messages every day. And that is _after_ blocked IPs and dictionary attacks &c. (I don't actually block many, mostly I use blacklists just for SpamAssassin scoring, but some I do block.) There is no way I am going to scan all that junk manually. > There are other means like greylists ... Greylisting also causes legitimate mail to be rejected, and its effectiveness is already going down when spämmers are working around it (which is easy enough). > It is a religious war. Some people giving up email completly because it > has shown not to work any longer - others trying to fix it. I don't see anything religious in it. After all, email is just a tool: if it breaks, you either try to fix it or find something better. Disagreements about which fix is best or what tool would be better are perfectly normal and secular, in my opinion. > People trying to get things done the way they like it, have to > run their own mailers or they can CC all the big brothers. Yes. As noted, I run my own mail server - for several reasons, including being able to set up spam filters just the way I want. > >>Also, I am very interested in the principle point about having users > >>forced to go through their ISPs. > I could not use it because they did not support linux. I don't see how they need to know or care what OS their clients use. (In case somebody cares, I also use Linux almost exclusively.) > And my ISP is more often on everybodies blacklist than not. So shouldn't you blame (or change) your ISP rather than blacklist maintainers? Or push for legislation that'd force ISPs to behave? Anyway, if you can't change your ISP, it is always possible to work around their restrictions, if you have the technical and financial means. -- 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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Thu Sep 28 05:23:33 2006 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:23:33 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Antispam practices In-Reply-To: <451B8A6A.5090601@vande-walle.eu> References: <45127BD4.8030004@bertola.eu.org> <451790FC.6060505@vande-walle.eu> <20060925084928.GA16379@nic.fr> <20060925132151.GE12233@tapani.tarvainen.info> <45196604.1070208@bertola.eu.org> <20060928054253.GA4660@tapani.tarvainen.info> <451B6B7E.3080207@echnaton.serveftp.com> <451B8A6A.5090601@vande-walle.eu> Message-ID: <20060928092333.GA8708@tapani.tarvainen.info> On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 10:40:10AM +0200, Patrick Vande Walle (patrick at vande-walle.eu) wrote: > I think that the ISP model is slowly shifting to a clear split between > access (ie providing IP connectivity) and services (e-mail, hosting > etc). There are signs of that in the air, but it is slow. > For those who do not wish to use [hotmail &c], they have the > opportunity to rent a shared host for less than EUR 10/USD 12 per > month and be in total control. Yes. Perhap ISPs will even realize at some point that it would make sense to them to sell static IP with all ports open at some price point below that. > Until they wake up to the new model, the only thing we can do is vote > with our feet. Right. Or with our wallets. :-) But putting some pressure into this, like by some suitable publicity in IGF, might speed things up a little. -- 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 vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Sep 28 07:36:46 2006 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:36:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Antispam practices In-Reply-To: <451A7BBE.5010208@vande-walle.eu> References: <45127BD4.8030004@bertola.eu.org> <451790FC.6060505@vande-walle.eu> <20060925084928.GA16379@nic.fr> <20060925132151.GE12233@tapani.tarvainen.info> <45196604.1070208@bertola.eu.org> <451A7BBE.5010208@vande-walle.eu> Message-ID: <451BB3CE.1030603@bertola.eu.org> Patrick Vande Walle ha scritto: >>To me, this does not look like boycott, since it is not that you are >>stopping to buy some ISP's products (something that affects only you and >>the company you are boycotting): you are actively shutting out of the >>network all customers of that ISP, by blocking their traffic. > > Look at it another way: if your ISP is behaving in a manner that does > not suit the way you want to use the Internet (by blocking ports, using > blacklists, etc), you are free to switch to a competitor. And if basically all major ISPs in a country behave like that? In Italy I use Wind/Libero/Infostrada and I am blacklisted, don't even think about Telecom Italia, Fastweb is being blacklisted everywhere for its practice of reusing other people's IPs... Many smaller ones just resell IP blocks and services from the big ones... I'm not sure things would get any better for me if I switched ISP - and we are talking about one of the biggest European countries. Just imagine in other parts of the world! Or what if you live in a country where you can only pick one (national) ISP? I remember, a few years ago, watching the Syrian delegate in an ITU meeting complain about the entire country (ie the national ISP) being blacklisted for some days and being unable to communicate with the world by email. It's not that I don't see the market solution and the importance of getting ISPs to behave, but I just don't assume that users are always in a position to switch ISP, or that not being blacklisted should become the main criterion to pick your ISP. Most users don't even understand what blacklisting is, you can't expect them to deal with this problem. And then, actually what you are suggesting is that I should only pick ISPs that give me static IP addresses, since dynamic ranges are being blacklisted anyway just for that reason :-( -- 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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Thu Sep 28 08:34:40 2006 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:34:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Antispam practices In-Reply-To: <451BB3CE.1030603@bertola.eu.org> References: <45127BD4.8030004@bertola.eu.org> <451790FC.6060505@vande-walle.eu> <20060925084928.GA16379@nic.fr> <20060925132151.GE12233@tapani.tarvainen.info> <45196604.1070208@bertola.eu.org> <451A7BBE.5010208@vande-walle.eu> <451BB3CE.1030603@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <20060928123440.GA10398@tapani.tarvainen.info> On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 01:36:46PM +0200, Vittorio Bertola (vb at bertola.eu.org) wrote: > >Look at it another way: if your ISP is behaving in a manner that does > >not suit the way you want to use the Internet (by blocking ports, using > >blacklists, etc), you are free to switch to a competitor. > > And if basically all major ISPs in a country behave like that? Well, which sounds easier: getting one (major) ISP to change its ways, or persuading all mail server admins in the world to change theirs? ISPs *will* change their ways if they become convinced it'll bring them more money. Probably not enough people care or even know about the issue to make them a difference as such, but some might be persuaded by the idea that it'd be good publicity-wise, especially if some prominent people would make noise about it. > Or what if you live in a country where you can only pick one > (national) ISP? And that one is really bad. Well, been there, done that, in Saudi Arabia of all places, and I did build myself a way around their blockades (also for www). But not everyone would be in a position to do that. > It's not that I don't see the market solution and the importance of > getting ISPs to behave, but I just don't assume that users are always in > a position to switch ISP, or that not being blacklisted should become > the main criterion to pick your ISP. Most users don't even understand > what blacklisting is, you can't expect them to deal with this problem. Of course not. For most it is no problem if someone who can't or won't use their ISPs or other well-known service providers (like Google) mail service can't send them mail. But it does not have to become the main criterion: even a minor criterion can make a difference, if there's net profit in it. And since those who are hurt by stupid ISPs are probably more able than average in getting their voice heard and certainly more technically savvy than most, their opinion might count. Even if Joe Average has no clue what blacklisting is, he might consider it that if someone known to be knowledgeable says certain ISP is clueless. > And then, actually what you are suggesting is that I should only pick > ISPs that give me static IP addresses, since dynamic ranges are being > blacklisted anyway just for that reason :-( As a practical alternative, how about getting yourself a mail relay with static IP? It will cost you something like 10-20 eur/month. (And it could be shared by quite a few people, as long as you trust they're not spammers.) -- 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 avri at acm.org Thu Sep 28 09:00:22 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:00:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Update on voting for charter Message-ID: Hi, Only 4 days left and 20 people shy of quorum! If you haven't voted, please do so soon (before end of day 2 October). If any of your friends haven't voted yet, please remind them personally to vote. If we don't meet quorum on this vote as defined in the proposed charter, then the last few months of work will be lost and the caucus will essentially need to start the process anew. Personally I think it is time to elect real coordinators and to get on with the real work of this caucus. thanks. 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 From avri at acm.org Thu Sep 28 09:58:06 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:58:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Update on voting for charter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <106A2C85-E059-4294-ABB7-70C8C9E18B51@acm.org> hi again, On 28 sep 2006, at 09.00, Avri Doria wrote: > If you haven't voted, please do so soon (before end of day 2 October). > If any of your friends haven't voted yet, please remind them > personally to vote. I have been asked, offlist, to publish a list of people who have voted/not voted. I am uncomfortable about doing that for several reasons - though per the charter approval process will publish the list of those who voted (but not how they voted) at the end of the vote. Part of the reason I am uncomfortable is that the voters list is currently listed in terms of email addresses and I will need to map it to people's names before I publish it. I have no intention of publishing a list of email addresses on a public list and don't have the time today to do the mapping of addresses to names. Another reason is that I don't want to resort to public display as a forcing mechanism (i prefer to rely on persistent nagging). I would, however, like to remind the igc-voters that they can discover which of their friends and colleagues have voted through eVote. To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org Subject: IGC Charter vote eVote who 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 Sep 28 10:23:11 2006 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:23:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] Update on voting for charter In-Reply-To: References: <106A2C85-E059-4294-ABB7-70C8C9E18B51@acm.org> Message-ID: Dear Avri, Thank you so much for your persistant and continuous effort. I agree with you that publishing the names who voted at this stage is not the ideal situation. I also share your concern that all the efforts you and other members on this list made is now at stake, unless we reach the target numbers of the vote. So I appeal to those who have not voted yet, even it looks complicated, it is not so, just following the step one by one, it is easy. I think the impact and significance of this caucus is greater, perhaps, than most of us think. Let's keep our momentum by reaching the quorum. izumi 2006/9/28, Avri Doria : > > hi again, > > On 28 sep 2006, at 09.00, Avri Doria wrote: > > > If you haven't voted, please do so soon (before end of day 2 October). > > If any of your friends haven't voted yet, please remind them > > personally to vote. > > > I have been asked, offlist, to publish a list of people who have > voted/not voted. I am uncomfortable about doing that for several > reasons - though per the charter approval process will publish the > list of those who voted (but not how they voted) at the end of the vote. > > Part of the reason I am uncomfortable is that the voters list is > currently listed in terms of email addresses and I will need to map > it to people's names before I publish it. I have no intention of > publishing a list of email addresses on a public list and don't have > the time today to do the mapping of addresses to names. Another > reason is that I don't want to resort to public display as a forcing > mechanism (i prefer to rely on persistent nagging). > > I would, however, like to remind the igc-voters that they can > discover which of their friends and colleagues have voted through eVote. > > To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org > Subject: IGC Charter vote > eVote who > > a. -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, University of Tama * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Thu Sep 28 12:44:05 2006 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 18:44:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update on voting for charter In-Reply-To: References: <106A2C85-E059-4294-ABB7-70C8C9E18B51@acm.org> Message-ID: Yes Avri ResortIng to a public display as a forcing mechanism will not yield genuine votes as people will vote to satisfy the urge of the mechanism. I think what you are currentlt doing is appropriate and should continue Warm regards On 9/28/06, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear Avri, > > Thank you so much for your persistant and continuous effort. > > I agree with you that publishing the names who voted at this stage > is not the ideal situation. I also share your concern that all the efforts > you > and other members on this list made is now at stake, unless we reach > the target numbers of the vote. > > So I appeal to those who have not voted yet, even it looks complicated, > it is not so, just following the step one by one, it is easy. > > I think the impact and significance of this caucus is greater, perhaps, > than most of us think. Let's keep our momentum by reaching the quorum. > > izumi > > > 2006/9/28, Avri Doria : > > hi again, > > > > On 28 sep 2006, at 09.00, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > If you haven't voted, please do so soon (before end of day 2 October). > > > If any of your friends haven't voted yet, please remind them > > > personally to vote. > > > > > > I have been asked, offlist, to publish a list of people who have > > voted/not voted. I am uncomfortable about doing that for several > > reasons - though per the charter approval process will publish the > > list of those who voted (but not how they voted) at the end of the vote. > > > > Part of the reason I am uncomfortable is that the voters list is > > currently listed in terms of email addresses and I will need to map > > it to people's names before I publish it. I have no intention of > > publishing a list of email addresses on a public list and don't have > > the time today to do the mapping of addresses to names. Another > > reason is that I don't want to resort to public display as a forcing > > mechanism (i prefer to rely on persistent nagging). > > > > I would, however, like to remind the igc-voters that they can > > discover which of their friends and colleagues have voted through eVote. > > > > To: igc-voters at igcaucus.org > > Subject: IGC Charter vote > > eVote who > > > > a. > > > > -- > >> 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 > > > -- 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Sep 29 04:12:03 2006 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:12:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update on voting for charter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <451CD553.6000302@wz-berlin.de> Hi, the problem we are facing with reaching the quorum I think reflects the double function of this list. As I have suggested before, many subscribers of this list are here not because they regard themselves as members of the caucus but because they want to follow and at times contribute to our debates on Internet Governance. The number of subscribers who see themselves as proper members of the caucus is probably much smaller. The problem with the quorum is that it cannot distinguish between these two groups of subscribers and thus reflects all of them. Should we not reach the quorum I would suggest that as a next step we try to find out who actually belongs to the caucus by asking people to identify themselves as members. However, having looked at the voters list yesterday I must say that there still are quite a few who I would definitely categorize as caucus members and who havn't got around to vote. Its amazing how very busy the Internet Governance crowd is... jeanette Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Only 4 days left and 20 people shy of quorum! > > If you haven't voted, please do so soon (before end of day 2 October). > If any of your friends haven't voted yet, please remind them personally > to vote. > > If we don't meet quorum on this vote as defined in the proposed > charter, then the last few months of work will be lost and the caucus > will essentially need to start the process anew. Personally I think it > is time to elect real coordinators and to get on with the real work of > this caucus. > > thanks. > 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Fri Sep 29 05:59:58 2006 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:59:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update on voting for charter In-Reply-To: <451CD553.6000302@wz-berlin.de> References: <451CD553.6000302@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: Hi Jeannette Your analysis is perfect, but I think that members should find some moment (of their tight schedule) to vote. This will help in ligitimizing the process. The voting process does not take up to three minutes Aaron On 9/29/06, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > > the problem we are facing with reaching the quorum I think reflects the > double function of this list. As I have suggested before, many > subscribers of this list are here not because they regard themselves as > members of the caucus but because they want to follow and at times > contribute to our debates on Internet Governance. The number of > subscribers who see themselves as proper members of the caucus is > probably much smaller. The problem with the quorum is that it cannot > distinguish between these two groups of subscribers and thus reflects > all of them. > Should we not reach the quorum I would suggest that as a next step we > try to find out who actually belongs to the caucus by asking people to > identify themselves as members. > > However, having looked at the voters list yesterday I must say that > there still are quite a few who I would definitely categorize as caucus > members and who havn't got around to vote. Its amazing how very busy the > Internet Governance crowd is... > jeanette > > Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Only 4 days left and 20 people shy of quorum! > > > > If you haven't voted, please do so soon (before end of day 2 October). > > If any of your friends haven't voted yet, please remind them personally > > to vote. > > > > If we don't meet quorum on this vote as defined in the proposed > > charter, then the last few months of work will be lost and the caucus > > will essentially need to start the process anew. Personally I think it > > is time to elect real coordinators and to get on with the real work of > > this caucus. > > > > thanks. > > 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 > -- 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Sep 29 05:56:39 2006 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 19:56:39 +1000 Subject: [governance] Update on voting for charter In-Reply-To: <451CD553.6000302@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <011401c6e3ad$91ad2a10$4a02a8c0@IAN> Jeanette got it right below, but I have to add a couple more factors In an age where electronic voting is being promoted as an enabling democractic option for national elections, and when I have just completed a national census online with a very simple interface, THIS HAS BEEN AN UNBELIEVABLY COMPLEX PROCESS! Software is a mile above the functionality we have been asked to deal with. WE HAVE BEEN OBSESSED WITH PROCESS The process we have been through has only been exceeded in Internet history by the excesses of the ICANN Whois debates and the odd esoteric IETF debate. Less than a month out from IGF this list has been dominated with process rather than substance. That being said, my last shout is PLEASE VOTE NOW Because we have to move on from here, and if like me to date we all hang off from voting in the next few days because of frustration with the process we only go backwards and have to start again. (which, believe it or not, would be worse). Our only way forward is to agree on a process and elect some coordinators. LETS DO IT (oops, promised not to shout any more) Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de] Sent: 29 September 2006 18:12 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Update on voting for charter Hi, the problem we are facing with reaching the quorum I think reflects the double function of this list. As I have suggested before, many subscribers of this list are here not because they regard themselves as members of the caucus but because they want to follow and at times contribute to our debates on Internet Governance. The number of subscribers who see themselves as proper members of the caucus is probably much smaller. The problem with the quorum is that it cannot distinguish between these two groups of subscribers and thus reflects all of them. Should we not reach the quorum I would suggest that as a next step we try to find out who actually belongs to the caucus by asking people to identify themselves as members. However, having looked at the voters list yesterday I must say that there still are quite a few who I would definitely categorize as caucus members and who havn't got around to vote. Its amazing how very busy the Internet Governance crowd is... jeanette Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Only 4 days left and 20 people shy of quorum! > > If you haven't voted, please do so soon (before end of day 2 October). > If any of your friends haven't voted yet, please remind them personally > to vote. > > If we don't meet quorum on this vote as defined in the proposed > charter, then the last few months of work will be lost and the caucus > will essentially need to start the process anew. Personally I think it > is time to elect real coordinators and to get on with the real work of > this caucus. > > thanks. > 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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.9/458 - Release Date: 27/09/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.9/458 - Release Date: 27/09/2006 ____________________________________________________________ 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 pbatreau at epistrophe.fr Fri Sep 29 09:41:52 2006 From: pbatreau at epistrophe.fr (Philippe Batreau) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:41:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Isoc Chapters meeting at World e-Gov Forum Issy les Moulineaux october 18th 2006 Message-ID: <005901c6e3cd$070e3410$0302a8c0@D7YRWF2J> Hello, An ISOC Chapters meeting will take place during the World e-Gov Forum 2006 in Issy les Moulineaux, near Paris - France, on the 18th of October from 6 to 8pm. Program: - Presentation of ISOC World, the French chapter and of each chapter represented. You are most welcome to attend: please let us know ASAP ! We need your confirmation. The dynamic of the World e-Gov Forum is supported by the common will of all its protagonists to: - Build a Knowledge Society by implementing the WSIS's commitments (World Summit on the Information Society - Geneva 2003 / Tunis 2005). Set up a global exchange and sharing tool for each community concerned - Bring together local, national, economic authorities and civil society to build the "Universal Digital Citizenship" . The World e-Gov Forum is based on 3 major ambitions: - Being an international reference place for exchanging between Peers. - Being practical for each protagonist concerned - Being a recommendation thanks to the quality of debates More information : http://www.worldegovforum.com/?lang=en Registration fees are half price for Isoc members. You can register here: http://www.worldegovforum.com/inscription.php3?id_rubrique=18 Then, specify the special offer code WEG-IST-B-835 for ISOC members' registration. Best regards, Philippe Batreau http://www.isoc.fr -------------- 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 Fri Sep 29 11:02:34 2006 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:02:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Update on voting for charter In-Reply-To: <451CD553.6000302@wz-berlin.de> References: <451CD553.6000302@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <5BD859A5-E3E9-44D6-A29A-93B97190422B@acm.org> Hi, A couple of comments to two different emails On 29 sep 2006, at 04.12, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > > the problem we are facing with reaching the quorum I think reflects > the double function of this list. As I have suggested before, many > subscribers of this list are here not because they regard > themselves as members of the caucus but because they want to follow > and at times contribute to our debates on Internet Governance. I think that is part of the reason for a quorum and the size of the quorum in the voting. The governance list has 294 subscribers. Of these, I was able to attach individual names to 174 list members. So requiring 50 to identify themselves as members of the caucus only constitutes 30% of identifiable subscribers, and 15% of all subscribers. As hard as it is to reach 50, i think this is a minimum reasonable threshold for any legitimacy claims we may make for the IGC. Incidentally, since 1 apr 2006 - more then 50 people have contributed email to this list. > However, having looked at the voters list yesterday I must say that > there still are quite a few who I would definitely categorize as > caucus members and who havn't got around to vote. And so far only 41 have voted. 9 more to go folks. btw, getting more then 50 would be good too - but i am an optimist. On 29 sep 2006, at 05.56, Ian Peter wrote: > > In an age where electronic voting is being promoted as an enabling > democractic option for national elections, and when I have just > completed a > national census online with a very simple interface, > > THIS HAS BEEN AN UNBELIEVABLY COMPLEX PROCESS! Yes, using plain text email is rather complex. And I am afraid that the detail I have gone to in trying to explaining it has made it seem a lot more complex then it really is. But I am not one to judge; compared to installing the software on an old linux box it seems rather straightforward to me. Also, I would prefer to offer a simple web interface and there is a volunteer working on this now. Hopefully we will have it before any more votes are inflicted on the list. If the IGC persists and if it continues to use voting as a means of decision, then i believe that, in time, we will have an easy-to-use tool that is attuned to the needs of this group. And i am hoping that i can make use of this FOSS tool available to other CS groups who may want a free (as in no cost) place to vote on stuff. I do want to point out that this voting tool is a fascinating tool that offers a lot of power to the individual voter. For example, its ability to allow any voter subscribed on the list to create a poll on any topic of interest is quite novel and something i would love to see used in the future. That is, votes do not only originate from coordinators, any member can initiate a poll. If someone is curious about what people think about something, they can poll on the subject. It also has an interesting petition capability i have not taken any account of yet. > > Software is a mile above the functionality we have been asked to > deal with. > > I also agree that a simpler interface would have been piossible if we had the fund to pay for a commercial voting service. Thought, because this is open softare and becasue I believe it is a tool that in time can be used in interesting and hopefully valuable tool in further developing our notions of on-line democracy. I would also argue that given the full set of functionality that this tool offers, it probably offers more functionality then most voting software systems, it just offers less user friendliness. Personally i am grateful every time a substantive topic takes root on the list. and i do wish we were doing more in relation to the IGF. > WE HAVE BEEN OBSESSED WITH PROCESS > > The process we have been through has only been exceeded in Internet > history > by the excesses of the ICANN Whois debates and the odd esoteric > IETF debate. > Less than a month out from IGF this list has been dominated with > process > rather than substance. Hmmm, second only to ICANN and IETF? Since I am involved in both, perhaps it is a reflection of a bug i caught. On the other hand, i see both of these as examples of groups that have worked toward a participatory model and have succeeded to various degrees in coming up with methods that can be tried and used. I don't think either ICANN or IETF is anywhere close to perfect and can probably be quoted by several people on this list as having railed against both of them at various times. I do, however, beleive that how one achieves participatory democracy, especially when working with an affinity based non-membership organization, is still a subject for experimentation. I also believe that given the nature of group dynamics and competing world views in such a group often involves processes that appear somewhat gothic. But yes, an autocratic structure would be simpler, and perhaps there is a simpler form of participatory democracy that would work for IGC, but i don't know what it is, and those who participated in creating the proposed charter did not arrive at something simpler. Also, I admit that my concerns has been mostly process, but then again that is all my mandate from the group covers. The whole point behind a charter etc is to give the IGC an organizational basis from which it can do the more interesting and valuable stuff. I also admit that i find our attempt to create a system that can work for participatory democracy in a group such as this an interesting challenge. > > That being said, my last shout is > > PLEASE VOTE NOW > > yeah, what he said. 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Sep 29 14:15:00 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:15:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN DOC References: <005901c6e3cd$070e3410$0302a8c0@D7YRWF2J> Message-ID: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F30437EC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-29sep06.htm FYI 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 Sat Sep 30 07:17:24 2006 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 07:17:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] DOC & ICANN Message-ID: >>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 9/30/2006 >There are some interesting elements in the new agreement between DOC >and ICANN, in particular in the Annex. Having quickly read the new agreement, I can say now that the new document seems to respond to the overwhelming demand of the public for more independence from the US government, but it does so mainly in rhetorical terms. It dresses the old MoU in new clothes. It more strongly affirms the parties' intention to transition to the private sector, and it urges ICANN to work on its accountability, both of which were called for by many commentors in the NTIA NOI. But the new document is no less prescriptive than the last one. Indeed, in at least one area that should be of interest to human rights advocates, WHOIS, it is drastically more prescriptive, insisting that "ICANN shall continue to enforce existing policy relating to WHOIS," and that the existing policy requires that icann maintain "timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete Whois information." It even specifies what kind of contact information and the prescription seems particularly targeted at current GNSO activity, which would elimninate the distinction btween administrative and technical contact. So clearly the US continues to meddle in the icann's policy process via its contractual arrangement. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Sep 30 06:04:35 2006 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:04:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] DOC & ICANN References: <005901c6e3cd$070e3410$0302a8c0@D7YRWF2J> Message-ID: <3AEE633F500281489D5F3303731CE9F30437F0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear list There are some interesting elements in the new agreement between DOC and ICANN, in particular in the Annex. Here are some points worth to discuss, also in our academic GIGANet conference in Athens: 1. The new agreement is neither a continuation of the old MoU nor a "handover" of responsibilities from the NTIA/DOC to ICANN but it is not yet the end of the "transition phase". It is one step towards greater independence but it is not yet independence. It gives the impression of a more equal partnership between one government and a global corporation in the task to guarantee the security and stability of the internet. It reaffirms the four principles of the White Paper (1998). It avoids terminology like "oversight". It does not continue with the duty of ICANN to report on a regular basis to the DOC. Instead there will be "regular meetings" between DOC and ICANN senior management "to assess progress". ICANN will report "annually" to the broader public, the DOC will have its own independent "mid-term review" (March 2008). And the DOC will "monitor the performance of the activities". The agreement terminates in September, 30, 2009. This is nine month for the new "Post-Bush-Administration" to come with new and fresh ideas. (Will Hillary complete the unfinished business of her husband?) 2. The key issues of the authorization of the publicaiton of root zone files and the so-called IANA function, which includes DOC oversight, is not subject of this agreement.This was regulated in the special IANA contract, signed already end of August 2006 between the DOC and ICANN. This contract doesn´t change anything and legalizes the continuation of the established practice. The contract can be terminated every year, but can last until 2011. 3. With regard to Root Servers, it is a little bit unclear, what the real meaning of the agreement is. In Section I, para. 2 the DOC will "continue to consult with the managers of root name servers operated by the US government and with other responsible US government agencies with respect to operational and security matters, both physical and network, of such root name servers". In the Annex, it is said that ICANN shall "continue to coordinate with the operators of root name servers" and it will work "to formalize relationships with root name server operators." Is the plan to have a division of labour? What about the "Hidden Server", operated by VeriSign?. Is this operation covered by Section I, para.2? And what about the other root servers, operated by private entities under US jurisdiction? 4. The "Agreement" uses the language of "private sector leadership", reaffirms the principles of bottom up coordination and representation but avoids to use the terminology of "multistakeholderism". In contrast in the "Annex", ICANN speaks about a "multi-stakeholder model". (Preamble). Furthermore, in Article 6 of the Annex it is said that "ICANN shall maintain and improve multi-stakeholder model and the global participation of all stakeholders". Lets wait and see what this means. 5. ICANN plans to become "a leader in the area of transparency for organisations involved in private sector management" (Annex, Para. 2). In this effort, ICANN will get support from the DOC which will "continue to provide expertise and advise on methods and administrative procedures to encourage greater transparency, accountabiölity and openess in the consideration and adoption of policies." (Section I, Article 1). ICANN itself will "improve openess and accessibility for enhanced participation in ICANN´s bottom up participatory policy development process (Annex, Para. 3). And it will "develop processes for taking into account receommednations from ICANN´s advisory committees (which includes also ALAC - w.k.) and supporting organisations and other relevant exüert advisory panels and organisation." (Annex, para. 5) 6. With regard to IP Adressing, ICANN will continue "to incorporate RIRs policy making activities into the ICANN processes while allowing them to continue their technical work." ICANN will maintain legal agreements with thre RIRs "and such other apropriate organisations" (what are "such other appropriate organisations"? NIRs? - w.k.). Hope this will stimulate debate. best regards 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