From avri at psg.com Sun Apr 1 10:44:14 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 10:44:14 -0400 Subject: SV: [governance] Statement for the Feb 13 meeting In-Reply-To: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01033928@ensms02.iris.se> References: <200703300207.l2U27D2P022800@muse.enst.fr> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01033928@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <68E78255-0B13-4839-A4FE-79BBC90AD1C6@psg.com> Done, you had but to ask. a. On 31 mar 2007, at 09.09, Kicki Nordström wrote: > Dear Avri and all, > > Please, note my new e-mail address to: > kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org > > Until I can get help with the change of my e-mail address, I can > not communicate with the list! > > Warm regards > Kicki > > > Kicki Nordström > Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) > World Blind Union (WBU) > 122 88 Enskede > Sweden > Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 > Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 > Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 > E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org > > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Från: Louis Pouzin [mailto:pouzin at well.com] > Skickat: den 30 mars 2007 04:07 > Till: Avri Doria > Kopia: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Ämne: [governance] Statement for the Feb 13 meeting > > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:16:44 +0100, Avri Doria wrote: > >> the 46 listed on the web site include the 6 regional members and >> they were just blended into the advisory group list. that plus the >> 6 special advisers ma 52de. > > Hi Avri, > > Who is the 6th special adviser ? The list mentions 5: > http://www.intgovforum.org/ADG_members_chairs_Adv.htm > > Best > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Sun Apr 1 10:55:11 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 10:55:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] Statement for the Feb 13 meeting In-Reply-To: References: <200703300207.l2U27D2P022800@muse.enst.fr> Message-ID: <2BD4C7A3-6778-4C4E-8D97-55B830032C5B@psg.com> hi, yep, i was wrong. as far as i can tell there are only UN 5 regions (a difficult concept for me) and thus there are 5 special advisors to offset. and yes there seems to be 1 person more then my understanding of the formula goes. so either i misunderstand the formula or there was some reason for making an exception to it somewhere along the line or i can't count. cheers a. On 30 mar 2007, at 05.30, Avri Doria wrote: > i must be wrong. i will confirm that and get back to you. > > a. > > On 30 mar 2007, at 09.47, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > >> Dear Avri >> >> I agree with Louis and please can you clarify as here are the 5 names >> as found on the link provided >> Advisory Group - Special Advisers to the Chair >> Kleinwächter, Wolfgang >> Aarhus - Professor, International Communication Policy and >> Regulation, >> University of Aarhus >> >> Kurbalija, Jovan >> Geneva/La Valetta - Director, DiploFoundation >> >> Miloshevic, Desiree >> London - Afilias, ISOC Board Member >> >> Sadowsky, George >> Stamford, CT - Executive Director, Global Internet Policy Initiative >> >> Shaw, Heather >> New York - Director, International Telecommunications and Information >> Policy, United States Council for International Business >> >> >> WHO IS THEREFORE THE SIXTH PERSON >> >> Best regards from >> Aaron >> >> On 3/30/07, Louis Pouzin wrote: >>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:16:44 +0100, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> >the 46 listed on the web site include the 6 regional members and >>> they were just blended into the advisory group list. that plus >>> the 6 special advisers ma 52de. >>> >>> Hi Avri, >>> >>> Who is the 6th special adviser ? The list mentions 5: >>> http://www.intgovforum.org/ADG_members_chairs_Adv.htm >>> >>> Best >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> >> >> -- >> Aaron Agien Nyangkwe >> Journalist/Outcome Mapper >> Special Assistant To The President >> ASAFE >> P.O.Box 5213 >> Douala-Cameroon >> 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 >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sun Apr 1 18:42:28 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 06:42:28 +0800 Subject: [governance] Statement for the Feb 13 meeting In-Reply-To: <2BD4C7A3-6778-4C4E-8D97-55B830032C5B@psg.com> References: <200703300207.l2U27D2P022800@muse.enst.fr> <2BD4C7A3-6778-4C4E-8D97-55B830032C5B@psg.com> Message-ID: <46103554.7020109@Malcolm.id.au> Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > yep, i was wrong. > as far as i can tell > there are only UN 5 regions (a difficult concept for me) Although there are six regions for other UN purposes (Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, Northern America and Oceania), the Regional Commissions are divided differently: North America and Oceania are dropped, and Asia is split into "Asia and the Pacific" and "Western Asia". So do you know which AG members are/were the regional representatives? Thanks! -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu Mon Apr 2 08:24:57 2007 From: jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu (John Mathiason) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:24:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Statement for the Feb 13 meeting In-Reply-To: <46103554.7020109@Malcolm.id.au> References: <200703300207.l2U27D2P022800@muse.enst.fr> <2BD4C7A3-6778-4C4E-8D97-55B830032C5B@psg.com> <46103554.7020109@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: In this case, the five regions are those that are used for elections purposes (Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean and Western European and Other States). This is how Bureau seats and other membership allocations are made. Regards, John R. Mathiason Adjunct Professor of International Relations Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs Syracuse University On Apr 1, 2007, at 18:42, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Avri Doria wrote: >> hi, >> yep, i was wrong. >> as far as i can tell >> there are only UN 5 regions (a difficult concept for me) > > Although there are six regions for other UN purposes (Africa, Asia, > Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, Northern America and > Oceania), the Regional Commissions are divided differently: North > America and Oceania are dropped, and Asia is split into "Asia and > the Pacific" and "Western Asia". > > So do you know which AG members are/were the regional representatives? > > Thanks! > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Apr 2 08:31:53 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:31:53 +0900 Subject: [governance] public consultation for Rio on May 23 In-Reply-To: <460E5002.90009@wz-berlin.de> References: <460D50D0.4050700@wz-berlin.de> <20070330235958.5896419AA2F@mail.gn.apc.org> <460E5002.90009@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: Seems very likely that the main themes will remain the same, thou emphasis may shift to Access. Good chance there will be a call for papers on emerging issues (it will also be a session again, but hopefully more informed this time... hence a call for papers. Papers would be short, 3-5 pages.) Starting to prepare ideas for emerging issues would be a good idea. Adam >Hi Karen and Vittorio, > >the advisory group is expected to meet afterwards on May 24 and 25. >Its a bit preliminary though since the secretariat needs to get >final confirmation from New York. > >As far as the purpose is concerned, my understanding is that the >open consultation in February had more of a stock taking character >to find out what people liked and what they disliked about the >Athen's meeting. > >As Robin has already reported, the secretariat understood that the >general format was well received. So, the four sessions will most >likely remain, just the order could change. >There also be an open call for workshops again. However, it could be >that the secretariat together with the advisory group also organizes >a few workshops. This hasn't been decided yet and could be a point >of discussion in May. >I think it would be good to take into account the secretariat's >paper. It might address issues the caucus wants to pick up. > >jeanette > > > >karen banks wrote: >>hi jeanette >> >>and when will the MAG meet? >> >>karen >> >>At 19:02 30/03/2007, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >>>Hi everyone, >>> >>>the IGF secretariat plans to hold a public consultation for >>>preparing the next forum meeting this year. Subject of the >>>consultation is the agenda and the programme for the Rio de >>>Janeiro meeting. >>> >>>The consultation will take place in Geneva at the ITU on 23 May. >>>Contributions as input into the discussions are welcome. >>> >>>The secretariat is working on a paper on a draft programme/agenda >>>outline which should be available on its website in the second >>>half of April. >>> >>>So, the caucus should perhaps start discussing potential >>>contributions to the consultation. >>> >>>Jeanette >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 Mon Apr 2 08:46:58 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 14:46:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement for the Feb 13 meeting In-Reply-To: References: <200703300207.l2U27D2P022800@muse.enst.fr> <2BD4C7A3-6778-4C4E-8D97-55B830032C5B@psg.com> <46103554.7020109@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: >From John's rmarks and a cursory look at the names, one can easily make that not all regions are represented. It appears like it was getting 5? resource persons to which the 5 aptly qualify, than having representatives of regions. No one will doubt that the outcome of a meeting of resource persons and that of representative cannot be the same. So there is need for some clarification here Warm regards from a very hot Cameroon Aaron On 4/2/07, John Mathiason wrote: > In this case, the five regions are those that are used for elections > purposes (Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Eastern Europe, Latin America and > the Caribbean and Western European and Other States). This is how Bureau > seats and other membership allocations are made. > > Regards, > > > > John R. Mathiason > > Adjunct Professor of International Relations > > Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs > > Syracuse University > > > On Apr 1, 2007, at 18:42, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > yep, i was wrong. > as far as i can tell > there are only UN 5 regions (a difficult concept for me) > > Although there are six regions for other UN purposes (Africa, Asia, Europe, > Latin America and the Caribbean, Northern America and Oceania), the Regional > Commissions are divided differently: North America and Oceania are dropped, > and Asia is split into "Asia and the Pacific" and "Western Asia". > > So do you know which AG members are/were the regional representatives? > > Thanks! > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! > '{print $3}' > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon 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 Mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 2 14:07:37 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 14:07:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Political Implications of DNSSEC: Serial Blog begins today Message-ID: Today, IGP launches a month-long series of blog entries on DNS security, focusing specifically on the problem of cryptographically signing the DNS root zone. We will explore some of the hidden and not-so-hidden political implications of this technical change. http://blog.internetgovernance.org/ We will show how DNSSEC implementation, if handled properly, creates an opportunity to overcome some of the thorny global governance issues associated with the current root zone file management procedure. These postings -- hopefully with the aid of your comments -- will evolve into a new position paper on the politics and economics of DNSSEC to be released in May. The ideas will be discussed at the Symposium on "Internet Governance and Security: Exploring Global and National Solutions," in Washington, DC, May 17, 2007. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Apr 2 14:57:47 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:57:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] Political Implications of DNSSEC: Serial Blog begins today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Milton, Why serialize it?? Inquiring minds want to know your Master Plan!! I'm off to the Swahili coast for a week, I guess I'll read it all when I get back. ;-( -- 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 robin at ipjustice.org Mon Apr 2 22:26:35 2007 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 19:26:35 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names Message-ID: <4611BB5B.4030802@ipjustice.org> From my cyberlaw blog: http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/04/02/icann_board_votexxx ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names The ICANN Meeting in Lisbon last week ended with an important vote by the ICANN Board of Directors on the application to create a new top level domain ".XXX". On 30 March 2007 the ICANN Board voted 9-5 to block the introduction of the new .XXX domain name space for non-technical reasons. This vote has important implications in the larger debate at ICANN to set the general policy over the introduction of new top level domains. While Friday's vote was specific to the application for a .XXX domain name space, the Board Members' vote signals their position as to whether they are comfortable with ICANN expanding its mission to become a regulator of online human behavior. By voting to turn down the .XXX application for public policy reasons, the Board indicated it will go beyond its technical mission of DNS coordination and seek to decide what ideas are allowed to be given a voice in the new domain name space. Unfortunately, it looks like it will be impossible for any idea that is politically or culturally controversial to be permitted a new domain name space by ICANN. ICANN is setting itself up as an institution of censorship and subordination to the conflicting goals of governments. In her dissent, ICANN Board Member Susan Crawford, who is also an Internet Law Professor at Cardozo Law School, warned against a policy that would require the ICANN Board to make subjective determinations on tld aplications. "We should be examining generic TLD applicants on the basis of their technical and financial strength. We should avoid dealing with content concerns to the maximum extent possible. We should be opening up new TLDs." Crawford's remarks focused the debate back on first-principles and ICANN's technical mission needing to remain neutral on "content" issues. "To the extent some of my colleagues on the board believe that ICANN should be in the business of deciding whether a particular TLD makes a valuable contribution to the namespace, I differ with them. I do not think ICANN is capable of making such a determination." Crawford's comments were well received by many in the ICANN community. "I must dissent from this resolution, which is not only weak but unprincipled. I'm troubled by the path the board has followed on this issue since I joined the board in December of 2005. I'd like to make two points. First, ICANN only creates problems for itself when it acts in an ad hoc fashion in response to political pressures. Second, ICANN should take itself seriously, as a private governance institution with a limited mandate and should resist efforts by governments to veto what it does." In her conclusion, Crawford stated, "this content-related censorship should not be ICANN's concern and ICANN should not allow itself to be used as a private lever for government content control by making up reasons to avoid the creation of such a TLD in the first place. To the extent there are public policy concerns with this TLD, they can be dealt with through local laws." Earlier this year NCUC proposed a new tld policy in which local law, not ICANN policy, would regulate domain name registrations. NCUC Chairman Professor Milton Mueller questioned GNSO Chairman Bruce Tonkin during the GNSO Public Forum in Lisbon on the proposal's censorious impact. Mueller cited as an example how the proposal would allow the Catholic Church to prevent a .abortion domain name space. Tonkin has been nominated to serve as a member of ICANN Board of Directors (Seat #13). Milton Mueller: "And I think that’s tragic, that you are basically saying — you are creating a political process of censorship. You’re sort of abandoning 300 years of liberal ideology about freedom of expression and saying that we are going to decide what is allowed to be uttered at the top level based on an alleged universality that doesn’t exist. And I would just remind you that one of the ways that we ended several centuries of religious warfare was not by deciding which religion was right; it was by the principle of tolerance, which allowed all the religions to exist and separated state power from expression and conscious and belief." The dissenting 5 ICANN Board Members who voted against the resolution to prevent a TLD application for non-technical reasons deserve the public's appreciation: Susan Crawford, Peter Dengate-Thrush, Dave Wodelet, Joichi Ito, Rajasekhar Ramaraj. Thank you! Here's how the ICANN Board Voted on the .XXX Application: 9 Yes - 5 No - 1 Abstentian (Paul Twomey) Yes Vote = Prevent .XXX Application = Censorship at ICANN: Vint Cerf (ICANN Chairman) Roberto Gaetano Steve Goldstein Njeri Rionge Raimundo Beca Rita Rodin Vanda Scartezini Demi Getschko Alejandro Pisanty No Vote = Permit .XXX Application = Stick to Technical Mission & Remain Content-Neutral: Susan Crawford Peter Dengate-Thrush Dave Wodelet Joichi Ito Rajasekhar Ramaraj Susan Crawford's Thoughtful Dissent: http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/04/02/icann-board-member-susan-crawfords-remarks-on-vote-to-prevent-xxx-domain-name-space-application/ Mueller-Tonkin Exchange at GNSO Open Forum: http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/04/02/0326muellertonkin/ IP-Watch published a good article: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=575&res=1024_ff&print=0 Here's the full transcript of the Board vote at the ICANN Board Meeting in Lisbon: http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/transcript-board-30mar07.htm ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Mon Apr 2 22:43:33 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:43:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names Message-ID: <20070403024333.37408.qmail@web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Robin, I strongly disagree with your comments Robin. First, one prerequisite is for applicants for a TLD to have community support. There was no community support from the adult/porn industry. ICM claimed there was but never showed it. My contacts in the adult industry cannot find anyone in the industry who has supported the creation of this TLD. The opposition of religious groups should have been inconsequential, but as subscribers to my news will have seen, they're crowing about their input into the rejection. I would have thought the lack of community support was reason enough to not approve the proposed TLD. Second, I have major reservations about the role ICANN may be forced to play in content regulation should problems eventuate with ICM. In addition, the creation of such a TLD should never have got off the ground. It does nothing to protect children unless there is enforced registrations of adult content in this field. It also uses a western concept on what is adult content. You could easily argue that it is all about western, and mostly American, views about protecting children. Further, those voting against the resolution put forward at the meeting only voted against supporting the resolution. They did not necessarily vote in favour of the creation of a .xxx TLD. To call this censorship is plain wrong. Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: Robin Gross To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; expression at ipjustice.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Tuesday, 3 April, 2007 12:26:35 PM Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names From my cyberlaw blog: http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/04/02/icann_board_votexxx ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names The ICANN Meeting in Lisbon last week ended with an important vote by the ICANN Board of Directors on the application to create a new top level domain ".XXX". On 30 March 2007 the ICANN Board voted 9-5 to block the introduction of the new .XXX domain name space for non-technical reasons. This vote has important implications in the larger debate at ICANN to set the general policy over the introduction of new top level domains. While Friday's vote was specific to the application for a .XXX domain name space, the Board Members' vote signals their position as to whether they are comfortable with ICANN expanding its mission to become a regulator of online human behavior. By voting to turn down the .XXX application for public policy reasons, the Board indicated it will go beyond its technical mission of DNS coordination and seek to decide what ideas are allowed to be given a voice in the new domain name space. Unfortunately, it looks like it will be impossible for any idea that is politically or culturally controversial to be permitted a new domain name space by ICANN. ICANN is setting itself up as an institution of censorship and subordination to the conflicting goals of governments. In her dissent, ICANN Board Member Susan Crawford, who is also an Internet Law Professor at Cardozo Law School, warned against a policy that would require the ICANN Board to make subjective determinations on tld aplications. "We should be examining generic TLD applicants on the basis of their technical and financial strength. We should avoid dealing with content concerns to the maximum extent possible. We should be opening up new TLDs." Crawford's remarks focused the debate back on first-principles and ICANN's technical mission needing to remain neutral on "content" issues. "To the extent some of my colleagues on the board believe that ICANN should be in the business of deciding whether a particular TLD makes a valuable contribution to the namespace, I differ with them. I do not think ICANN is capable of making such a determination." Crawford's comments were well received by many in the ICANN community. "I must dissent from this resolution, which is not only weak but unprincipled. I'm troubled by the path the board has followed on this issue since I joined the board in December of 2005. I'd like to make two points. First, ICANN only creates problems for itself when it acts in an ad hoc fashion in response to political pressures. Second, ICANN should take itself seriously, as a private governance institution with a limited mandate and should resist efforts by governments to veto what it does." In her conclusion, Crawford stated, "this content-related censorship should not be ICANN's concern and ICANN should not allow itself to be used as a private lever for government content control by making up reasons to avoid the creation of such a TLD in the first place. To the extent there are public policy concerns with this TLD, they can be dealt with through local laws." Earlier this year NCUC proposed a new tld policy in which local law, not ICANN policy, would regulate domain name registrations. NCUC Chairman Professor Milton Mueller questioned GNSO Chairman Bruce Tonkin during the GNSO Public Forum in Lisbon on the proposal's censorious impact. Mueller cited as an example how the proposal would allow the Catholic Church to prevent a .abortion domain name space. Tonkin has been nominated to serve as a member of ICANN Board of Directors (Seat #13). Milton Mueller: "And I think that’s tragic, that you are basically saying — you are creating a political process of censorship. You’re sort of abandoning 300 years of liberal ideology about freedom of expression and saying that we are going to decide what is allowed to be uttered at the top level based on an alleged universality that doesn’t exist. And I would just remind you that one of the ways that we ended several centuries of religious warfare was not by deciding which religion was right; it was by the principle of tolerance, which allowed all the religions to exist and separated state power from expression and conscious and belief." The dissenting 5 ICANN Board Members who voted against the resolution to prevent a TLD application for non-technical reasons deserve the public's appreciation: Susan Crawford, Peter Dengate-Thrush, Dave Wodelet, Joichi Ito, Rajasekhar Ramaraj. Thank you! Here's how the ICANN Board Voted on the .XXX Application: 9 Yes - 5 No - 1 Abstentian (Paul Twomey) Yes Vote = Prevent .XXX Application = Censorship at ICANN: Vint Cerf (ICANN Chairman) Roberto Gaetano Steve Goldstein Njeri Rionge Raimundo Beca Rita Rodin Vanda Scartezini Demi Getschko Alejandro Pisanty No Vote = Permit .XXX Application = Stick to Technical Mission & Remain Content-Neutral: Susan Crawford Peter Dengate-Thrush Dave Wodelet Joichi Ito Rajasekhar Ramaraj Susan Crawford's Thoughtful Dissent: http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/04/02/icann-board-member-susan-crawfords-remarks-on-vote-to-prevent-xxx-domain-name-space-application/ Mueller-Tonkin Exchange at GNSO Open Forum: http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/04/02/0326muellertonkin/ IP-Watch published a good article: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=575&res=1024_ff&print=0 Here's the full transcript of the Board vote at the ICANN Board Meeting in Lisbon: http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/transcript-board-30mar07.htm ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From muguet at mdpi.net Mon Apr 2 23:03:33 2007 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 05:03:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Conf=E9rences?= du 3 Avril 2007 Internet ( =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Journ=E9e?= ) - Logiciels Libres ( Soir ) Message-ID: <4611C405.1060603@mdpi.net> Bonjour Au programme du Mardi 3 Avril 2007 à Paris, France http://socinfo.wtis.org/program-fr.html Mardi 3 Avril 2007 8H30-17H30 Evolution de l'Internet dans le Monde ( SAFRAN, Paris ) http://socinfo.wtis.org/eurolinc.html avec entre autres : Michel Peissik, Ambassadeur de France au SMSI ( Phase de Genève ) et Louis Pouzin, pionnier de l'Internet ( Intervention de Richard Stallman 11h15 - 11h45 ) Mardi 3 Avril 2007 18H-20H "Logiciel libre: les Droits de l'Homme de l'utilisateur " avec Richard Stallman ( ENST, Paris ) http://socinfo.wtis.org/enst.html Nos excuses pour cette annonce de dernière minute. Bien cordialement Francis Muguet -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals Associate Publisher http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net ENSTA Paris, France KNIS lab. Director "Knowledge Networks & Information Society" (KNIS) muguet at ensta.fr http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web UNMSP project : http://www.unmsp.org WTIS initiative: http://www.wtis.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 muguet at mdpi.net Mon Apr 2 23:06:28 2007 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 05:06:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Conf=E9rences?= du 3 Avril 2007 Internet ( =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Journ=E9e?= ) - Logiciels Libres ( Soir ) Message-ID: <4611C4B4.6050006@mdpi.net> Bonjour Au programme du Mardi 3 Avril 2007 à Paris, France http://socinfo.wtis.org/program-fr.html Mardi 3 Avril 2007 8H30-17H30 Evolution de l'Internet dans le Monde ( SAFRAN, Paris ) http://socinfo.wtis.org/eurolinc.html avec entre autres : Michel Peissik, Ambassadeur de France au SMSI ( Phase de Genève ) et Louis Pouzin, pionnier de l'Internet ( Intervention de Richard Stallman 11h15 - 11h45 ) Mardi 3 Avril 2007 18H-20H "Logiciel libre: les Droits de l'Homme de l'utilisateur " avec Richard Stallman ( ENST, Paris ) http://socinfo.wtis.org/enst.html Nos excuses pour cette annonce de dernière minute. Bien cordialement Francis Muguet -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals Associate Publisher http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net ENSTA Paris, France KNIS lab. Director "Knowledge Networks & Information Society" (KNIS) muguet at ensta.fr http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web UNMSP project : http://www.unmsp.org WTIS initiative: http://www.wtis.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 edward at hasbrouck.org Mon Apr 2 23:03:29 2007 From: edward at hasbrouck.org (Edward Hasbrouck) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:03:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <20070403024333.37408.qmail@web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46116191.28258.1444E6CA@edward.hasbrouck.org> On 2 Apr 2007 at 19:43, "David Goldstein" > wrote: > I would have thought the lack of community support was reason enough to > not approve the proposed TLD. Remenber that .travel was approved in spite of a recommendation from ICANN's "independent evaluators' that the sponsor was not representative of the "sponsored community" and lacked community support: http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/000938.html ---------------- Edward Hasbrouck +1-415-824-0214 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Tue Apr 3 02:05:01 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 23:05:01 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <20070403024333.37408.qmail@web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <20070403024333.37408.qmail@web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4611EE8D.6030008@cavebear.com> David Goldstein wrote: > First, one prerequisite is for applicants for a TLD to have community > support. There was no community support from the adult/porn industry. > ICM claimed there was but never showed it. I don't want to debate whether there was support or not. I tend to agree with Peter Dengate Thrush's assessment. However, the real question is why should a governance body have even the authority to ask such a question? We could discuss the ultimate power and authority of governments, but that is not what is happening here. Rather we have a body, a body that is supposedly of limited authority and supposedly with some linkage to matters of a technical nature, making decisions about whether a person who believes he/she has a good idea, is willing to abide by widely accepted written internet technical standards and practices, and is willing to risk his/her own money can have a top level domain, and who is even more overtly willing than Yahoo, e-Bay, or Google to abide by the local laws of nations. Intentionally making a pun on DNS itself: Where is the source of authority that allows an internet governance body to deny someone the ability to try out an idea? One standard answer to that is "consent of the governed." OK, I'll accept that. But in this case where is that consent to be found? (Remember, ICANN erased the board seats of those of us who were elected by the public.) One of the problems that I have seen in the context of internet governance is a shortage of guiding principles. At the risk of repeating what I have said many times elsewhere: here is a formulation that I find useful when trying to get my bearings in these situations: First Law of the Internet + Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental. - The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who wish to prevent the private use. - Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence of public detriment. - The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify the suppression of the private activity. > Second, I have major reservations about the role ICANN may be forced > to play in content regulation should problems eventuate with ICM. I have heard this said, but I am quite unable to fathom what risks ICANN may be undertaking that are not already present via ICANN's existing role over .com, where the majority of porn is to be found today, and ICANN's role over IP addresses, which are necessarily used by every pornmeister. ICANN is merely keeping track of character strings in a very simple database. There are no photographs, no videos, nothing of a salacious nature. Moreover, imagine that ICANN is asked to approve religious TLDs, such as .islam, .christian, .jew, etc. Now, I have seen an lot of religious art and read a lot of biblical texts and I can attest that a lot of it is based on torture and violent death that many might find offensive or worse. And certainly, over the years a lot more people have been killed as the result of religious fervor than sexual arousal. The argument that you are making seems equally applicable to these religious TLDs. If we accept the arguments made against .xxx, then it may well be that we ought to use those same arguments to ban religious TLDs, or cultural TLDs (.liberal or .green) or even those that merely elicit odd feelings - like .puppyfumping (that's a word I made up that sounds like something terrible but really has no meaning at all.) Moreover, ICANN damned itself in this matter years ago when it first chose to categorize, and favor, "sponsored" TLDs. That put ICANN into the content regulation business - co-ops and museums are favored material, titillating pictures are not. The net result is that ICANN has to draw arbitrary and subjective lines. Better to stay away from that question in the first place. Had ICANN never inquired it would have never known, and need not know, whether .xxx represents porn or three crosses being dragged up Calvary Mount (indeed the triple x is in fact derived from the image of three crosses.) And that is the issue of governance - How do we create institutions of governance that do the things we want to have done and yet limit them so that they do not overreach and do things impinge on the rights of natural persons? Do we want a body that assures that the upper tiers of the domain name system operate reliably, fairly, efficiently, and accurately? Or do we want a maiden aunt to tell adults what they can look at and not? > In addition, the creation of such a TLD should never have got off the > ground. The same argument can be made about .pro, .mobi, .travel .aero, .biz, etc etc - None of these have garnered the attention of more than a tiny community and none can really demonstrate that the public has gained anything from their existence. Several years ago I heard this new idea, it was an idea that was being rebuffed by virtually the entire community who had knowledge of such matters. It was called "packet switching". Had we followed a path that said that no idea could be deployed until it had proved itself valuable, then it is doubtful that we would have had the internet, much less this discussion. > To call this censorship is plain wrong. Then I guess you'd have to say that I am extremely wrong. --karl-- Karl Auerbach ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Apr 3 03:43:46 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 09:43:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <4611BB5B.4030802@ipjustice.org> References: <4611BB5B.4030802@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <461205B2.8020405@bertola.eu> Robin Gross ha scritto: > From my cyberlaw blog: > http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/04/02/icann_board_votexxx Well, once in a lifetime, we disagree completely :-) I have had the luck to witness personally the last three months of discussions in the ICANN Board. So, believe it or not, your interpretation of the reasons and the value of this vote is IMHO quite wrong. Let me explain. First of all, ICANN had a process for TLD applications (which, incidentally, is quite a bad process, starting from the meaningless "sponsorship" idea, but that's what we had at the moment), and the vote was meant to judge whether the application meant the requirements. There was no discussion on whether "adult entertainment" is good or bad or whether it should be censored. There was, however, discussion on whether the criteria were met; some directors thought they were, most thought they weren't. That's how the vote went. Susan and another director - not even all the five who voted against rejection - apparently assumed that those who disagreed with them did so due to political pressure or desire for censorship. This was entirely their assumption and many of the others felt personally offended by it. Even if you forget about the process and think about the idea in itself, it looks like a bad idea. Adult entertainment sites do not want to be labelled, exactly because they are afraid of being censored; many of them - basically all, according to some's judgement; for example, there was no single adult webmaster speaking in support of .xxx in the entire meeting - made it clear that they'd not have used the new domain. So the only purpose for this domain would have been defensive registrations, e.g. transfering money from consumers to the company who would have run it. Personally - and especially given that I represent consumers on the ICANN Board - I think that this would have been publicly detrimental. Then, let's discuss about "censorship". I think that the statement that not approving .xxx is "content-related censorship" is impossible to take seriously. You write: > By voting to turn down the .XXX > application for public policy reasons, the Board indicated it will go > beyond its technical mission of DNS coordination and seek to decide what > ideas are allowed to be given a voice in the new domain name space. Do you seriously mean that since there is no .xxx there is no porn over the Internet? Actually, if .xxx had been approved, then many governments could have passed laws to force porn sites into it, thus actually making censorship easier. The only reply I got to this observation was "yes, but in the US we have the First Amendment that would make it impossible". And what about the rest of the world? All in all, of course there are sociopolitical aspects in some of the decisions that ICANN has to take. Even refusing to consider these aspects, and embracing the hyper-liberalistic, totally free market approach of approving each and every application for a new TLD no matter how controversial it is, which you and others seem to advocate, is a political choice. It's way too common to hide behind memes such as "it should be a technical decision only" or "let the market decide", but these are political choices as well, with lots of implications. I am surprised by how so many brilliant people from the liberal US environment seem unable to accept diversity on this issue, to the point of questioning the legitimacy or good faith of decisions when they go in a different direction. I'll stop here, pointing at the comment I left on Susan's blog - http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/3/30/2845638.html#882501 - for further consideration about the "cultural diversity" issue. Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 3 05:16:07 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:16:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <461205B2.8020405@bertola.eu> (message from Vittorio Bertola on Tue, 03 Apr 2007 09:43:46 +0200) References: <4611BB5B.4030802@ipjustice.org> <461205B2.8020405@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20070403091607.8BC9F5EDF4@quill.bollow.ch> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Actually, if .xxx had been approved, then many governments could have > passed laws to force porn sites into it, thus actually making censorship > easier. I'd like to expand on this thought a bit, since I think it's crucially important... The big issue with regard to censorship is not about "censorship" of domain names, but whether there is censorship of what you can use the 'net for, and how you can use it. Any government desiring to implement political censorship will look for some kind of culturally-acceptable excuse for crossing the threshold from "no censorship/filtering" to "some censorship/filtering", which includes getting it accepted to either spend tax money on technical infrastructure implementing censorship and/or filtering, or to force all ISPs to do so. This in any case involves somehow forcing or otherwise influencing ISPs to go along with the censorship/filtering plan. The .xxx TLD together with the then-obvious idea of desiring to "clean" the "rest of the internet" would in this regard make things easier for those who want to introduce censorship and/or filtering for reasons which in truth have not much to do with any desire to protect children from porn or with any kind of genuine religion. Therefore, regardless of whether you consider the existence of porn on the 'net to be good or bad, introducing a .xxx TLD would definitely be bad for the freedom of the 'net, even with regard to essential, fundamental freedoms like being able to communicate first-hand eyewitness accounts of events you have personally witnessed (but which some government might want to keep hush-hush). 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 froomkin at law.miami.edu Tue Apr 3 10:06:54 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 10:06:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <461205B2.8020405@bertola.eu> References: <4611BB5B.4030802@ipjustice.org> <461205B2.8020405@bertola.eu> Message-ID: There is much to commend in Vittorio Bertola's remarks. It certainly leads one to this: The way to get out of these horrible debates is to have a new process, one which is focued entirely on technical merits (meeting some threshhold), and in which ICANN has none or at most minimal input/veto on semantics (one might, for example, have a rule that no gTLD that is confusing with existing ccTLDs, or even all existing TLDs is allowed -- but NO semantic/contect regulation). Then this need never happen again! If someone decides to run .xxx or .hate or whatever, that's then their problem, not ICANN's. On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Robin Gross ha scritto: >> From my cyberlaw blog: >> http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/04/02/icann_board_votexxx > > Well, once in a lifetime, we disagree completely :-) > > I have had the luck to witness personally the last three months of > discussions in the ICANN Board. So, believe it or not, your interpretation of > the reasons and the value of this vote is IMHO quite wrong. Let me explain. > > First of all, ICANN had a process for TLD applications (which, incidentally, > is quite a bad process, starting from the meaningless "sponsorship" idea, but > that's what we had at the moment), and the vote was meant to judge whether > the application meant the requirements. There was no discussion on whether > "adult entertainment" is good or bad or whether it should be censored. There > was, however, discussion on whether the criteria were met; some directors > thought they were, most thought they weren't. That's how the vote went. Susan > and another director - not even all the five who voted against rejection - > apparently assumed that those who disagreed with them did so due to political > pressure or desire for censorship. This was entirely their assumption and > many of the others felt personally offended by it. > > Even if you forget about the process and think about the idea in itself, it > looks like a bad idea. Adult entertainment sites do not want to be labelled, > exactly because they are afraid of being censored; many of them - basically > all, according to some's judgement; for example, there was no single adult > webmaster speaking in support of .xxx in the entire meeting - made it clear > that they'd not have used the new domain. So the only purpose for this domain > would have been defensive registrations, e.g. transfering money from > consumers to the company who would have run it. Personally - and especially > given that I represent consumers on the ICANN Board - I think that this would > have been publicly detrimental. > > Then, let's discuss about "censorship". I think that the statement that not > approving .xxx is "content-related censorship" is impossible to take > seriously. You write: > >> By voting to turn down the .XXX >> application for public policy reasons, the Board indicated it will go >> beyond its technical mission of DNS coordination and seek to decide what >> ideas are allowed to be given a voice in the new domain name space. > > Do you seriously mean that since there is no .xxx there is no porn over the > Internet? > > Actually, if .xxx had been approved, then many governments could have passed > laws to force porn sites into it, thus actually making censorship easier. The > only reply I got to this observation was "yes, but in the US we have the > First Amendment that would make it impossible". And what about the rest of > the world? > > All in all, of course there are sociopolitical aspects in some of the > decisions that ICANN has to take. Even refusing to consider these aspects, > and embracing the hyper-liberalistic, totally free market approach of > approving each and every application for a new TLD no matter how > controversial it is, which you and others seem to advocate, is a political > choice. It's way too common to hide behind memes such as "it should be a > technical decision only" or "let the market decide", but these are political > choices as well, with lots of implications. I am surprised by how so many > brilliant people from the liberal US environment seem unable to accept > diversity on this issue, to the point of questioning the legitimacy or good > faith of decisions when they go in a different direction. > > I'll stop here, pointing at the comment I left on Susan's blog - > http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/3/30/2845638.html#882501 - > for further consideration about the "cultural diversity" issue. > > Ciao, > -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Tue Apr 3 10:58:13 2007 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 07:58:13 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <461205B2.8020405@bertola.eu> References: <4611BB5B.4030802@ipjustice.org> <461205B2.8020405@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <61E21E15-A203-41B0-A7E6-C8625A392B16@internet.law.pro> I think it's important to distinguish between "censorship" (which I think most would define as the total blocking of access to content) and "zoning" (which is placing restrictions on the place at which one may place content). Government regulations, in the U.S. or elsewhere, that used the .XXX TLD would "zone" pornographic speech, not censor it. If you can access content at a .XXX TLD, it's not "censored," it's just zoned. > Actually, if .xxx had been approved, then many governments could > have passed laws to force porn sites into it, thus actually making > censorship easier. The only reply I got to this observation was > "yes, but in the US we have the First Amendment that would make it > impossible". And what about the rest of the world? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Mueller at syr.edu Tue Apr 3 10:59:25 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 10:59:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names Message-ID: David: I was at the ICANN meeting and have been carefully following the .xxx controversy since the US government intervened in August 2005. Robin is correct that the .xxx rejection is fundamentally about ICANN trying to avoid, or actively discourage, controversial top level domain names. This was evident from the many conversations and comments at the meeting, especially among governments. No one familiar with the facts of this case can deny that there are free expression issues. You also ignore the broader context -- this rejection happened at the same time as a new TLD approval process is being proposed that would openly and explicitly veto any proposals that generate opposition. Take a look at the transcripts of the public forum discussion, in which the Chair of the GNSO admits that objections from the Catholic church would have to be taken seriously if a TLD that mentioned "abortion" was proposed. You speak of "community support." ICM had 77,000 advance registrations, which exceed by a factor of 10-20 the number of hostile comments. That shows that it was viable economically and would be used. Of course there are adult online sites whose interests were threatened by a .xxx, and they opposed it. But any domain name proposal might generate opposition from someone in the world, for some reason. If ICANN turns TLD approval into a popularity contest then it is, de facto, a massive restriction of freedom of expression. Do you need community support to start a newspaper or a web site? You shouldn't need "community support" to be able to speak on the Internet. Whether .xxx would in fact "protect children" or uses a "Western" concept of porn are fankly silly arguments that people grab at to rationalize their opposition. How does it "protect children" to continue the status quo in .com, which is full of easily accessible porn sites, some of it misleadingly labeled? How can any effort to identify and label porn avoid embodying a specific culture? These kids of arguments are simply rationalizations. --MM >>> goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au 4/2/2007 10:43 PM >>> Robin, I strongly disagree with your comments Robin. First, one prerequisite is for applicants for a TLD to have community support. There was no community support from the adult/porn industry. ICM claimed there was but never showed it. My contacts in the adult industry cannot find anyone in the industry who has supported the creation of this TLD. The opposition of religious groups should have been inconsequential, but as subscribers to my news will have seen, they're crowing about their input into the rejection. I would have thought the lack of community support was reason enough to not approve the proposed TLD. Second, I have major reservations about the role ICANN may be forced to play in content regulation should problems eventuate with ICM. In addition, the creation of such a TLD should never have got off the ground. It does nothing to protect children unless there is enforced registrations of adult content in this field. It also uses a western concept on what is adult content. You could easily argue that it is all about western, and mostly American, views about protecting children. Further, those voting against the resolution put forward at the meeting only voted against supporting the resolution. They did not necessarily vote in favour of the creation of a .xxx TLD. To call this censorship is plain wrong. Cheers David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ki_chango at yahoo.com Tue Apr 3 11:38:15 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 08:38:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <461205B2.8020405@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <38453.1393.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Some clarifying ideas that come to my mind: * Domain name space is also considered by some, and rightly so IMHO, as subject to free speech, freedom of expression, etc. So the question of censorship (or limitation of the aforementioned rights) in the DNS is to be distinguished from, and as valuable as, censorship of the Internet contents per se. * The intricacies in this debate cannot be separated from the conditions of the initial application and the outcome of the first round assessment/appraisal by the board. In that regard, yes, that application should probably not have got off the ground in the first place, but now it's no surprise that people's assumptions and reactions also have to do with that baggage. * So it's hard for people to believe that the operational conditions were met in the earlier round (as it seemed based on the progress then made in the application process, but please correct me if I'm wrong,) and after religious/political pressures (incidentally), they by chance happen to be no longer met. * Further, even though they may not like it because the outcome might lead to easier censorship, some people feel they have to assert or support a principled stance as to whether or not a governance body such as ICANN had to be concerned with bad or good content, or even whether ICANN should be concerned at all with the possibility that their decision to authorize a new TLD string will make censoring contents easier or not, so long as part of the community requests it and meets the operational requirements, and so long as ICANN follows a predictable pre-established process. * I can only agree with you that all decisions around this technical artifact (DNS) and at its interface with human communities embed great socio-political impacts. For that reason, we can only expect those decisions be as transparent as possible, in every sense of the word "transparent" -- accountable, neutral, seemless in terms of value orientation beyond duly processing legitimate requests (and preferences where possible) from the user and industry communities. Mawaki --- Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Robin Gross ha scritto: > > From my cyberlaw blog: > > http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/04/02/icann_board_votexxx > > Well, once in a lifetime, we disagree completely :-) > > I have had the luck to witness personally the last three > months of > discussions in the ICANN Board. So, believe it or not, your > interpretation of the reasons and the value of this vote is > IMHO quite > wrong. Let me explain. > > First of all, ICANN had a process for TLD applications (which, > > incidentally, is quite a bad process, starting from the > meaningless > "sponsorship" idea, but that's what we had at the moment), and > the vote > was meant to judge whether the application meant the > requirements. There > was no discussion on whether "adult entertainment" is good or > bad or > whether it should be censored. There was, however, discussion > on whether > the criteria were met; some directors thought they were, most > thought > they weren't. That's how the vote went. Susan and another > director - not > even all the five who voted against rejection - apparently > assumed that > those who disagreed with them did so due to political pressure > or desire > for censorship. This was entirely their assumption and many of > the > others felt personally offended by it. > > Even if you forget about the process and think about the idea > in itself, > it looks like a bad idea. Adult entertainment sites do not > want to be > labelled, exactly because they are afraid of being censored; > many of > them - basically all, according to some's judgement; for > example, there > was no single adult webmaster speaking in support of .xxx in > the entire > meeting - made it clear that they'd not have used the new > domain. So the > only purpose for this domain would have been defensive > registrations, > e.g. transfering money from consumers to the company who would > have run > it. Personally - and especially given that I represent > consumers on the > ICANN Board - I think that this would have been publicly > detrimental. > > Then, let's discuss about "censorship". I think that the > statement that > not approving .xxx is "content-related censorship" is > impossible to take > seriously. You write: > > > By voting to turn down the .XXX > > application for public policy reasons, the Board indicated > it will go > > beyond its technical mission of DNS coordination and seek to > decide what > > ideas are allowed to be given a voice in the new domain name > space. > > Do you seriously mean that since there is no .xxx there is no > porn over > the Internet? > > Actually, if .xxx had been approved, then many governments > could have > passed laws to force porn sites into it, thus actually making > censorship > easier. The only reply I got to this observation was "yes, but > in the US > we have the First Amendment that would make it impossible". > And what > about the rest of the world? > > All in all, of course there are sociopolitical aspects in some > of the > decisions that ICANN has to take. Even refusing to consider > these > aspects, and embracing the hyper-liberalistic, totally free > market > approach of approving each and every application for a new TLD > no matter > how controversial it is, which you and others seem to > advocate, is a > political choice. It's way too common to hide behind memes > such as "it > should be a technical decision only" or "let the market > decide", but > these are political choices as well, with lots of > implications. I am > surprised by how so many brilliant people from the liberal US > environment seem unable to accept diversity on this issue, to > the point > of questioning the legitimacy or good faith of decisions when > they go in > a different direction. > > I'll stop here, pointing at the comment I left on Susan's blog > - > http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/3/30/2845638.html#882501 > > - for further consideration about the "cultural diversity" > issue. > > Ciao, > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu > <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ > <-------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Apr 3 11:53:40 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:53:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <61E21E15-A203-41B0-A7E6-C8625A392B16@internet.law.pro> References: <4611BB5B.4030802@ipjustice.org> <461205B2.8020405@bertola.eu> <61E21E15-A203-41B0-A7E6-C8625A392B16@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: <1821F2C9-7424-4430-884A-14CE6E245853@psg.com> Hi, true, but some countries could be zoned to have no .XXX or .abortion, and that would strongly resemble censorship. a. On 3 apr 2007, at 10.58, Bret Fausett wrote: > I think it's important to distinguish between "censorship" (which I > think most would define as the total blocking of access to content) > and "zoning" (which is placing restrictions on the place at which > one may place content). Government regulations, in the U.S. or > elsewhere, that used the .XXX TLD would "zone" pornographic speech, > not censor it. If you can access content at a .XXX TLD, it's not > "censored," it's just zoned. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Apr 3 11:58:44 2007 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:58:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: References: <4611BB5B.4030802@ipjustice.org> <461205B2.8020405@bertola.eu> Message-ID: At 10:06 AM -0400 4/3/07, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >There is much to commend in Vittorio Bertola's remarks. > >It certainly leads one to this: The way to get out of these horrible debates is to have a new process, one which is focued entirely on technical merits Noting: Vittorio also offered: memes such as "it should be a technical decision only" or "let the market decide" [...] these are political choices as well, with lots of implications. >(meeting some threshhold), and in which ICANN has none or at most minimal input/veto on semantics (one might, for example, have a rule that no gTLD that is confusing with existing ccTLDs, or even all existing TLDs is allowed -- but NO semantic/contect regulation). > >Then this need never happen again! If someone decides to run .xxx or .hate or whatever, that's then their problem, not ICANN's. David > >On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >>Robin Gross ha scritto: >>>From my cyberlaw blog: >>>http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/04/02/icann_board_votexxx >> >>Well, once in a lifetime, we disagree completely :-) >> >>I have had the luck to witness personally the last three months of discussions in the ICANN Board. So, believe it or not, your interpretation of the reasons and the value of this vote is IMHO quite wrong. Let me explain. >> >>First of all, ICANN had a process for TLD applications (which, incidentally, is quite a bad process, starting from the meaningless "sponsorship" idea, but that's what we had at the moment), and the vote was meant to judge whether the application meant the requirements. There was no discussion on whether "adult entertainment" is good or bad or whether it should be censored. There was, however, discussion on whether the criteria were met; some directors thought they were, most thought they weren't. That's how the vote went. Susan and another director - not even all the five who voted against rejection - apparently assumed that those who disagreed with them did so due to political pressure or desire for censorship. This was entirely their assumption and many of the others felt personally offended by it. >> >>Even if you forget about the process and think about the idea in itself, it looks like a bad idea. Adult entertainment sites do not want to be labelled, exactly because they are afraid of being censored; many of them - basically all, according to some's judgement; for example, there was no single adult webmaster speaking in support of .xxx in the entire meeting - made it clear that they'd not have used the new domain. So the only purpose for this domain would have been defensive registrations, e.g. transfering money from consumers to the company who would have run it. Personally - and especially given that I represent consumers on the ICANN Board - I think that this would have been publicly detrimental. >> >>Then, let's discuss about "censorship". I think that the statement that not approving .xxx is "content-related censorship" is impossible to take seriously. You write: >> >>>By voting to turn down the .XXX >>>application for public policy reasons, the Board indicated it will go beyond its technical mission of DNS coordination and seek to decide what ideas are allowed to be given a voice in the new domain name space. >> >>Do you seriously mean that since there is no .xxx there is no porn over the Internet? >> >>Actually, if .xxx had been approved, then many governments could have passed laws to force porn sites into it, thus actually making censorship easier. The only reply I got to this observation was "yes, but in the US we have the First Amendment that would make it impossible". And what about the rest of the world? >> >>All in all, of course there are sociopolitical aspects in some of the decisions that ICANN has to take. Even refusing to consider these aspects, and embracing the hyper-liberalistic, totally free market approach of approving each and every application for a new TLD no matter how controversial it is, which you and others seem to advocate, is a political choice. It's way too common to hide behind memes such as "it should be a technical decision only" or "let the market decide", but these are political choices as well, with lots of implications. I am surprised by how so many brilliant people from the liberal US environment seem unable to accept diversity on this issue, to the point of questioning the legitimacy or good faith of decisions when they go in a different direction. >> >>I'll stop here, pointing at the comment I left on Susan's blog - http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/3/30/2845638.html#882501 - for further consideration about the "cultural diversity" issue. >> >>Ciao, >> > >-- >http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net >A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm >U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA >+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm > -->It's warm here.<-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Apr 3 12:14:03 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:14:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names Message-ID: As to 'what does this decision say ICANN is becoming?' - um, well, it looks and acts like an industry self-regulatory body, right? So, it is an industry regulator. Is anyone shocked? No, didn't think so. Some regulatory decisions are made on technical grounds, others on economic, process, and some yes for reasons of policy, which may reflect more or less community including political input. And affect speech on the Internet, free or otherwise. What is still lacking is an 'Administrative Procedures Act' for the Internet, in partidular to guide ICANN on how it should go about and what it may or may not consider in its decisionmaking, whether for gtld's or anything else. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Mueller at syr.edu 4/3/2007 10:59 AM >>> David: I was at the ICANN meeting and have been carefully following the .xxx controversy since the US government intervened in August 2005. Robin is correct that the .xxx rejection is fundamentally about ICANN trying to avoid, or actively discourage, controversial top level domain names. This was evident from the many conversations and comments at the meeting, especially among governments. No one familiar with the facts of this case can deny that there are free expression issues. You also ignore the broader context -- this rejection happened at the same time as a new TLD approval process is being proposed that would openly and explicitly veto any proposals that generate opposition. Take a look at the transcripts of the public forum discussion, in which the Chair of the GNSO admits that objections from the Catholic church would have to be taken seriously if a TLD that mentioned "abortion" was proposed. You speak of "community support." ICM had 77,000 advance registrations, which exceed by a factor of 10-20 the number of hostile comments. That shows that it was viable economically and would be used. Of course there are adult online sites whose interests were threatened by a .xxx, and they opposed it. But any domain name proposal might generate opposition from someone in the world, for some reason. If ICANN turns TLD approval into a popularity contest then it is, de facto, a massive restriction of freedom of expression. Do you need community support to start a newspaper or a web site? You shouldn't need "community support" to be able to speak on the Internet. Whether .xxx would in fact "protect children" or uses a "Western" concept of porn are fankly silly arguments that people grab at to rationalize their opposition. How does it "protect children" to continue the status quo in .com, which is full of easily accessible porn sites, some of it misleadingly labeled? How can any effort to identify and label porn avoid embodying a specific culture? These kids of arguments are simply rationalizations. --MM >>> goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au 4/2/2007 10:43 PM >>> Robin, I strongly disagree with your comments Robin. First, one prerequisite is for applicants for a TLD to have community support. There was no community support from the adult/porn industry. ICM claimed there was but never showed it. My contacts in the adult industry cannot find anyone in the industry who has supported the creation of this TLD. The opposition of religious groups should have been inconsequential, but as subscribers to my news will have seen, they're crowing about their input into the rejection. I would have thought the lack of community support was reason enough to not approve the proposed TLD. Second, I have major reservations about the role ICANN may be forced to play in content regulation should problems eventuate with ICM. In addition, the creation of such a TLD should never have got off the ground. It does nothing to protect children unless there is enforced registrations of adult content in this field. It also uses a western concept on what is adult content. You could easily argue that it is all about western, and mostly American, views about protecting children. Further, those voting against the resolution put forward at the meeting only voted against supporting the resolution. They did not necessarily vote in favour of the creation of a .xxx TLD. To call this censorship is plain wrong. Cheers David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 3 12:32:24 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:32:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names Message-ID: >>> froomkin at law.miami.edu 4/3/2007 10:06 AM >>> >The way to get out of these horrible debates is to have a >new process, one which is focued entirely on technical merits >(meeting some threshhold), and in which ICANN has none or >at most minimal input/veto on semantics But people, including Vittorio especially, seem not to realize that by vetoing .xxx that is precisely what ICANN and the world's governments (led by the USA) have decided NOT to do. You can come up with all kinds of after-the-fact rationalizations, as Vittorio does, but there is only one thing that has changed between June 2005 (when the ICANN Board voted to approve the application) and last week (when they voted to kill it) and that is the strong and sustained objections of governments, opponents of pornography and adult webmasters. .xxx was killed because it was controversial and ICANN lacked the spine to stand up to that kind of pressure. full stop. Let me dispose of the absurd notion that the semantics of a domain name doesn't affect the ability to express oneself freely online. This argument has been decisively rejected by a court in the US. (Taubmann). And it's intuitively obvious why this argument is silly. Imagine someone saying, "you cannot name your book "The Middle East: Peace or Aparthed" because that will offend the Israelis, but you can say whatever you like inside the book." Is that free expression? Imagine someone saying, "you can say whatever you like in a newspaper, but you can't put up bumper stickers or distribute buttons with locator information that indicates that this is a [conservative/socialist/nationalist/your-favorite-ideology-label-here] newspaper." The same argument was used by IPR interests in their attempt to claim sweeping property rights over any mention of tbeir brand. "You can talk about our company and its products all you like, you just can't use a label or domain name that tells people you are doing so." These efforts were deliberate attempts to suppress critical commentary on their brands. Vittorio's notion that the Board sat down and carefully debated whether .xxx met their criteria is laughable. This was the 4th vote. .xxx met their criteria long initially. Then the criteria changed after the USG objected. ICM Registry then worked hard to meet the new criteria, which involved more stringest contractual conditions meant to regulate content. It met those GAC-imposed criteria. Then the board (some members) complained about the content regulation. No, this is about "finding an excuse to kill something" not about anything else. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Tue Apr 3 12:33:20 2007 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton A Samuels) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:33:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <38453.1393.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Insightful intervention here! How are you, sah? Carlton -----Original Message----- From: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango at yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:38 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola; Robin Gross Cc: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; expression at ipjustice.org Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names Some clarifying ideas that come to my mind: * Domain name space is also considered by some, and rightly so IMHO, as subject to free speech, freedom of expression, etc. So the question of censorship (or limitation of the aforementioned rights) in the DNS is to be distinguished from, and as valuable as, censorship of the Internet contents per se. * The intricacies in this debate cannot be separated from the conditions of the initial application and the outcome of the first round assessment/appraisal by the board. In that regard, yes, that application should probably not have got off the ground in the first place, but now it's no surprise that people's assumptions and reactions also have to do with that baggage. * So it's hard for people to believe that the operational conditions were met in the earlier round (as it seemed based on the progress then made in the application process, but please correct me if I'm wrong,) and after religious/political pressures (incidentally), they by chance happen to be no longer met. * Further, even though they may not like it because the outcome might lead to easier censorship, some people feel they have to assert or support a principled stance as to whether or not a governance body such as ICANN had to be concerned with bad or good content, or even whether ICANN should be concerned at all with the possibility that their decision to authorize a new TLD string will make censoring contents easier or not, so long as part of the community requests it and meets the operational requirements, and so long as ICANN follows a predictable pre-established process. * I can only agree with you that all decisions around this technical artifact (DNS) and at its interface with human communities embed great socio-political impacts. For that reason, we can only expect those decisions be as transparent as possible, in every sense of the word "transparent" -- accountable, neutral, seemless in terms of value orientation beyond duly processing legitimate requests (and preferences where possible) from the user and industry communities. Mawaki --- Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Robin Gross ha scritto: > > From my cyberlaw blog: > > http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/04/02/icann_board_votexxx > > Well, once in a lifetime, we disagree completely :-) > > I have had the luck to witness personally the last three > months of > discussions in the ICANN Board. So, believe it or not, your > interpretation of the reasons and the value of this vote is > IMHO quite > wrong. Let me explain. > > First of all, ICANN had a process for TLD applications (which, > > incidentally, is quite a bad process, starting from the > meaningless > "sponsorship" idea, but that's what we had at the moment), and > the vote > was meant to judge whether the application meant the > requirements. There > was no discussion on whether "adult entertainment" is good or > bad or > whether it should be censored. There was, however, discussion > on whether > the criteria were met; some directors thought they were, most > thought > they weren't. That's how the vote went. Susan and another > director - not > even all the five who voted against rejection - apparently > assumed that > those who disagreed with them did so due to political pressure > or desire > for censorship. This was entirely their assumption and many of > the > others felt personally offended by it. > > Even if you forget about the process and think about the idea > in itself, > it looks like a bad idea. Adult entertainment sites do not > want to be > labelled, exactly because they are afraid of being censored; > many of > them - basically all, according to some's judgement; for > example, there > was no single adult webmaster speaking in support of .xxx in > the entire > meeting - made it clear that they'd not have used the new > domain. So the > only purpose for this domain would have been defensive > registrations, > e.g. transfering money from consumers to the company who would > have run > it. Personally - and especially given that I represent > consumers on the > ICANN Board - I think that this would have been publicly > detrimental. > > Then, let's discuss about "censorship". I think that the > statement that > not approving .xxx is "content-related censorship" is > impossible to take > seriously. You write: > > > By voting to turn down the .XXX > > application for public policy reasons, the Board indicated > it will go > > beyond its technical mission of DNS coordination and seek to > decide what > > ideas are allowed to be given a voice in the new domain name > space. > > Do you seriously mean that since there is no .xxx there is no > porn over > the Internet? > > Actually, if .xxx had been approved, then many governments > could have > passed laws to force porn sites into it, thus actually making > censorship > easier. The only reply I got to this observation was "yes, but > in the US > we have the First Amendment that would make it impossible". > And what > about the rest of the world? > > All in all, of course there are sociopolitical aspects in some > of the > decisions that ICANN has to take. Even refusing to consider > these > aspects, and embracing the hyper-liberalistic, totally free > market > approach of approving each and every application for a new TLD > no matter > how controversial it is, which you and others seem to > advocate, is a > political choice. It's way too common to hide behind memes > such as "it > should be a technical decision only" or "let the market > decide", but > these are political choices as well, with lots of > implications. I am > surprised by how so many brilliant people from the liberal US > environment seem unable to accept diversity on this issue, to > the point > of questioning the legitimacy or good faith of decisions when > they go in > a different direction. > > I'll stop here, pointing at the comment I left on Susan's blog > - > http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/3/30/2845638.html#882501 > > - for further consideration about the "cultural diversity" > issue. > > Ciao, > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu > <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ > <-------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wcurrie at apc.org Mon Apr 2 11:37:53 2007 From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:37:53 -0300 (BRT) Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50792.151.205.99.178.1175528273.squirrel@webmail.apc.org> ICANN doesn't seem to grasp that names and numbers are components of a *regulatory* system which has to serve the requirements of administrative fairness, which require formal processes of public hearings and decisions that can be justified according to transparent criteria which are logically coherent, and which require the *regulator* to be independent from interference by any party or agency in both theory and practice. Here the perception of bias weighs in as much as the reality of what occurred and sometimes will trump the facts in the case of a judicial review. In other words, perception of bias in administrative decision-making is extremely damaging to the validity of the decisions made and to the crediibility and legitimacy of the institution concerned. Being an effective *regulator* means: 1 understanding this 2 being able to have procedures for decision making based on sound legal principles of administrative law and justice 3 making it clear to all parties that this procedure is incorruptible and having mechanisms to review its own decisions and to subject them to external scrutiny. It does not appear as if ICANN is up to this standard of conduct of its affairs, and as it is expected to act in the global public interest, is derelict in the execution of its *regulatory* functions. Willie >>>> froomkin at law.miami.edu 4/3/2007 10:06 AM >>> >>The way to get out of these horrible debates is to have a >>new process, one which is focued entirely on technical merits >>(meeting some threshhold), and in which ICANN has none or >>at most minimal input/veto on semantics > > But people, including Vittorio especially, seem not to realize that by > vetoing .xxx that is precisely what ICANN and the world's governments > (led by the USA) have decided NOT to do. > > You can come up with all kinds of after-the-fact rationalizations, as > Vittorio does, but there is only one thing that has changed between June > 2005 (when the ICANN Board voted to approve the application) and last > week (when they voted to kill it) and that is the strong and sustained > objections of governments, opponents of pornography and adult > webmasters. .xxx was killed because it was controversial and ICANN > lacked the spine to stand up to that kind of pressure. full stop. > > Let me dispose of the absurd notion that the semantics of a domain name > doesn't affect the ability to express oneself freely online. This > argument has been decisively rejected by a court in the US. (Taubmann). > And it's intuitively obvious why this argument is silly. Imagine someone > saying, "you cannot name your book "The Middle East: Peace or Aparthed" > because that will offend the Israelis, but you can say whatever you like > inside the book." Is that free expression? Imagine someone saying, "you > can say whatever you like in a newspaper, but you can't put up bumper > stickers or distribute buttons with locator information that indicates > that this is a > [conservative/socialist/nationalist/your-favorite-ideology-label-here] > newspaper." > > The same argument was used by IPR interests in their attempt to claim > sweeping property rights over any mention of tbeir brand. "You can talk > about our company and its products all you like, you just can't use a > label or domain name that tells people you are doing so." These efforts > were deliberate attempts to suppress critical commentary on their > brands. > > Vittorio's notion that the Board sat down and carefully debated whether > .xxx met their criteria is laughable. This was the 4th vote. .xxx met > their criteria long initially. Then the criteria changed after the USG > objected. ICM Registry then worked hard to meet the new criteria, which > involved more stringest contractual conditions meant to regulate > content. It met those GAC-imposed criteria. Then the board (some > members) complained about the content regulation. No, this is about > "finding an excuse to kill something" not about anything else. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Willie Currie Communications and Information Policy Programme Manager Association for Progressive Communications (APC) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From robin at ipjustice.org Tue Apr 3 14:05:42 2007 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:05:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <461205B2.8020405@bertola.eu> References: <4611BB5B.4030802@ipjustice.org> <461205B2.8020405@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <46129776.3000703@ipjustice.org> Hi Vittorio! Thanks for the comments. But asking the question whether or not .xxx is a 'good idea' begs for a system of subjective and arbitrary policies from ICANN. You may be right .xxx is a stupid idea. You may be right that down the line some govts could use a .xxx for censorship purposes. But all of this is irrelevant. The point is that ICANN is NOT in the business of picking good ideas and preventing bad ideas from going forward. ICANN's mission is technical coordination not speech regulation. ICANN is in the business of assigning names and numbers, not picking winners and losers among competing ideas. So simply asking the question whether or not a certain tld should be allowed to exist based on its content, means we accept content regulation by ICANN. Robin Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Robin Gross ha scritto: > >> From my cyberlaw blog: >> http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/04/02/icann_board_votexxx > > > Well, once in a lifetime, we disagree completely :-) > > I have had the luck to witness personally the last three months of > discussions in the ICANN Board. So, believe it or not, your > interpretation of the reasons and the value of this vote is IMHO quite > wrong. Let me explain. > > First of all, ICANN had a process for TLD applications (which, > incidentally, is quite a bad process, starting from the meaningless > "sponsorship" idea, but that's what we had at the moment), and the > vote was meant to judge whether the application meant the > requirements. There was no discussion on whether "adult entertainment" > is good or bad or whether it should be censored. There was, however, > discussion on whether the criteria were met; some directors thought > they were, most thought they weren't. That's how the vote went. Susan > and another director - not even all the five who voted against > rejection - apparently assumed that those who disagreed with them did > so due to political pressure or desire for censorship. This was > entirely their assumption and many of the others felt personally > offended by it. > > Even if you forget about the process and think about the idea in > itself, it looks like a bad idea. Adult entertainment sites do not > want to be labelled, exactly because they are afraid of being > censored; many of them - basically all, according to some's judgement; > for example, there was no single adult webmaster speaking in support > of .xxx in the entire meeting - made it clear that they'd not have > used the new domain. So the only purpose for this domain would have > been defensive registrations, e.g. transfering money from consumers to > the company who would have run it. Personally - and especially given > that I represent consumers on the ICANN Board - I think that this > would have been publicly detrimental. > > Then, let's discuss about "censorship". I think that the statement > that not approving .xxx is "content-related censorship" is impossible > to take seriously. You write: > >> By voting to turn down the .XXX >> application for public policy reasons, the Board indicated it will go >> beyond its technical mission of DNS coordination and seek to decide >> what ideas are allowed to be given a voice in the new domain name space. > > > Do you seriously mean that since there is no .xxx there is no porn > over the Internet? > > Actually, if .xxx had been approved, then many governments could have > passed laws to force porn sites into it, thus actually making > censorship easier. The only reply I got to this observation was "yes, > but in the US we have the First Amendment that would make it > impossible". And what about the rest of the world? > > All in all, of course there are sociopolitical aspects in some of the > decisions that ICANN has to take. Even refusing to consider these > aspects, and embracing the hyper-liberalistic, totally free market > approach of approving each and every application for a new TLD no > matter how controversial it is, which you and others seem to advocate, > is a political choice. It's way too common to hide behind memes such > as "it should be a technical decision only" or "let the market > decide", but these are political choices as well, with lots of > implications. I am surprised by how so many brilliant people from the > liberal US environment seem unable to accept diversity on this issue, > to the point of questioning the legitimacy or good faith of decisions > when they go in a different direction. > > I'll stop here, pointing at the comment I left on Susan's blog - > http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/3/30/2845638.html#882501 > - for further consideration about the "cultural diversity" issue. > > Ciao, ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Tue Apr 3 15:53:24 2007 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 12:53:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] WHOIS Working Group In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <202811.69585.qm@web52209.mail.re2.yahoo.com> As per the GNSO resolution at the ICANN Lisbon meeting, a WHOIS Working Group is being formed with a 120-day timeline. All may participate. The Charter for the WHOIS Working Group may be found here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html The membership of this WG extends to the following: • Nominating Committee appointed GNSO councilors • GNSO constituency members In addition, observers and liaisons may join the working group on the following basis: Observers shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the working group. In particular observers will be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences or physical meetings. Observers must provide their real name, organization (if associated with an organization) and contact details to the GNSO secretariat, and the GNSO secretariat will verify at least their email address and phone contact information. Observers will also be requested to provide a public statement of interest, as for working group members. The email address of the GNSO Secretariat is GNSO.SECRETARIAT[at]GNSO.ICANN.ORG ____________________________________________________________________________________ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wnew at ip-watch.ch Tue Apr 3 16:04:25 2007 From: wnew at ip-watch.ch (William New) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 22:04:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <46129776.3000703@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <45F50B880057DE9A@mail14.bluewin.ch> (added by postmaster@bluewin.ch) Hi, just wanted to add our Monday am story by Monika Ermert to the discussion in case it's useful. In particular, I was interested to see her characterisation of a suggestion from Vint Cer. Thanks, William New, Intellectual Property Watch Rights and Content Issues May Complicate Internet Domain Name Expansion Full story: http://ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php?p=575 "ICANN Board Chairman Vint Cerf, who seemed relieved to get the .xxx decision off his table after three years of debate, said he would like to fold the different rights problems into one procedure. At a session on internationalised domain names, Cerf proposed consideration of allowing a common application and evaluation process for generic TLDs, non-Latin gTLDs and non-Latin ccTLDs. "Let's figure out," Cerf said, "if there is a process that will allow any proposal to be exposed to opposition and find a way to resolve it, then we could actually proceed right away." But Cerf, who is respected as one of the developers of the Internet's underlying protocol known as TCP-IP, did not know how this would work. "It could be that a common dispute resolution process might be sufficient to allow us to move ahead on all fronts, as long as parties who are concerned about any particular proposal have a way to raise those issues and have them resolved." But this might be an idea even more difficult to realise than the start of the TCP-IP network back then." -----Original Message----- From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] Sent: 03 April 2007 20:06 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names Hi Vittorio! Thanks for the comments. But asking the question whether or not .xxx is a 'good idea' begs for a system of subjective and arbitrary policies from ICANN. You may be right .xxx is a stupid idea. You may be right that down the line some govts could use a .xxx for censorship purposes. But all of this is irrelevant. The point is that ICANN is NOT in the business of picking good ideas and preventing bad ideas from going forward. ICANN's mission is technical coordination not speech regulation. ICANN is in the business of assigning names and numbers, not picking winners and losers among competing ideas. So simply asking the question whether or not a certain tld should be allowed to exist based on its content, means we accept content regulation by ICANN. Robin Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Robin Gross ha scritto: > >> From my cyberlaw blog: >> http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/04/02/icann_board_votexxx > > > Well, once in a lifetime, we disagree completely :-) > > I have had the luck to witness personally the last three months of > discussions in the ICANN Board. So, believe it or not, your > interpretation of the reasons and the value of this vote is IMHO quite > wrong. Let me explain. > > First of all, ICANN had a process for TLD applications (which, > incidentally, is quite a bad process, starting from the meaningless > "sponsorship" idea, but that's what we had at the moment), and the > vote was meant to judge whether the application meant the > requirements. There was no discussion on whether "adult entertainment" > is good or bad or whether it should be censored. There was, however, > discussion on whether the criteria were met; some directors thought > they were, most thought they weren't. That's how the vote went. Susan > and another director - not even all the five who voted against > rejection - apparently assumed that those who disagreed with them did > so due to political pressure or desire for censorship. This was > entirely their assumption and many of the others felt personally > offended by it. > > Even if you forget about the process and think about the idea in > itself, it looks like a bad idea. Adult entertainment sites do not > want to be labelled, exactly because they are afraid of being > censored; many of them - basically all, according to some's judgement; > for example, there was no single adult webmaster speaking in support > of .xxx in the entire meeting - made it clear that they'd not have > used the new domain. So the only purpose for this domain would have > been defensive registrations, e.g. transfering money from consumers to > the company who would have run it. Personally - and especially given > that I represent consumers on the ICANN Board - I think that this > would have been publicly detrimental. > > Then, let's discuss about "censorship". I think that the statement > that not approving .xxx is "content-related censorship" is impossible > to take seriously. You write: > >> By voting to turn down the .XXX >> application for public policy reasons, the Board indicated it will go >> beyond its technical mission of DNS coordination and seek to decide >> what ideas are allowed to be given a voice in the new domain name space. > > > Do you seriously mean that since there is no .xxx there is no porn > over the Internet? > > Actually, if .xxx had been approved, then many governments could have > passed laws to force porn sites into it, thus actually making > censorship easier. The only reply I got to this observation was "yes, > but in the US we have the First Amendment that would make it > impossible". And what about the rest of the world? > > All in all, of course there are sociopolitical aspects in some of the > decisions that ICANN has to take. Even refusing to consider these > aspects, and embracing the hyper-liberalistic, totally free market > approach of approving each and every application for a new TLD no > matter how controversial it is, which you and others seem to advocate, > is a political choice. It's way too common to hide behind memes such > as "it should be a technical decision only" or "let the market > decide", but these are political choices as well, with lots of > implications. I am surprised by how so many brilliant people from the > liberal US environment seem unable to accept diversity on this issue, > to the point of questioning the legitimacy or good faith of decisions > when they go in a different direction. > > I'll stop here, pointing at the comment I left on Susan's blog - > http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/3/30/2845638.html#882501 > - for further consideration about the "cultural diversity" issue. > > Ciao, ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Apr 3 17:18:38 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:18:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names Message-ID: <20070403211839.97918.qmail@web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Milton, Bret et al I can easily accept there could be better processes for ICANN to approve a new TLD. But as for the community support of 77,000 registrations, what were these? If we're going to have a review of TLD processes and the reasons why a TLD should be approved, it should include a negative for registrations only for defensive registrations. I find it absurd to suggest there was community support though. ICM has NEVER said who their support was. And there is NOBODY in the adult industry who has voiced support. So what sort of people were pre-registering? Domainers? And Bret - your playing with semantics. Forcing someone to register a domain in a zone or however you want to call it is part of censorship. As then users can easily be stopped from accessing a particular TLD. Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: Milton Mueller To: expression at ipjustice.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sent: Wednesday, 4 April, 2007 12:59:25 AM Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names David: I was at the ICANN meeting and have been carefully following the .xxx controversy since the US government intervened in August 2005. Robin is correct that the .xxx rejection is fundamentally about ICANN trying to avoid, or actively discourage, controversial top level domain names. This was evident from the many conversations and comments at the meeting, especially among governments. No one familiar with the facts of this case can deny that there are free expression issues. You also ignore the broader context -- this rejection happened at the same time as a new TLD approval process is being proposed that would openly and explicitly veto any proposals that generate opposition. Take a look at the transcripts of the public forum discussion, in which the Chair of the GNSO admits that objections from the Catholic church would have to be taken seriously if a TLD that mentioned "abortion" was proposed. You speak of "community support." ICM had 77,000 advance registrations, which exceed by a factor of 10-20 the number of hostile comments. That shows that it was viable economically and would be used. Of course there are adult online sites whose interests were threatened by a .xxx, and they opposed it. But any domain name proposal might generate opposition from someone in the world, for some reason. If ICANN turns TLD approval into a popularity contest then it is, de facto, a massive restriction of freedom of expression. Do you need community support to start a newspaper or a web site? You shouldn't need "community support" to be able to speak on the Internet. Whether .xxx would in fact "protect children" or uses a "Western" concept of porn are fankly silly arguments that people grab at to rationalize their opposition. How does it "protect children" to continue the status quo in .com, which is full of easily accessible porn sites, some of it misleadingly labeled? How can any effort to identify and label porn avoid embodying a specific culture? These kids of arguments are simply rationalizations. --MM >>> goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au 4/2/2007 10:43 PM >>> Robin, I strongly disagree with your comments Robin. First, one prerequisite is for applicants for a TLD to have community support. There was no community support from the adult/porn industry. ICM claimed there was but never showed it. My contacts in the adult industry cannot find anyone in the industry who has supported the creation of this TLD. The opposition of religious groups should have been inconsequential, but as subscribers to my news will have seen, they're crowing about their input into the rejection. I would have thought the lack of community support was reason enough to not approve the proposed TLD. Second, I have major reservations about the role ICANN may be forced to play in content regulation should problems eventuate with ICM. In addition, the creation of such a TLD should never have got off the ground. It does nothing to protect children unless there is enforced registrations of adult content in this field. It also uses a western concept on what is adult content. You could easily argue that it is all about western, and mostly American, views about protecting children. Further, those voting against the resolution put forward at the meeting only voted against supporting the resolution. They did not necessarily vote in favour of the creation of a .xxx TLD. To call this censorship is plain wrong. Cheers David Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bfausett at internet.law.pro Tue Apr 3 17:38:03 2007 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 14:38:03 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <20070403211839.97918.qmail@web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <20070403211839.97918.qmail@web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000601c77638$5cc46750$6c05a8c0@CCKLLP.local> If I filter all messages from some people into /dev/null, I haven't "censored" them. > And Bret - your playing with semantics. Forcing someone to > register a domain in a zone or however you want to call it is > part of censorship. As then users can easily be stopped from > accessing a particular TLD. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From robin at ipjustice.org Tue Apr 3 18:01:46 2007 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:01:46 -0700 Subject: [Expression] [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <9992bcc60704030057y4ee9de72uf286473803355c4@mail.gmail.com> References: <4611BB5B.4030802@ipjustice.org> <461205B2.8020405@bertola.eu> <9992bcc60704030057y4ee9de72uf286473803355c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4612CECA.7080607@ipjustice.org> Hi Andrew, I'm having a hard time understanding how you can say ICANN should keep the "top level content-neutral and strictly divorced from content-specific rules" while also arguing that ICANN should prevent .xxx because of its content. Do you agree that ICANN should be content-neutral or do you believe ICANN should make policies based on content? Thanks, Robin Andrew McLaughlin wrote: > FWIW (i.e., not much), I agree with Vittorio. To call this decision > "censorship" degrades the meaning of that term. The fact that there > is no .abortion TLD doesn't in any way limit the ability of any > Internet speaker to voice an opinion about abortion. To the extent > that DNS labeling is important, second- and third- and fourth level > labels -- abortion.example.com -- are always available. > > IMHO, free expression is much more threatened by content-specific TLD > labels, all of which ICANN would be smart to reject. Rather than give > restrictive governments and ISPs new tools for censorship of the real > kind, ICANN should keep the DNS at the top level content-neutral and > strictly divorced from content-specific rules. > > Susan's dissent is unconvincing because it ignores the second-order > consequences of using the DNS as a designation of content. It's the > wrong road to go down. > > --andrew > > > On 4/3/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >> Robin Gross ha scritto: >> > From my cyberlaw blog: >> > http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/04/02/icann_board_votexxx >> >> Well, once in a lifetime, we disagree completely :-) >> >> I have had the luck to witness personally the last three months of >> discussions in the ICANN Board. So, believe it or not, your >> interpretation of the reasons and the value of this vote is IMHO quite >> wrong. Let me explain. >> >> First of all, ICANN had a process for TLD applications (which, >> incidentally, is quite a bad process, starting from the meaningless >> "sponsorship" idea, but that's what we had at the moment), and the vote >> was meant to judge whether the application meant the requirements. There >> was no discussion on whether "adult entertainment" is good or bad or >> whether it should be censored. There was, however, discussion on whether >> the criteria were met; some directors thought they were, most thought >> they weren't. That's how the vote went. Susan and another director - not >> even all the five who voted against rejection - apparently assumed that >> those who disagreed with them did so due to political pressure or desire >> for censorship. This was entirely their assumption and many of the >> others felt personally offended by it. >> >> Even if you forget about the process and think about the idea in itself, >> it looks like a bad idea. Adult entertainment sites do not want to be >> labelled, exactly because they are afraid of being censored; many of >> them - basically all, according to some's judgement; for example, there >> was no single adult webmaster speaking in support of .xxx in the entire >> meeting - made it clear that they'd not have used the new domain. So the >> only purpose for this domain would have been defensive registrations, >> e.g. transfering money from consumers to the company who would have run >> it. Personally - and especially given that I represent consumers on the >> ICANN Board - I think that this would have been publicly detrimental. >> >> Then, let's discuss about "censorship". I think that the statement that >> not approving .xxx is "content-related censorship" is impossible to take >> seriously. You write: >> >> > By voting to turn down the .XXX >> > application for public policy reasons, the Board indicated it will go >> > beyond its technical mission of DNS coordination and seek to decide >> what >> > ideas are allowed to be given a voice in the new domain name space. >> >> Do you seriously mean that since there is no .xxx there is no porn over >> the Internet? >> >> Actually, if .xxx had been approved, then many governments could have >> passed laws to force porn sites into it, thus actually making censorship >> easier. The only reply I got to this observation was "yes, but in the US >> we have the First Amendment that would make it impossible". And what >> about the rest of the world? >> >> All in all, of course there are sociopolitical aspects in some of the >> decisions that ICANN has to take. Even refusing to consider these >> aspects, and embracing the hyper-liberalistic, totally free market >> approach of approving each and every application for a new TLD no matter >> how controversial it is, which you and others seem to advocate, is a >> political choice. It's way too common to hide behind memes such as "it >> should be a technical decision only" or "let the market decide", but >> these are political choices as well, with lots of implications. I am >> surprised by how so many brilliant people from the liberal US >> environment seem unable to accept diversity on this issue, to the point >> of questioning the legitimacy or good faith of decisions when they go in >> a different direction. >> >> I'll stop here, pointing at the comment I left on Susan's blog - >> http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/3/30/2845638.html#882501 >> >> - for further consideration about the "cultural diversity" issue. >> >> Ciao, >> -- >> vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >> --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> You are subscribed as: %(user_address)s >> >> To be removed from this list send an email to >> Expression-request at ipjustice.org with the subject "unsubscribe" and >> you will be removed. >> >> Or - click on this: >> mailto:Expression-request at ipjustice.org?subject=unsubscribe >> >> To change your options: >> %(user_optionsurl)s >> >> Expression mailing list >> Expression at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/expression >> > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Tue Apr 3 18:26:28 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:26:28 -0700 Subject: [Expression] [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4612D494.8030808@cavebear.com> Andrew McLaughlin wrote: > I'm saying ICANN should reject any TLD that is not content-neutral, > regardless of what the content is. .xxx would not be content-agnostic, and > so should be rejected (IMHO). I fear the consequences if governments get the > idea that the DNS can be used to label and control content. Hmmm, that's a subtle shift of ideas. We were talking about content-neutral evaluation of applications and you seem to be talking about content-neutral operation of the TLD itself. Am I reading you correctly? And if so, does that suggest that "sponsored" TLDs would necessarily be out of bounds? And would I be correct in thinking that non-neutral treatment that is the result of the action of local law would not cause a TLD to be out of bounds? I do kinda like the idea, and I imagine that were there enough TLDs that users of various flavors would naturally coalesce around one or the other TLD thus giving those TLDs a kind of content-flavor but not through the action of the operator but rather by the choices of the users/customers. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Apr 3 18:33:26 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:33:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <46129776.3000703@ipjustice.org> References: <4611BB5B.4030802@ipjustice.org> <461205B2.8020405@bertola.eu> <46129776.3000703@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <4612D636.10507@bertola.eu> Robin Gross ha scritto: > Hi Vittorio! > > Thanks for the comments. But asking the question whether or not .xxx is > a 'good idea' begs for a system of subjective and arbitrary policies > from ICANN. May I challenge the frequent use of "subjective" as a pejorative adjective? Policy decisions in a global and very diverse environment necessarily reflect differences in mindsets and evaluations, and thus differ according to the person; they can't be anything but subjective. The legitimacy lies in the composition of the Board and in the processes that lead to it, not in the decision itself. Apart from this, my comment on the "bad idea" was secondary to the fact that .xxx was rejected because, in all honesty, most directors thought that it did not meet the requirements for approval set forth in the process. People can legitimately disagree, as long as they recognize the legitimacy of those who disagree with them :-) > You may be right .xxx is a stupid idea. You may be right that down the > line some govts could use a .xxx for censorship purposes. But all of > this is irrelevant. > The point is that ICANN is NOT in the business of picking good ideas and > preventing bad ideas from going forward. ICANN's mission is technical > coordination not speech regulation. Curiously, at the GAC Open Session the summarization of the general sentiment of participants was "be warned that if you approve .xxx, then you are stepping into content regulation". The exact opposite of what you say here. Personally, I can't see why rejecting .xxx is speech regulation, but approving it is technical coordination. If the creation of .xxx is a political issue, then it is so both if you approve it and if you reject it. I think that it is utopian to think that you can discuss such an action without considering the social and political aspects; that's what most of the outside world expects anyway. And the suggestion that ICANN should do stupid things just because the process leads to them is, as a minimum, bureaucratical :-) > So simply asking the question whether or not a certain tld should be > allowed to exist based on its content, means we accept content > regulation by ICANN. But ICANN did not decide on this application based on content. Instead, it decided on a set of criteria which included a qualitative and, to the scarce extent possible, quantitative evaluation of support and opposition to this proposal. It is indeed true that many of those who expressed opposition might have done so on the basis of the expected content of this TLD, but then, you should complain with them and not with ICANN. I tend to feel that, independently of what you and I may think of this matter, the Internet (the global community) in the overall wasn't mature enough for .xxx. Perhaps you, Milton, Susan etc would get better results by convincing the world to embrace your "hyper-liberalistic" view of this market, though I don't think that it'd be easy to get significant support for that political orientation outside of a few developed countries. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Tue Apr 3 18:51:30 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 18:51:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Expression] [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: so ".com" is bad? It's not "content neutral" after all. I gather only semantically meaningless suffixes (like ".iii") would pass this very stiff test? On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Andrew McLaughlin wrote: > I'm saying ICANN should reject any TLD that is not content-neutral, regardless of what the content is. .xxx would not be content-agnostic, and so should be rejected (IMHO). I fear the consequences if governments get the idea that the DNS can be used to label and control content. > > --andrew > > ----- > andrew mclaughlin > google inc. > mclaughlin at google.com > +1.650.253.6035 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Gross > To: Andrew McLaughlin > CC: Vittorio Bertola; governance at lists.cpsr.org; expression at ipjustice.org; NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu > Sent: Tue Apr 03 15:01:46 2007 > Subject: Re: [Expression] [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names > > Hi Andrew, > > I'm having a hard time understanding how you can say ICANN should keep > the "top level content-neutral and strictly divorced from > content-specific rules" while also arguing that ICANN should prevent > .xxx because of its content. > > Do you agree that ICANN should be content-neutral or do you believe > ICANN should make policies based on content? > > Thanks, > Robin > > > > Andrew McLaughlin wrote: > >> FWIW (i.e., not much), I agree with Vittorio. To call this decision >> "censorship" degrades the meaning of that term. The fact that there >> is no .abortion TLD doesn't in any way limit the ability of any >> Internet speaker to voice an opinion about abortion. To the extent >> that DNS labeling is important, second- and third- and fourth level >> labels -- abortion.example.com -- are always available. >> >> IMHO, free expression is much more threatened by content-specific TLD >> labels, all of which ICANN would be smart to reject. Rather than give >> restrictive governments and ISPs new tools for censorship of the real >> kind, ICANN should keep the DNS at the top level content-neutral and >> strictly divorced from content-specific rules. >> >> Susan's dissent is unconvincing because it ignores the second-order >> consequences of using the DNS as a designation of content. It's the >> wrong road to go down. >> >> --andrew >> >> >> On 4/3/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> >>> Robin Gross ha scritto: >>>> From my cyberlaw blog: >>>> http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/04/02/icann_board_votexxx >>> >>> Well, once in a lifetime, we disagree completely :-) >>> >>> I have had the luck to witness personally the last three months of >>> discussions in the ICANN Board. So, believe it or not, your >>> interpretation of the reasons and the value of this vote is IMHO quite >>> wrong. Let me explain. >>> >>> First of all, ICANN had a process for TLD applications (which, >>> incidentally, is quite a bad process, starting from the meaningless >>> "sponsorship" idea, but that's what we had at the moment), and the vote >>> was meant to judge whether the application meant the requirements. There >>> was no discussion on whether "adult entertainment" is good or bad or >>> whether it should be censored. There was, however, discussion on whether >>> the criteria were met; some directors thought they were, most thought >>> they weren't. That's how the vote went. Susan and another director - not >>> even all the five who voted against rejection - apparently assumed that >>> those who disagreed with them did so due to political pressure or desire >>> for censorship. This was entirely their assumption and many of the >>> others felt personally offended by it. >>> >>> Even if you forget about the process and think about the idea in itself, >>> it looks like a bad idea. Adult entertainment sites do not want to be >>> labelled, exactly because they are afraid of being censored; many of >>> them - basically all, according to some's judgement; for example, there >>> was no single adult webmaster speaking in support of .xxx in the entire >>> meeting - made it clear that they'd not have used the new domain. So the >>> only purpose for this domain would have been defensive registrations, >>> e.g. transfering money from consumers to the company who would have run >>> it. Personally - and especially given that I represent consumers on the >>> ICANN Board - I think that this would have been publicly detrimental. >>> >>> Then, let's discuss about "censorship". I think that the statement that >>> not approving .xxx is "content-related censorship" is impossible to take >>> seriously. You write: >>> >>>> By voting to turn down the .XXX >>>> application for public policy reasons, the Board indicated it will go >>>> beyond its technical mission of DNS coordination and seek to decide >>> what >>>> ideas are allowed to be given a voice in the new domain name space. >>> >>> Do you seriously mean that since there is no .xxx there is no porn over >>> the Internet? >>> >>> Actually, if .xxx had been approved, then many governments could have >>> passed laws to force porn sites into it, thus actually making censorship >>> easier. The only reply I got to this observation was "yes, but in the US >>> we have the First Amendment that would make it impossible". And what >>> about the rest of the world? >>> >>> All in all, of course there are sociopolitical aspects in some of the >>> decisions that ICANN has to take. Even refusing to consider these >>> aspects, and embracing the hyper-liberalistic, totally free market >>> approach of approving each and every application for a new TLD no matter >>> how controversial it is, which you and others seem to advocate, is a >>> political choice. It's way too common to hide behind memes such as "it >>> should be a technical decision only" or "let the market decide", but >>> these are political choices as well, with lots of implications. I am >>> surprised by how so many brilliant people from the liberal US >>> environment seem unable to accept diversity on this issue, to the point >>> of questioning the legitimacy or good faith of decisions when they go in >>> a different direction. >>> >>> I'll stop here, pointing at the comment I left on Susan's blog - >>> http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/3/30/2845638.html#882501 >>> >>> - for further consideration about the "cultural diversity" issue. >>> >>> Ciao, >>> -- >>> vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >>> --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> You are subscribed as: %(user_address)s >>> >>> To be removed from this list send an email to >>> Expression-request at ipjustice.org with the subject "unsubscribe" and >>> you will be removed. >>> >>> Or - click on this: >>> mailto:Expression-request at ipjustice.org?subject=unsubscribe >>> >>> To change your options: >>> %(user_optionsurl)s >>> >>> Expression mailing list >>> Expression at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/expression >>> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > You are subscribed as: %(user_address)s > > To be removed from this list send an email to Expression-request at ipjustice.org with the subject "unsubscribe" and you will be removed. > > Or - click on this: > mailto:Expression-request at ipjustice.org?subject=unsubscribe > > To change your options: > %(user_optionsurl)s > > Expression mailing list > Expression at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/expression > -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Apr 3 19:04:35 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 01:04:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4612DD83.8040701@bertola.eu> Milton Mueller ha scritto: > You can come up with all kinds of after-the-fact rationalizations, as > Vittorio does, but there is only one thing that has changed between June > 2005 (when the ICANN Board voted to approve the application) and last > week (when they voted to kill it) and that is the strong and sustained > objections of governments, opponents of pornography and adult > webmasters. Actually, the most significant change in these years was that a relevant part of the adult entertainment world, which initially supported the proposal, changed their mind and started to actively oppose it. Vint Cerf's vote, for example, was mostly due to this, as he said in his declaration. And he was one of those who initially voted in favour of negotiating an agreement. In any case, why do you think that opposition by governments should be disregarded? They are a significant stakeholder and their opinion has to be taken into account. Actually, one of ICANN's core values (see the Bylaws) is: "11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations." > .xxx was killed because it was controversial and ICANN > lacked the spine to stand up to that kind of pressure. full stop. It seems to me that you are trying to read the minds of Board members... and not even correctly :-) Actually, you need more "spine" to stand up to the multimillion dollar lawsuits that ICM is likely to bring. > Let me dispose of the absurd notion that the semantics of a domain name > doesn't affect the ability to express oneself freely online. This > argument has been decisively rejected by a court in the US. Oh well, if a court in the US (one of the zillion courts in the US) says so, then it's settled for the globe... :-) > And it's intuitively obvious why this argument is silly. Imagine someone > saying, "you cannot name your book "The Middle East: Peace or Aparthed" > because that will offend the Israelis, but you can say whatever you like > inside the book." Is that free expression? Top level domains are not the expression of an individual, they are broad group names that are to be used by thousands or millions of individuals together. You simply can't pretend to have exactly your own favourite string as TLD - even if we had one million of them, there wouldn't be enough to grant one to every user. Still, while I see how your free expression is harmed by not being able to set up a website at the URL sucks.com, I can't see how your free expression is harmed by setting up your pro-abortion website at proabortion.com rather than at pro.abortion. It is perhaps more harmed by the fact that if no new gTLDs are introduced then it'll be hard to find proabortion. still available. Incidentally, even if this wasn't a factor in the decision, I think that, if ICANN had approved .xxx, one minute later there would have been many governments suggesting to freeze the introduction of new gTLDs until ICANN started to be more considerate in choices. In realpolitik terms, it would have been a disaster. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Apr 3 19:32:33 2007 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:32:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <4612DD83.8040701@bertola.eu> References: <4612DD83.8040701@bertola.eu> Message-ID: At 1:04 AM +0200 4/4/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >I think that, if ICANN had approved .xxx, one minute later there would have been many governments suggesting to freeze the introduction of new gTLDs until ICANN started to be more considerate in choices. To what extent is this reflective of the real politics that drove votes for the decision? David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From apisan at servidor.unam.mx Tue Apr 3 19:12:32 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 18:12:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <4612DD83.8040701@bertola.eu> References: <4612DD83.8040701@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <1175641952.6t6khvsyi8w0@mail.servidores.unam.mx> Vittorio, due to travel I'm not quite able to regularly access and especially reply to email, but am following this debate (I'm reading on Blackberry all day, but can't reply because of the thing's limitations, and my laptop connects only through a webmail - I have some firewall issues, which I've not been able to solve, with my usual ssh to server; and, am only connected this way once or twice a day.) So let me tell you YES, you are right, and pointing out the most serious problems with Milton's (and Froomkin's, etc.) positions, including the appalling parochiality of their US-centered views.) So, forza, Azzurri... Alx -- Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Director General de Servicios de Cómputo Académico UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico, D.F., Mexico Tels. +52-55-5622-8541, +52-55-5622-8542; Fax +52-55-5622-8540 > ----- Message from vb at bertola.eu --------- > Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 01:04:35 +0200 > From: Vittorio Bertola > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Vittorio Bertola > Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names > To: Milton Mueller > > Milton Mueller ha scritto: > > You can come up with all kinds of after-the-fact rationalizations, as > > Vittorio does, but there is only one thing that has changed between June > > 2005 (when the ICANN Board voted to approve the application) and last > > week (when they voted to kill it) and that is the strong and sustained > > objections of governments, opponents of pornography and adult > > webmasters. > > Actually, the most significant change in these years was that a relevant > part of the adult entertainment world, which initially supported the > proposal, changed their mind and started to actively oppose it. Vint > Cerf's vote, for example, was mostly due to this, as he said in his > declaration. And he was one of those who initially voted in favour of > negotiating an agreement. > > In any case, why do you think that opposition by governments should be > disregarded? They are a significant stakeholder and their opinion has to > be taken into account. Actually, one of ICANN's core values (see the > Bylaws) is: > > "11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that > governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and > duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' > recommendations." > > > .xxx was killed because it was controversial and ICANN > > lacked the spine to stand up to that kind of pressure. full stop. > > It seems to me that you are trying to read the minds of Board members... > and not even correctly :-) Actually, you need more "spine" to stand up > to the multimillion dollar lawsuits that ICM is likely to bring. > > > Let me dispose of the absurd notion that the semantics of a domain name > > doesn't affect the ability to express oneself freely online. This > > argument has been decisively rejected by a court in the US. > > Oh well, if a court in the US (one of the zillion courts in the US) says > so, then it's settled for the globe... :-) > > > And it's intuitively obvious why this argument is silly. Imagine someone > > saying, "you cannot name your book "The Middle East: Peace or Aparthed" > > because that will offend the Israelis, but you can say whatever you like > > inside the book." Is that free expression? > > Top level domains are not the expression of an individual, they are > broad group names that are to be used by thousands or millions of > individuals together. You simply can't pretend to have exactly your own > favourite string as TLD - even if we had one million of them, there > wouldn't be enough to grant one to every user. > > Still, while I see how your free expression is harmed by not being able > to set up a website at the URL sucks.com, I can't see how > your free expression is harmed by setting up your pro-abortion website > at proabortion.com rather than at pro.abortion. It is perhaps more > harmed by the fact that if no new gTLDs are introduced then it'll be > hard to find proabortion. still available. > > Incidentally, even if this wasn't a factor in the decision, I think > that, if ICANN had approved .xxx, one minute later there would have been > many governments suggesting to freeze the introduction of new gTLDs > until ICANN started to be more considerate in choices. In realpolitik > terms, it would have been a disaster. > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ----- End message from vb at bertola.eu ----- ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Apr 3 19:50:07 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 16:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names Message-ID: <20070403235007.41694.qmail@web54106.mail.re2.yahoo.com> But if "you" choose to do it for yourself, this is your choice. But if the state or someone else does it for you, and it's enforced, that's censorship. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Bret Fausett > If I filter all messages from some people into /dev/null, I haven't > "censored" them. >> And Bret - your playing with semantics. Forcing someone to >> register a domain in a zone or however you want to call it is >> part of censorship. As then users can easily be stopped from >> accessing a particular TLD. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Tue Apr 3 21:07:55 2007 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 20:07:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <4612DD83.8040701@bertola.eu> References: <4612DD83.8040701@bertola.eu> Message-ID: The few posts that I have made on this list have generally resulted in a heated, time-consuming, lengthy and non-productive set of exchanges. I don't want to initiate another such set. So rather than adding specific opinions, let me just say that of all the opinions I've heard on this subject, I think that Vittorio has a really excellent grasp of the issues and I ally myself strongly with his point of view. George Sadowsky ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 1:04 AM +0200 4/4/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Milton Mueller ha scritto: >>You can come up with all kinds of after-the-fact rationalizations, as >>Vittorio does, but there is only one thing that has changed between June >>2005 (when the ICANN Board voted to approve the application) and last >>week (when they voted to kill it) and that is the strong and sustained >>objections of governments, opponents of pornography and adult >>webmasters. > >Actually, the most significant change in these years was that a >relevant part of the adult entertainment world, which initially >supported the proposal, changed their mind and started to actively >oppose it. Vint Cerf's vote, for example, was mostly due to this, as >he said in his declaration. And he was one of those who initially >voted in favour of negotiating an agreement. > >In any case, why do you think that opposition by governments should >be disregarded? They are a significant stakeholder and their opinion >has to be taken into account. Actually, one of ICANN's core values >(see the Bylaws) is: > >"11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that >governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy >and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' >recommendations." > >> .xxx was killed because it was controversial and ICANN >>lacked the spine to stand up to that kind of pressure. full stop. > >It seems to me that you are trying to read the minds of Board >members... and not even correctly :-) Actually, you need more >"spine" to stand up to the multimillion dollar lawsuits that ICM is >likely to bring. > >>Let me dispose of the absurd notion that the semantics of a domain name >>doesn't affect the ability to express oneself freely online. This >>argument has been decisively rejected by a court in the US. > >Oh well, if a court in the US (one of the zillion courts in the US) >says so, then it's settled for the globe... :-) > >>And it's intuitively obvious why this argument is silly. Imagine someone >>saying, "you cannot name your book "The Middle East: Peace or Aparthed" >>because that will offend the Israelis, but you can say whatever you like >>inside the book." Is that free expression? > >Top level domains are not the expression of an individual, they are >broad group names that are to be used by thousands or millions of >individuals together. You simply can't pretend to have exactly your >own favourite string as TLD - even if we had one million of them, >there wouldn't be enough to grant one to every user. > >Still, while I see how your free expression is harmed by not being >able to set up a website at the URL sucks.com, I can't >see how your free expression is harmed by setting up your >pro-abortion website at proabortion.com rather than at pro.abortion. >It is perhaps more harmed by the fact that if no new gTLDs are >introduced then it'll be hard to find proabortion. still >available. > >Incidentally, even if this wasn't a factor in the decision, I think >that, if ICANN had approved .xxx, one minute later there would have >been many governments suggesting to freeze the introduction of new >gTLDs until ICANN started to be more considerate in choices. In >realpolitik terms, it would have been a disaster. >-- >vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >--------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From robin at ipjustice.org Tue Apr 3 21:37:57 2007 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 18:37:57 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <1175641952.6t6khvsyi8w0@mail.servidores.unam.mx> References: <4612DD83.8040701@bertola.eu> <1175641952.6t6khvsyi8w0@mail.servidores.unam.mx> Message-ID: <46130175.9060501@ipjustice.org> I presume there are better arguments for content regulation than the national origin of those against content-regulation? Robin Alejandro Pisanty wrote: >Vittorio, > >due to travel I'm not quite able to regularly access and especially reply to >email, but am following this debate (I'm reading on Blackberry all day, but >can't reply because of the thing's limitations, and my laptop connects only >through a webmail - I have some firewall issues, which I've not been able to >solve, with my usual ssh to server; and, am only connected this way once or >twice a day.) > >So let me tell you YES, you are right, and pointing out the most serious >problems with Milton's (and Froomkin's, etc.) positions, including the >appalling parochiality of their US-centered views.) > >So, forza, Azzurri... > >Alx > >-- >Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >Director General de Servicios de Cómputo Académico >UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico, D.F., Mexico >Tels. +52-55-5622-8541, +52-55-5622-8542; Fax +52-55-5622-8540 > > > > > >>----- Message from vb at bertola.eu --------- >> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 01:04:35 +0200 >> From: Vittorio Bertola >>Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Vittorio Bertola >> Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in >> >> >Domain Names > > >> To: Milton Mueller >> >>Milton Mueller ha scritto: >> >> >>>You can come up with all kinds of after-the-fact rationalizations, as >>>Vittorio does, but there is only one thing that has changed between June >>>2005 (when the ICANN Board voted to approve the application) and last >>>week (when they voted to kill it) and that is the strong and sustained >>>objections of governments, opponents of pornography and adult >>>webmasters. >>> >>> >>Actually, the most significant change in these years was that a relevant >>part of the adult entertainment world, which initially supported the >>proposal, changed their mind and started to actively oppose it. Vint >>Cerf's vote, for example, was mostly due to this, as he said in his >>declaration. And he was one of those who initially voted in favour of >>negotiating an agreement. >> >>In any case, why do you think that opposition by governments should be >>disregarded? They are a significant stakeholder and their opinion has to >>be taken into account. Actually, one of ICANN's core values (see the >>Bylaws) is: >> >>"11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that >>governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and >>duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' >>recommendations." >> >> > .xxx was killed because it was controversial and ICANN >> >> >>>lacked the spine to stand up to that kind of pressure. full stop. >>> >>> >>It seems to me that you are trying to read the minds of Board members... >>and not even correctly :-) Actually, you need more "spine" to stand up >>to the multimillion dollar lawsuits that ICM is likely to bring. >> >> >> >>>Let me dispose of the absurd notion that the semantics of a domain name >>>doesn't affect the ability to express oneself freely online. This >>>argument has been decisively rejected by a court in the US. >>> >>> >>Oh well, if a court in the US (one of the zillion courts in the US) says >>so, then it's settled for the globe... :-) >> >> >> >>>And it's intuitively obvious why this argument is silly. Imagine someone >>>saying, "you cannot name your book "The Middle East: Peace or Aparthed" >>>because that will offend the Israelis, but you can say whatever you like >>>inside the book." Is that free expression? >>> >>> >>Top level domains are not the expression of an individual, they are >>broad group names that are to be used by thousands or millions of >>individuals together. You simply can't pretend to have exactly your own >>favourite string as TLD - even if we had one million of them, there >>wouldn't be enough to grant one to every user. >> >>Still, while I see how your free expression is harmed by not being able >>to set up a website at the URL sucks.com, I can't see how >>your free expression is harmed by setting up your pro-abortion website >>at proabortion.com rather than at pro.abortion. It is perhaps more >>harmed by the fact that if no new gTLDs are introduced then it'll be >>hard to find proabortion. still available. >> >>Incidentally, even if this wasn't a factor in the decision, I think >>that, if ICANN had approved .xxx, one minute later there would have been >>many governments suggesting to freeze the introduction of new gTLDs >>until ICANN started to be more considerate in choices. In realpolitik >>terms, it would have been a disaster. >>-- >>vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >>--------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >>----- End message from vb at bertola.eu ----- >> >> > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 froomkin at law.miami.edu Tue Apr 3 22:40:20 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 22:40:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Expression] [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <9992bcc60704031741n43bf645j4195f7bc701ac914@mail.gmail.com> References: <9992bcc60704031741n43bf645j4195f7bc701ac914@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Would .xxx really have rejected a site that just had flowers? (I haven't read the recent proposals - this isn't a rhetorical question.) My understanding had been that while they would advertise a certain kind of content, they wouldn't forbid others -- they'd take your money quite happily. But if I'm wrong about that -- if they would actually block non-porn -- then I think I understand what you mean. But even so, I still don't quite grasp how to approach your rule in light of the many prosals that have been in the pipeline. would .tel be out? .geo? (I think yes for both, but I'm not sure.) I suppose I could live with this sort of distinction although I don't at all get why it is attractive as compared to letting a 1000 flowers (er, TLDs) bloom... On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Andrew McLaughlin wrote: > What content restriction does .com impose on speech expressed via > second-level domains under .com? > > The idea of .xxx is that content communicated via servers bearing .xxx > DNS labels will be sexually explicit. That makes .xxx a > content-specific label, and therefore bad (IMHO). DNS registries > should always be agnostic to content. > > Don't confuse content-specific speech labels with identity-specific > registration requirements, i.e.: > > - what is said (e.g., .xxx site = porn) > vs. > - who is the registrant (e.g., .museum registrant = a museum) > > The second is still content-neutral: a museum can send porn via a > .museum-labelled server, if it wants. > > My concern is to keep all DNS registries away from the business of > acting as a label for content; it's fine with me if they serve as a > label of registrant identity (i.e., only museums, only coops, only > Ghana residents). That's because there are many open options > available to all registrants; the battle is to keep the DNS from > becoming a tool of censorship, whether well-meaning or nefarious. > Governments cannot be trusted not to attempt to zone speech via DNS, > and so all DNS registries should be kept strictly content-neutral to > make that outcome even less feasible and likely. > > So personally, I don't care why or how ICANN rejected the proposal; I > just think mixing content and DNS label is bad. > > (All power to shields, Mr. Chekov! All hands brace for impact!) > > --andrew > > > On 4/3/07, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law > wrote: >> so ".com" is bad? It's not "content neutral" after all. >> >> I gather only semantically meaningless suffixes (like ".iii") would pass >> this very stiff test? >> >> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Andrew McLaughlin wrote: >> >> > I'm saying ICANN should reject any TLD that is not content-neutral, >> regardless of what the content is. .xxx would not be content-agnostic, and >> so should be rejected (IMHO). I fear the consequences if governments get >> the idea that the DNS can be used to label and control content. >> > >> > --andrew >> > >> > ----- >> > andrew mclaughlin >> > google inc. >> > mclaughlin at google.com >> > +1.650.253.6035 >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Robin Gross >> > To: Andrew McLaughlin >> > CC: Vittorio Bertola; governance at lists.cpsr.org; >> expression at ipjustice.org; NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >> > Sent: Tue Apr 03 15:01:46 2007 >> > Subject: Re: [Expression] [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of >> Censorship in Domain Names >> > >> > Hi Andrew, >> > >> > I'm having a hard time understanding how you can say ICANN should keep >> > the "top level content-neutral and strictly divorced from >> > content-specific rules" while also arguing that ICANN should prevent >> > .xxx because of its content. >> > >> > Do you agree that ICANN should be content-neutral or do you believe >> > ICANN should make policies based on content? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Robin >> > >> > >> > >> > Andrew McLaughlin wrote: >> > >> >> FWIW (i.e., not much), I agree with Vittorio. To call this decision >> >> "censorship" degrades the meaning of that term. The fact that there >> >> is no .abortion TLD doesn't in any way limit the ability of any >> >> Internet speaker to voice an opinion about abortion. To the extent >> >> that DNS labeling is important, second- and third- and fourth level >> >> labels -- abortion.example.com -- are always available. >> >> >> >> IMHO, free expression is much more threatened by content-specific TLD >> >> labels, all of which ICANN would be smart to reject. Rather than give >> >> restrictive governments and ISPs new tools for censorship of the real >> >> kind, ICANN should keep the DNS at the top level content-neutral and >> >> strictly divorced from content-specific rules. >> >> >> >> Susan's dissent is unconvincing because it ignores the second-order >> >> consequences of using the DNS as a designation of content. It's the >> >> wrong road to go down. >> >> >> >> --andrew >> >> >> >> >> >> On 4/3/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> >> >> >>> Robin Gross ha scritto: >> >>>> From my cyberlaw blog: >> >>>> http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/04/02/icann_board_votexxx >> >>> >> >>> Well, once in a lifetime, we disagree completely :-) >> >>> >> >>> I have had the luck to witness personally the last three months of >> >>> discussions in the ICANN Board. So, believe it or not, your >> >>> interpretation of the reasons and the value of this vote is IMHO quite >> >>> wrong. Let me explain. >> >>> >> >>> First of all, ICANN had a process for TLD applications (which, >> >>> incidentally, is quite a bad process, starting from the meaningless >> >>> "sponsorship" idea, but that's what we had at the moment), and the vote >> >>> was meant to judge whether the application meant the requirements. >> There >> >>> was no discussion on whether "adult entertainment" is good or bad or >> >>> whether it should be censored. There was, however, discussion on >> whether >> >>> the criteria were met; some directors thought they were, most thought >> >>> they weren't. That's how the vote went. Susan and another director - >> not >> >>> even all the five who voted against rejection - apparently assumed that >> >>> those who disagreed with them did so due to political pressure or >> desire >> >>> for censorship. This was entirely their assumption and many of the >> >>> others felt personally offended by it. >> >>> >> >>> Even if you forget about the process and think about the idea in >> itself, >> >>> it looks like a bad idea. Adult entertainment sites do not want to be >> >>> labelled, exactly because they are afraid of being censored; many of >> >>> them - basically all, according to some's judgement; for example, there >> >>> was no single adult webmaster speaking in support of .xxx in the entire >> >>> meeting - made it clear that they'd not have used the new domain. So >> the >> >>> only purpose for this domain would have been defensive registrations, >> >>> e.g. transfering money from consumers to the company who would have run >> >>> it. Personally - and especially given that I represent consumers on the >> >>> ICANN Board - I think that this would have been publicly detrimental. >> >>> >> >>> Then, let's discuss about "censorship". I think that the statement that >> >>> not approving .xxx is "content-related censorship" is impossible to >> take >> >>> seriously. You write: >> >>> >> >>>> By voting to turn down the .XXX >> >>>> application for public policy reasons, the Board indicated it will go >> >>>> beyond its technical mission of DNS coordination and seek to decide >> >>> what >> >>>> ideas are allowed to be given a voice in the new domain name space. >> >>> >> >>> Do you seriously mean that since there is no .xxx there is no porn over >> >>> the Internet? >> >>> >> >>> Actually, if .xxx had been approved, then many governments could have >> >>> passed laws to force porn sites into it, thus actually making >> censorship >> >>> easier. The only reply I got to this observation was "yes, but in the >> US >> >>> we have the First Amendment that would make it impossible". And what >> >>> about the rest of the world? >> >>> >> >>> All in all, of course there are sociopolitical aspects in some of the >> >>> decisions that ICANN has to take. Even refusing to consider these >> >>> aspects, and embracing the hyper-liberalistic, totally free market >> >>> approach of approving each and every application for a new TLD no >> matter >> >>> how controversial it is, which you and others seem to advocate, is a >> >>> political choice. It's way too common to hide behind memes such as "it >> >>> should be a technical decision only" or "let the market decide", but >> >>> these are political choices as well, with lots of implications. I am >> >>> surprised by how so many brilliant people from the liberal US >> >>> environment seem unable to accept diversity on this issue, to the point >> >>> of questioning the legitimacy or good faith of decisions when they go >> in >> >>> a different direction. >> >>> >> >>> I'll stop here, pointing at the comment I left on Susan's blog - >> >>> >> http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/3/30/2845638.html#882501 >> >>> >> >>> - for further consideration about the "cultural diversity" issue. >> >>> >> >>> Ciao, >> >>> -- >> >>> vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >> >>> --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> >> >>> You are subscribed as: %(user_address)s >> >>> >> >>> To be removed from this list send an email to >> >>> Expression-request at ipjustice.org with the subject "unsubscribe" and >> >>> you will be removed. >> >>> >> >>> Or - click on this: >> >>> mailto:Expression-request at ipjustice.org?subject=unsubscribe >> >>> >> >>> To change your options: >> >>> %(user_optionsurl)s >> >>> >> >>> Expression mailing list >> >>> Expression at ipjustice.org >> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/expression >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > >> > You are subscribed as: %(user_address)s >> > >> > To be removed from this list send an email to >> Expression-request at ipjustice.org with the subject "unsubscribe" and you >> will be removed. >> > >> > Or - click on this: >> > mailto:Expression-request at ipjustice.org?subject=unsubscribe >> > >> > To change your options: >> > %(user_optionsurl)s >> > >> > Expression mailing list >> > Expression at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/expression >> > >> >> -- >> http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net >> A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm >> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA >> +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm >> -->It's warm here.<-- >> > > > -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Tue Apr 3 22:43:59 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 22:43:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <46130175.9060501@ipjustice.org> References: <4612DD83.8040701@bertola.eu> <1175641952.6t6khvsyi8w0@mail.servidores.unam.mx> <46130175.9060501@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: I believe that Alejandro was objecting to my praising Vittorio's comment. Either that, or it's the ICANN Board reflex when they see the character string "Froomkin".... On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Robin Gross wrote: > I presume there are better arguments for content regulation than the national > origin of those against content-regulation? > > Robin > [...] -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Apr 3 22:53:31 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:53:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names Message-ID: <20070404025331.39856.qmail@web54112.mail.re2.yahoo.com> To take this discussion on .xxx slightly into another area, who was to determine what is acceptable to register in .xxx? I've not read the proposal, so it's probably outlined there. But if it's ONLY to be pornography and related, under whose standards? America's? China's? Saudia Arabia's? And given the US's preoccupation with porn, and acceptance of violence in its media and entertainment mediums, would a ".violence" TLD viewed acceptable if it met the requirements? Cheers David Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Tue Apr 3 23:21:41 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:21:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship inDomain Names Message-ID: >>> Vittorio Bertola 04/03/07 7:04 PM >>> >Incidentally, even if this wasn't a factor in the decision, I >think that, if ICANN had approved .xxx, one minute later >there would have been many governments suggesting to >freeze the introduction of new gTLDs until ICANN started >to be more considerate in choices. In realpolitik >terms, it would have been a disaster. Thank you, Vittorio, for admitting the real reason why the Board majority voted against .xxx. Can we dispense with the other rationalizations now? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 3 23:41:25 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:41:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship inDomain Names Message-ID: >>> Vittorio Bertola 04/03/07 7:04 PM >>> >In any case, why do you think that opposition by governments >should be disregarded? They are a significant stakeholder and >their opinion has to be taken into account. Not if they are proposing to restrict a fundamental human right. And "governments" don't have a single opinion, in case you hadn't noticed. We have over 200 of them and their laws don't agree on this matter. This business of lumping so-called "stakeholders" into homogeneous groups is really getting out of hand. >Actually, one of ICANN's core values (see the >Bylaws) is: [laughing out loud] that craven "core value" was added in the immediate aftermath of WSIS. Again demonstrating that we are dealing more with intimidation and pandering to power than anything else. >Oh well, if a court in the US (one of the zillion courts in the >US) says so, then it's settled for the globe... :-) Vittorio, let's try to keep the argument honest, ok? First, this was a federal circuit court in the US, not one of "zillions." ICM registry and in fact about 80% of the gTLD industry litigation (and adult industry) is in the US. And the point is not that US law applies globally, but that in the one case I know of where the issue of the speech status of domains was actually put before a national-level court, your argument lost. Can you provide any examples of European courts which have ruled differently? Asian courts (assuming you can find a country there that legally protects free expression)? That would be an informed, constructive contribution. >Top level domains are not the expression of an individual, they are >broad group names that are to be used by thousands or millions of >individuals together. Excuse me, where is this principle enshrined in law? Or did you just make it up? Anyway, they are labels that can be adopted by individuals. >I can't see how your free expression is harmed by setting up your >pro-abortion website at proabortion.com rather than at pro.abortion. Expression is restricted whenever a person who wishes to express themselves in their preferred mnanner is prevented from doing so. It's not for you to decide for others how they express themselves or what domain they use. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 3 23:45:41 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:45:41 -0400 Subject: [Expression] [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names Message-ID: Andrew: Your distinction is arbitrary. Why is a top level domain different from a second level domain in this regard? >>> "Andrew McLaughlin" 04/03/07 8:41 PM >>> content-specific label, and therefore bad (IMHO). DNS registries should always be agnostic to content. My concern is to keep all DNS registries away from the business of acting as a label for content; it's fine with me if they serve as 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 Apr 3 23:54:23 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:54:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names Message-ID: >>> goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au 04/03/07 10:53 PM >>> >I've not read the proposal, so it's probably outlined there. Might be good for you to do your homework > But if it's ONLY to be pornography and related, under whose standards? >America's? China's? Saudia Arabia's? The answer is: ICM Registry's standards. Which anyone is free to disregard or adhere to as they see fit. I don't see why that is an issue. DNS is flexible and capacious enough to have a TLD for Arab erotica, any number of other flavors...even Australian brothels. ;-) The odd thing that seems to be happening here is that you've equated minting a TLD with the creation of some kind of compulsory global standard for defining pornography. That confusion exists only in your own mind. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 4 00:51:27 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:51:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names Message-ID: >>> vb at bertola.eu 04/03/07 6:33 PM >>> >May I challenge the frequent use of "subjective" as a pejorative >adjective? Policy decisions in a global and very diverse environment >necessarily reflect differences in mindsets and evaluations, and >thus differ according to the person; they can't be anything but >subjective. Are you begging the question? The issue we are debating is whether something like this should be a "policy decision" at all, or whether ICANN is a coordinator of the root that focuses on technical criteria. Of course, the latter is a policy decision too but it is one that avoids giving a small group of people the power to impose their subjective views of what is a "good idea" on the rest of the world. ICANN's control of the root, we believe, should not be used to exert policy leverage over things not directly related to the coordination of unique identifiers. There are other, more decentralized mechanisms for dealing with the policy problems. >Perhaps you, Milton, Susan etc would get better results >by convincing the world to embrace your "hyper-liberalistic" view >of this market, though I don't think that it'd be easy to get significant >support for that political orientation outside of a few developed countries. I kind of like the label "hyper-liberal". Certainly it seems a more appealing ideology than the stale corporatism that animates your view of policy making. But what you don't seem to understand is that it is the architecture of neutral technical coordination -- hyperliberalism if you will -- that made the internet possible, that made it succeed in undermining monopolies and opening up such fantastic resources of information and communication. You don't get a vibrant and innovative internet by asking "the community" or hierarchical bodies for permission for every move you make. The presence or absence of a .xxx domain is not the big deal here. What matters is the increasing use of ICANN's technical leverage by your um, "stakeholders" to establish and exercise chokepoints over what people can do on the Internet. Controls to foil criminals or prevent major technical harms is one thing. But if all you offer us is some apparatus that allows any organized group to engage in hyper-lobbying over an unpleasant stew of econommic interest, political power mongering, and subjective values you are not adding value to the internet, to put it as mildly as I can. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Wed Apr 4 01:19:39 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 22:19:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names Message-ID: <20070404051939.93235.qmail@web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com> OK, it's ICM's standards which no doubt would equal something like America's standards, hence reinforcing the view that it's America's internet, not a global internet. The confusion doesn't exist in my mind though. There is a very real possibility of governments enforcing pornography to be registered in a .xxx TLD. I'm aware the TLD would be available for people to register domain names with around the world. I also find problematic that people/companies predominately, or largely at least, will register with a TLD such as .xxx to protect their brand. So in effect it's a money making exercise. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Milton Mueller To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sent: Wednesday, 4 April, 2007 1:54:23 PM Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names >>> goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au 04/03/07 10:53 PM >>> >I've not read the proposal, so it's probably outlined there. Might be good for you to do your homework > But if it's ONLY to be pornography and related, under whose standards? >America's? China's? Saudia Arabia's? The answer is: ICM Registry's standards. Which anyone is free to disregard or adhere to as they see fit. I don't see why that is an issue. DNS is flexible and capacious enough to have a TLD for Arab erotica, any number of other flavors...even Australian brothels. ;-) The odd thing that seems to be happening here is that you've equated minting a TLD with the creation of some kind of compulsory global standard for defining pornography. That confusion exists only in your own mind. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From apisan at servidor.unam.mx Wed Apr 4 02:08:53 2007 From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (=?UTF-8?B?QWxlamFuZHJvIFBpc2FudHk=?=) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 06:08:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in DomainNames In-Reply-To: <46130175.9060501@ipjustice.org> References: <4612DD83.8040701@bertola.eu> <1175641952.6t6khvsyi8w0@mail.servidores.unam.mx> <46130175.9060501@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <830193695-1175667123-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-890073298-@bxe014-cell01.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Robin, Vittorio - nor has the ICANN Board - has not expressed arguments for content regulation; quite the contrary. And I have expressed myself - in rather improper terms for which I beg excuses - about the nature of the arguments, not the nationality of those who put them forward. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty Sent via BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Robin Gross Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 18:37:57 To:governance at lists.cpsr.org,Alejandro Pisanty Cc:Vittorio Bertola Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names I presume there are better arguments for content regulation than the national origin of those against content-regulation? Robin Alejandro Pisanty wrote: >Vittorio, > >due to travel I'm not quite able to regularly access and especially reply to >email, but am following this debate (I'm reading on Blackberry all day, but >can't reply because of the thing's limitations, and my laptop connects only >through a webmail - I have some firewall issues, which I've not been able to >solve, with my usual ssh to server; and, am only connected this way once or >twice a day.) > >So let me tell you YES, you are right, and pointing out the most serious >problems with Milton's (and Froomkin's, etc.) positions, including the >appalling parochiality of their US-centered views.) > >So, forza, Azzurri... > >Alx > >-- >Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >Director General de Servicios de Cómputo Académico >UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico, D.F., Mexico >Tels. +52-55-5622-8541, +52-55-5622-8542; Fax +52-55-5622-8540 > > > > > >>----- Message from vb at bertola.eu --------- >> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 01:04:35 +0200 >> From: Vittorio Bertola >>Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Vittorio Bertola >> Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in >> >> >Domain Names > > >> To: Milton Mueller >> >>Milton Mueller ha scritto: >> >> >>>You can come up with all kinds of after-the-fact rationalizations, as >>>Vittorio does, but there is only one thing that has changed between June >>>2005 (when the ICANN Board voted to approve the application) and last >>>week (when they voted to kill it) and that is the strong and sustained >>>objections of governments, opponents of pornography and adult >>>webmasters. >>> >>> >>Actually, the most significant change in these years was that a relevant >>part of the adult entertainment world, which initially supported the >>proposal, changed their mind and started to actively oppose it. Vint >>Cerf's vote, for example, was mostly due to this, as he said in his >>declaration. And he was one of those who initially voted in favour of >>negotiating an agreement. >> >>In any case, why do you think that opposition by governments should be >>disregarded? They are a significant stakeholder and their opinion has to >>be taken into account. Actually, one of ICANN's core values (see the >>Bylaws) is: >> >>"11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that >>governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and >>duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' >>recommendations." >> >> > .xxx was killed because it was controversial and ICANN >> >> >>>lacked the spine to stand up to that kind of pressure. full stop. >>> >>> >>It seems to me that you are trying to read the minds of Board members... >>and not even correctly :-) Actually, you need more "spine" to stand up >>to the multimillion dollar lawsuits that ICM is likely to bring. >> >> >> >>>Let me dispose of the absurd notion that the semantics of a domain name >>>doesn't affect the ability to express oneself freely online. This >>>argument has been decisively rejected by a court in the US. >>> >>> >>Oh well, if a court in the US (one of the zillion courts in the US) says >>so, then it's settled for the globe... :-) >> >> >> >>>And it's intuitively obvious why this argument is silly. Imagine someone >>>saying, "you cannot name your book "The Middle East: Peace or Aparthed" >>>because that will offend the Israelis, but you can say whatever you like >>>inside the book." Is that free expression? >>> >>> >>Top level domains are not the expression of an individual, they are >>broad group names that are to be used by thousands or millions of >>individuals together. You simply can't pretend to have exactly your own >>favourite string as TLD - even if we had one million of them, there >>wouldn't be enough to grant one to every user. >> >>Still, while I see how your free expression is harmed by not being able >>to set up a website at the URL sucks.com, I can't see how >>your free expression is harmed by setting up your pro-abortion website >>at proabortion.com rather than at pro.abortion. It is perhaps more >>harmed by the fact that if no new gTLDs are introduced then it'll be >>hard to find proabortion. still available. >> >>Incidentally, even if this wasn't a factor in the decision, I think >>that, if ICANN had approved .xxx, one minute later there would have been >>many governments suggesting to freeze the introduction of new gTLDs >>until ICANN started to be more considerate in choices. In realpolitik >>terms, it would have been a disaster. >>-- >>vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >>--------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >>----- End message from vb at bertola.eu ----- >> >> > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 karl at cavebear.com Wed Apr 4 03:57:14 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:57:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <830193695-1175667123-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-890073298-@bxe014-cell01.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <4612DD83.8040701@bertola.eu> <1175641952.6t6khvsyi8w0@mail.servidores.unam.mx> <46130175.9060501@ipjustice.org> <830193695-1175667123-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-890073298-@bxe014-cell01.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <46135A5A.2020801@cavebear.com> The discussion seems to be swirling about the .xxx decision. We all have our points of view. I know that I only have so many mental cycles per day to absorb and think about this stuff, and I'd rather move forward than spin endlessly. So what I'm asking here is this: What kind of governance do we want for the internet? Implicit in that question is another question about what things do we want governed, what things do we want to leave to individual or community choice, and what things do we want to leave to existing or evolving real governments and their laws? My own personal feeling is that not only do we need to know where we want to go but also what values and principles should guide us. And (again) my own personal feeling is that we ought to empower the creativity and aspirations of individual people to create better families, better communities, better nations; that the concept of "stakeholder" gets us off on the wrong foot right from the start. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 4 05:11:41 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 11:11:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <46135A5A.2020801@cavebear.com> (message from Karl Auerbach on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:57:14 -0700) References: <4612DD83.8040701@bertola.eu> <1175641952.6t6khvsyi8w0@mail.servidores.unam.mx> <46130175.9060501@ipjustice.org> <830193695-1175667123-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-890073298-@bxe014-cell01.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <46135A5A.2020801@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070404091141.2949362281@quill.bollow.ch> Karl Auerbach wrote: > So what I'm asking here is this: What kind of governance do we want for > the internet? Here's my take on this... All governance mechanisms should be multistakeholder, transparent and accountable with regard to following principles of due process. The governance bodies should be required, in an enforcable way, to work towards making the internet a realm where fundamental human freedoms, such as freedom of speech and access to every kind of informative or useful information goods, are increasingly available to everyone, including all residents of developing countries and including people with disabilities. The governance bodies should however not be required to work towards the above-mentioned goals in a narrow-minded, ideological way that leaves no room for rejecting something like ".xxx" by means of presenting an intellectually honest argument that accepting ".xxx" would in effect be counter-productive with regard to the above-mentioned fundamental objectives. 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 vivek at itforchange.net Wed Apr 4 05:38:09 2007 From: vivek at itforchange.net (Vivek) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:08:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Launch of Information Society Watch Message-ID: <20070404093803.00288E0A0B@smtp3.electricembers.net> **Apologies for cross-posting** Dear All, IT for Change ( www.ITforChange.net) has launched a beta version of 'Information Society Watch' ( www.IS-Watch.net), a resource portal providing a Southern perspective on information society (IS) issues. IS Watch attempts to address the imperative of catalysing new perspectives, frameworks and concepts rooted in the development experience of the global South. It is a response to the need for building a Southern discourse on the information society phenomenon, which so far has mostly been interpreted by Northern actors. IS Watch is directed at scholars, activists, NGOs and government officials. It offers resources and analytical tools for unpacking the structural and political dimensions of the information society, to enable social change actors to reinterpret their work in relation to the new realities. Organised along a simple scheme that serves those who may be looking for practical and theoretical aspects on the information society, IS Watch has three key focus areas: * Information Society Policies * ICT for Development, and * Society & Culture IS Watch approaches the information society discourse with a key premise that for anyone interested in development and change, the stakes in the politics of information society are high. IS Watch is part of IT for Change's " Information Society for the South Project". Visitors to the site are encouraged to send feedback and suggestions. Regards Vivek Vivek.V. IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (00-91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (00-91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nb at bollow.ch Wed Apr 4 06:11:51 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:11:51 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] "stakeholder" - a misleading term!? In-Reply-To: <46135A5A.2020801@cavebear.com> (message from Karl Auerbach on Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:57:14 -0700) References: <4612DD83.8040701@bertola.eu> <1175641952.6t6khvsyi8w0@mail.servidores.unam.mx> <46130175.9060501@ipjustice.org> <830193695-1175667123-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-890073298-@bxe014-cell01.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <46135A5A.2020801@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070404101151.53E1462281@quill.bollow.ch> Karl Auerbach wrote: > And (again) my own personal feeling is that we ought to empower the > creativity and aspirations of individual people to create better > families, better communities, better nations; that the concept of > "stakeholder" gets us off on the wrong foot right from the start. In fact I agree with your point, even though I'm using the term "stakeholder" anyway. I'm sure that we all agree about the fundamental reality that the way to influence the future of the 'net goes via influencing whatever companies are the major actors in the areas of implementing network infrastructure and of putting software on end-user PCs. The appropriate way of influencing what these companies are allowed to do is to convince governments, so that then the governments will establish appropriate laws and other forms of regulation. Therefore, governance should be organized in a manner which roughly resembles the chain of command civil society -> government -> industry Here, with "civil society" I mean everyone who genuinely represents the goal of empowering (as you put it so well) "the creativity and aspirations of individual people to create better families, better communities, better nations". The "multistakeholder" concept has been easy to accept, for a variety of reasons, which are probably along these lines: - Civil society orginizations are happy that they get to be included in UN-level conversations at all, which was not previously the case. - Governments are happy that they get to be included in internet governance at all, since the internet is something that was previously organized by technical people and businesses without direct influence from governments. - Industry representatives are happy to get formal recognition as an important stakeholder group, rather than formally being at the end of a chain-of-command, like they have so far formally been at least theoretically in every nation that claims to have a democratic form of government. - When properly understood, the "multistakeholder" concept is just and not in violation of the chain-of-command principle outlined above: In any just decision-making process, the interests, felt needs and verifiable needs of all stakeholder groups must be considered, and communication between all stakeholders must be facilitated. As I see it, the danger is that the "multistakeholder" concept gets interpreted as providing a governance-theoretical justification for continuing the current bad and morally unacceptable practices of allowing greedy business interests to override human rights concerns. In my proposals, I try to address this issue by endorsing the "multistakeholder" principle while at the same time emphasising the importance of imposing an _enforcable_ obligation on all governance bodies that they must assign greater importance to human rights concerns than to any other kind of concerns. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Apr 4 07:37:49 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 13:37:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: References: <4612DD83.8040701@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <46138E0D.5020403@bertola.eu> David Allen ha scritto: > At 1:04 AM +0200 4/4/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >> I think that, if ICANN had approved .xxx, one minute later there >> would have been many governments suggesting to freeze the >> introduction of new gTLDs until ICANN started to be more >> considerate in choices. > > To what extent is this reflective of the real politics that drove > votes for the decision? For what I know (I'm not in each Director's mind), not at all - as I said, this is a not-to-the-point response to the not-to-the-point argument that .xxx should have been approved even if being "a stupid idea", just to create one more TLD. In realpolitik terms, you could only pick between a lot of bad consequences if you approved, and a lot of bad consequences if you rejected, so that wouldn't have been a useful approach anyway. In the end, the premises of the approved resolution reflect directly the discussion and the arguments of those who approved it. On another of your questions: > To take this discussion on .xxx slightly into another area, who was > to determine what is acceptable to register in .xxx? I've not read > the proposal, so it's probably outlined there. But if it's ONLY to be > pornography and related, under whose standards? America's? China's? > Saudia Arabia's? That was another problem: the last contract proposal seemed to give ICANN a role on internal policy rules for the TLD, which was not just contrary to the spirit of the RFP and of the "sponsored domain" idea, but also unacceptable as a direction, exactly because it would have involved ICANN directly in content regulation. See for example http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/xxx/appendix-S-rev-16feb07.pdf -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Wed Apr 4 08:10:16 2007 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 05:10:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <46138E0D.5020403@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20070404121016.75636.qmail@web52212.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Vittorio, Re: "the last contract proposal seemed to give ICANN a role on internal policy rules for the TLD" Sorry, I didn't see that within the 16 February revisions to Appendix S. Would you mind pointing to a specific section of the document that gave ICANN a role on internal TLD policy rules? Thanks, Danny ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 4 08:16:18 2007 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 08:16:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] corrigendum - Re: ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <46138E0D.5020403@bertola.eu> References: <4612DD83.8040701@bertola.eu> <46138E0D.5020403@bertola.eu> Message-ID: At 1:37 PM +0200 4/4/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >David Allen ha scritto: >... >>To what extent is this reflective of the real politics that drove >>votes for the decision? > >For what I know ... ... >On another of --> [David Goldstein's] <-- questions: > >>To take this discussion on .xxx slightly into another area, who was >>to determine what is acceptable to register in .xxx? I've not read >>the proposal, so it's probably outlined there. But if it's ONLY to >>be pornography and related, under whose standards? America's? >>China's? Saudia Arabia's? > >That was another problem ... ... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Wed Apr 4 09:26:48 2007 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:26:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <46135A5A.2020801@cavebear.com> References: <4612DD83.8040701@bertola.eu> <1175641952.6t6khvsyi8w0@mail.servidores.unam.mx> <46130175.9060501@ipjustice.org> <46135A5A.2020801@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Karl, Thank you for refocusing the discussion on a much more central issue. Some comments: First, the word "multi-stakeholder" has quickly become a central phrase in politically correct speech. Presumably stakeholders represent individual and family interests, but it's not uncommon that people and organizations that declare themselves stakeholders, or representatives of a stakeholder community, are self-appointed. I much prefer your focus on individuals and families as the ultimate beneficiaries of the system of Internet governance that we would like to have. Second, we should not confuse restricting the choice of labels for global top level domains with restricting free speech in the content of the net. They are vastly different. I think that it would be easy to get the nazi community support for a a .nazi TLD. Does that mean, in a context of Internet governance larger than ICANN, that it should be implemented? I think not. But the absence of such a TLD will not prevent web sites with a lot of nazi hate speech from existing. I haven't looked, but I'm sure that they exist and are well known to that community. Third, it is increasingly clear that U.S. standards, whether cultural, moral, or legal, are just one set of standards in a world community, and that U.S. standards per se, just because they are U.S. standards, should not be adopted as the prevailing norms of the Internet. There are cultural collisions in our world, and if we want the Internet to grow to be what we want it to be, I believe that we need to take them into account at a minimal level at least, and not take steps that are sure to provoke conflict. If ICANN is to remain a technical body, then this level of discussion must necessarily occur outside its technical functions. The discussion regarding appropriateness of the semantic and emotional implication of what are essentially top-level very visible labels, simply has to be a part of any overall global Internet governance scheme that has the possibility of long run survival. Perhaps this is an area that can appropriately be assigned to a future GAC that may be constituted somewhat differently and that may fit somewhat differently into the ICANN structure. For if this function is not somehow subsumed within a larger ICANN, it will become the province of other bodies that are not likely to execute it nearly as well. I worry that the "free speech imperialism" that characterizes some positions regarding TLDs and the segmentation of the domain name space espoused today is an unproductive attempt to foist a moderately narrow and parochial view of the world onto a global structure, and that it will be counterproductive. The issue of what are to be the top level labels in a labelling scheme is surely far less important than many of the issues that the global Internet faces, such as very substantial restriction of content in some places, denial of access, and invasion of private information and communication. In my opinion it is more important for us to find a relatively harmonious way to move ahead on the TLD issue, without insisting upon continuing to promote those that lead to very substantial dispute. In addition to thanking Karl for starting to refocus the discussion, I thank David Goldstein, Vittorio Bertola, and Alejandro Pisanty for their thoughtful comments. George Sadowsky At 12:57 AM -0700 4/4/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: >The discussion seems to be swirling about the .xxx decision. > >We all have our points of view. > >I know that I only have so many mental cycles per day to absorb and >think about this stuff, and I'd rather move forward than spin >endlessly. > >So what I'm asking here is this: What kind of governance do we want >for the internet? Implicit in that question is another question >about what things do we want governed, what things do we want to >leave to individual or community choice, and what things do we want >to leave to existing or evolving real governments and their laws? > >My own personal feeling is that not only do we need to know where we >want to go but also what values and principles should guide us. > >And (again) my own personal feeling is that we ought to empower the >creativity and aspirations of individual people to create better >families, better communities, better nations; that the concept of >"stakeholder" gets us off on the wrong foot right from the start. > > --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Apr 4 08:47:02 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:47:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46139E46.7060107@bertola.eu> Milton Mueller ha scritto: > I kind of like the label "hyper-liberal". Certainly it seems a more > appealing ideology than the stale corporatism that animates your view of > policy making. > > But what you don't seem to understand is that it is the architecture of > neutral technical coordination -- hyperliberalism if you will -- that > made the internet possible, that made it succeed in undermining > monopolies and opening up such fantastic resources of information and > communication. I agree 101% with you that the freedom to innovate without having to ask for central authorizations, and the "intelligence at the end", are crucial features that need to be preserved. However, on resources that are not infinite (and sure, TLDs now are artificially scarce, but would not be infinite anyway) and need central coordination, you need to have a central process. When these issues assume social significance (and you agree that domain names have a semantic value), it is natural that social considerations come into play. Try stopping someone in the middle of the road and asking, "should .xxx domain names be created?". You will get plenty of replies, in favour or against, focusing on many different social and political issues. I don't think that you will find anyone replying "who cares, that's just a technical issue". Now, you can decide that the world is wrong, but I think that a democratic system of governance must first of all reflect the average mindset of its constituents. I'd be very concerned if ICANN started to think that its mission is to "educate" the world about the value of a specific political approach to this matter. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Wed Apr 4 09:46:42 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 19:16:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of CensorshipinDomain Names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070404134630.E372AE1792@smtp3.electricembers.net> "Not if they are proposing to restrict a fundamental human right. And "governments" don't have a single opinion, in case you hadn't noticed. We have over 200 of them and their laws don't agree on this matter. This business of lumping so-called "stakeholders" into homogeneous groups is really getting out of hand. " We are some few dozens of us in civil society interested in ig issues (and frankly least representative of even civil society) and we have few dozen view points amongst ourselves. So 200 or so Governments not agreeing amongst themselves does not in any way reduce their legitimacy as stakeholders to this process. And there is no denying that each Government is a legitimate stakeholder, even with all their faults, most Governments can claim representative legitimacy, that we cant. Also are 'fundamental rights' divinely ordained ... Or are they what societies (with active participation of Governments) have accepted at particular points in time. (the nature and scope of these rights today have little with those a century ago and daresay may have little with those a century hence). Guru -----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 9:11 AM To: vb at bertola.eu Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of CensorshipinDomain Names >>> Vittorio Bertola 04/03/07 7:04 PM >>> >In any case, why do you think that opposition by governments should be >disregarded? They are a significant stakeholder and their opinion has >to be taken into account. Not if they are proposing to restrict a fundamental human right. And "governments" don't have a single opinion, in case you hadn't noticed. We have over 200 of them and their laws don't agree on this matter. This business of lumping so-called "stakeholders" into homogeneous groups is really getting out of hand. >Actually, one of ICANN's core values (see the >Bylaws) is: [laughing out loud] that craven "core value" was added in the immediate aftermath of WSIS. Again demonstrating that we are dealing more with intimidation and pandering to power than anything else. >Oh well, if a court in the US (one of the zillion courts in the >US) says so, then it's settled for the globe... :-) Vittorio, let's try to keep the argument honest, ok? First, this was a federal circuit court in the US, not one of "zillions." ICM registry and in fact about 80% of the gTLD industry litigation (and adult industry) is in the US. And the point is not that US law applies globally, but that in the one case I know of where the issue of the speech status of domains was actually put before a national-level court, your argument lost. Can you provide any examples of European courts which have ruled differently? Asian courts (assuming you can find a country there that legally protects free expression)? That would be an informed, constructive contribution. >Top level domains are not the expression of an individual, they are >broad group names that are to be used by thousands or millions of >individuals together. Excuse me, where is this principle enshrined in law? Or did you just make it up? Anyway, they are labels that can be adopted by individuals. >I can't see how your free expression is harmed by setting up your >pro-abortion website at proabortion.com rather than at pro.abortion. Expression is restricted whenever a person who wishes to express themselves in their preferred mnanner is prevented from doing so. It's not for you to decide for others how they express themselves or what domain they use. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 wcurrie at apc.org Tue Apr 3 08:22:06 2007 From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 09:22:06 -0300 (BRT) Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship In-Reply-To: <46139E46.7060107@bertola.eu> References: <46139E46.7060107@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <50082.151.205.99.178.1175602926.squirrel@webmail.apc.org> Doesn't this debate have to do with section I.B.1 of the September MoU between ICANN and the US Dept of Commerce: The Department reaffirms its policy goal of transitioning the technical coordination of the DNS to the private sector in a manner that promotes stability and security, competition, bottom-up coordination, and representation. Consistent with this objective, the Department agrees to perform the following activities: 1. Transparency and Accountability: Continue to provide expertise and advice on methods and administrative procedures to encourage greater transparency, accountability, and openness in the consideration and adoption of policies related to the technical coordination of the Internet DNS; What is the state of play here? willie > Milton Mueller ha scritto: >> I kind of like the label "hyper-liberal". Certainly it seems a more >> appealing ideology than the stale corporatism that animates your view of >> policy making. >> >> But what you don't seem to understand is that it is the architecture of >> neutral technical coordination -- hyperliberalism if you will -- that >> made the internet possible, that made it succeed in undermining >> monopolies and opening up such fantastic resources of information and >> communication. > > I agree 101% with you that the freedom to innovate without having to ask > for central authorizations, and the "intelligence at the end", are > crucial features that need to be preserved. However, on resources that > are not infinite (and sure, TLDs now are artificially scarce, but would > not be infinite anyway) and need central coordination, you need to have > a central process. When these issues assume social significance (and you > agree that domain names have a semantic value), it is natural that > social considerations come into play. > > Try stopping someone in the middle of the road and asking, "should .xxx > domain names be created?". You will get plenty of replies, in favour or > against, focusing on many different social and political issues. I don't > think that you will find anyone replying "who cares, that's just a > technical issue". > > Now, you can decide that the world is wrong, but I think that a > democratic system of governance must first of all reflect the average > mindset of its constituents. > > I'd be very concerned if ICANN started to think that its mission is to > "educate" the world about the value of a specific political approach to > this matter. > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Willie Currie Communications and Information Policy Programme Manager Association for Progressive Communications (APC) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Apr 4 11:18:51 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:18:51 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2A6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Lee: What is still lacking is an 'Administrative Procedures Act' for the Internet, in partidular to guide ICANN on how it should go about and what it may or may not consider in its decisionmaking, whether for gtld's or anything else. Wolfgang: Lee, this is a good point. But who should adopt such an Act and who should guide ICANN? The DOC? The GAC? A new governmental or non-governmental body? One idea - in the long run -. could by the formation of a new hybrid organisation composed by all stakeholders with a mandat to deal with public issues and a certain authority (which could come from an intergovernmental arrangement eventually within the framework of GAC)? The chain fo controversial cases will grow dramaticially in the future. If you take only GEO-TLDs, which are labeld in the GNSO report as one group of TLDs where we have "concerns", you will have soon an open pandora box. Projects so far which are on the horzon are .berlin, .nyc, .cym (Wales), .sco, .btn (Bretagne), .london. What about .basque, .tibet, . tchechnia, .kosovo? A good case is Germany and the .berlin proposal. The local government in Berlin (which is a land according to the German constitution) manages berlin.de in cooperation with a private company. It is naturally against the proposal arguing this would lead to "consumer confusion" (protecting their own business under berlin.de) . Paternalistic? Consumers are stupid and need guidance from the top? The funny thing is that the German Bundestag with the votes of the two main parties has adopted a TLD resolution which calls on ICANN to open the door for Geo-TLDs like .münchen, köln, .bayern etc to give consumers more chocse and to stimulate competition. Who is right? Is it consumer confusion or is it consumer choice? ALAC is planning to organize a workshop on that issue in San Juan to figure out the arguments of pro and con. But the more interesting issues is who decides on .berlin? If ICANN follows the .xxx procedure it will ask the GAC. GAC members will ask the German government but the German government has an internal problem to harmonize different approaches on the federal and the local level. If it is seen as a "cultural affair", then according to the German constiution, the federal government has no competences. Does it mean, that for such a decision ICANN has to consult with the local authorities directly? And how other governments will see this? Some may be happy to have next to the ccTLD also some big (or small) cities with a TLD for local marketing, tourism, local economy promotion, local language support (like .cat) etc. Others will fear that this will become very counterproductive, undermining national monopolies etc. Where to go? And who leads the process? And which body is entitled to make a final decision? A lut of fun is waiting down the TLD road .... 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 shailam at yahoo.com Wed Apr 4 13:44:19 2007 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:44:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] ICANN Era of Censorshipin Domain Names In-Reply-To: <20070404134630.E372AE1792@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070404174419.40011.qmail@web54304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi I have been following this exchange and am alarmed that in our attempt to control undesirable censor ships by governments we may enable access and platform to universally acknowledged undesirable content such as porn and violence. Yes there is always an ethical and value content to every action, system , organization and resource. So few of us are here, representing civil society and or participating in these debates and surely it is incumbent on us to drive home these viewpoints . Shaila Rao Mistry International Federation on University Women IFUW Moderator, Next Generation Jayco MMI President California If you want something .you’ve never had before ........ Do something .............you’ve never done before........... !! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ca at rits.org.br Wed Apr 4 15:35:29 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:35:29 -0300 Subject: [Expression] [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <4612CECA.7080607@ipjustice.org> References: <4611BB5B.4030802@ipjustice.org> <461205B2.8020405@bertola.eu> <9992bcc60704030057y4ee9de72uf286473803355c4@mail.gmail.com> <4612CECA.7080607@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <4613FE01.4000900@rits.org.br> This is precisely the dilemma confronting ICANN. And makes me undecided regarding the vote (if I voted, of course). However, I think there is a lesson from this process (I understand ICANN learns from these processes): the more criteria derived from public comments and other inputs can become components of (or enrich) the standard "book of procedures" the better. I also think it has become crystal clear that TLDs which combination of letters might confront resistance (of cultural, legal or similar nature) in one or more countries or communities, should in principle be discarded, thus avoiding the protracted and frustrating (and expensive!) via crucis for both the Board and the applicants. frt rgds --c.a. Robin Gross wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > I'm having a hard time understanding how you can say ICANN should keep > the "top level content-neutral and strictly divorced from > content-specific rules" while also arguing that ICANN should prevent > .xxx because of its content. > Do you agree that ICANN should be content-neutral or do you believe > ICANN should make policies based on content? > > Thanks, > Robin > > > > Andrew McLaughlin wrote: > >> FWIW (i.e., not much), I agree with Vittorio. To call this decision >> "censorship" degrades the meaning of that term. The fact that there >> is no .abortion TLD doesn't in any way limit the ability of any >> Internet speaker to voice an opinion about abortion. To the extent >> that DNS labeling is important, second- and third- and fourth level >> labels -- abortion.example.com -- are always available. >> >> IMHO, free expression is much more threatened by content-specific TLD >> labels, all of which ICANN would be smart to reject. Rather than give >> restrictive governments and ISPs new tools for censorship of the real >> kind, ICANN should keep the DNS at the top level content-neutral and >> strictly divorced from content-specific rules. >> >> Susan's dissent is unconvincing because it ignores the second-order >> consequences of using the DNS as a designation of content. It's the >> wrong road to go down. >> >> --andrew >> >> >> On 4/3/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> >>> Robin Gross ha scritto: >>> > From my cyberlaw blog: >>> > http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/04/02/icann_board_votexxx >>> >>> Well, once in a lifetime, we disagree completely :-) >>> >>> I have had the luck to witness personally the last three months of >>> discussions in the ICANN Board. So, believe it or not, your >>> interpretation of the reasons and the value of this vote is IMHO quite >>> wrong. Let me explain. >>> >>> First of all, ICANN had a process for TLD applications (which, >>> incidentally, is quite a bad process, starting from the meaningless >>> "sponsorship" idea, but that's what we had at the moment), and the vote >>> was meant to judge whether the application meant the requirements. There >>> was no discussion on whether "adult entertainment" is good or bad or >>> whether it should be censored. There was, however, discussion on whether >>> the criteria were met; some directors thought they were, most thought >>> they weren't. That's how the vote went. Susan and another director - not >>> even all the five who voted against rejection - apparently assumed that >>> those who disagreed with them did so due to political pressure or desire >>> for censorship. This was entirely their assumption and many of the >>> others felt personally offended by it. >>> >>> Even if you forget about the process and think about the idea in itself, >>> it looks like a bad idea. Adult entertainment sites do not want to be >>> labelled, exactly because they are afraid of being censored; many of >>> them - basically all, according to some's judgement; for example, there >>> was no single adult webmaster speaking in support of .xxx in the entire >>> meeting - made it clear that they'd not have used the new domain. So the >>> only purpose for this domain would have been defensive registrations, >>> e.g. transfering money from consumers to the company who would have run >>> it. Personally - and especially given that I represent consumers on the >>> ICANN Board - I think that this would have been publicly detrimental. >>> >>> Then, let's discuss about "censorship". I think that the statement that >>> not approving .xxx is "content-related censorship" is impossible to take >>> seriously. You write: >>> >>> > By voting to turn down the .XXX >>> > application for public policy reasons, the Board indicated it will go >>> > beyond its technical mission of DNS coordination and seek to decide >>> what >>> > ideas are allowed to be given a voice in the new domain name space. >>> >>> Do you seriously mean that since there is no .xxx there is no porn over >>> the Internet? >>> >>> Actually, if .xxx had been approved, then many governments could have >>> passed laws to force porn sites into it, thus actually making censorship >>> easier. The only reply I got to this observation was "yes, but in the US >>> we have the First Amendment that would make it impossible". And what >>> about the rest of the world? >>> >>> All in all, of course there are sociopolitical aspects in some of the >>> decisions that ICANN has to take. Even refusing to consider these >>> aspects, and embracing the hyper-liberalistic, totally free market >>> approach of approving each and every application for a new TLD no matter >>> how controversial it is, which you and others seem to advocate, is a >>> political choice. It's way too common to hide behind memes such as "it >>> should be a technical decision only" or "let the market decide", but >>> these are political choices as well, with lots of implications. I am >>> surprised by how so many brilliant people from the liberal US >>> environment seem unable to accept diversity on this issue, to the point >>> of questioning the legitimacy or good faith of decisions when they go in >>> a different direction. >>> >>> I'll stop here, pointing at the comment I left on Susan's blog - >>> http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/3/30/2845638.html#882501 >>> >>> - for further consideration about the "cultural diversity" issue. >>> >>> Ciao, >>> -- >>> vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >>> --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> You are subscribed as: %(user_address)s >>> >>> To be removed from this list send an email to >>> Expression-request at ipjustice.org with the subject "unsubscribe" and >>> you will be removed. >>> >>> Or - click on this: >>> mailto:Expression-request at ipjustice.org?subject=unsubscribe >>> >>> To change your options: >>> %(user_optionsurl)s >>> >>> Expression mailing list >>> Expression at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/expression >>> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor *************************************************************** Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br *************************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Apr 4 16:00:14 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:00:14 -0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <461403CE.9090308@rits.org.br> Milton Mueller wrote: ... > Are you begging the question? The issue we are debating is whether > something like this should be a "policy decision" at all, or whether > ICANN is a coordinator of the root that focuses on technical criteria. Clearly not on technical criteria alone -- otherwise probably the whole new TLD delegation process could be made almost automatic. And clearly ICANN is a body which has to handle/listen to national policy questions as well, which interfere with and inform its overall decisions, reason why it has the GAC in its innards, as well as many "non-technical" civil society organizations. --c.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 Thu Apr 5 00:09:43 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:09:43 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names Message-ID: Hi Wolfgang, Good questions all. First to review my own history briefly, Milton and I had advocated an 'economically rational, technically/politically neutral' approach to gtld allocations a couple years ago, specifically to save the ICANN board - and staff - from having to make these kinds of political judgment calls. OK, that was a mistake, apparently you can't take out the politics; noone wanted to go the automomatic annual auction route. Even though auctions work fine for allocating all kinds of scarce resources. But still, the present alternative does seem a funny spectacle: to have the iCANN board preoccupied with sex - without saying that word - I mean deciding on .xxx versus other combinations of Roman letters. And the next wave of gtld applicants you point to is also what we foresaw, and warned ICANN about - this is just a small episode before the few applicants become a flood, and if ICANN says no to them all, they will all reasonably ask - their own governments if not ICANN directly - 'on what basis was this decision made?.' And really, on what basis can the ICANN board reject any of these next claimaints? Certainly not technical, since while not trivial entriely, adding gtld's these days is about as difficult...as adding data to a database. Yeah I know it is a special database, but still. So that gets us back to the need for ICANN staff and associated interests to all do their homework, and read up on the rule-making procedures laid in that classic of American jurisprudnce, the Administrative Procedures Act, of 1948 I believe. Ok, I haven;t read it recently either, but point is there are some basic rules that ICANN could adopt and impose on themselves if noone else will or can; I am sure there are comparable laws passed elsewhere which could be used as models as well. Point is it can be done by ICANN itself. But..then ICANN is judge and jury for itself? Sounds like a solution perhaps for ICANN, but maybe not for others. IGPer John Mathiason, as well as many more at the Athens IGF I session organized by Parminder, discussed what an Internet Framework Convention might be about. So if not ICANN by itself, then isn;t this institiutionalization of oversight issue exactly the kind of thing a framework convention could help address? (And you know what, if we talk about this more at IGF II following the san juan icann meeting, then guess what, a de facto framework convention may have begun without folks even noticing...) But really answering your question of who would be involved and how it could be managed to institute a multistakeholder review process for a global industry regulatory body - well that is not easy. Obviously ICANN as it stands needs some protection, even if just from itself, so it can do its job(s), and that is what the APA provided to eg US Federal Communications Commission staffers and commissioners alike: If they follow the rules, then the decisions made are usually respected by industry and the courts. Well OK, they get overturned all the time in the US courts, but the pressure for transparent decisionmaking is so strong that the FCCers try very hard to avoid that outcome. And I am sure ICANN staff would try equally hard to avoid being overturned on review, were there an Adminsitrative Procedures Act of the Internet somehow agreed to, and some process in place, as yet only ill-defined. When you figure it all out in San Juan, let us know! : ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 4/4/2007 11:18 AM >>> Lee: What is still lacking is an 'Administrative Procedures Act' for the Internet, in partidular to guide ICANN on how it should go about and what it may or may not consider in its decisionmaking, whether for gtld's or anything else. Wolfgang: Lee, this is a good point. But who should adopt such an Act and who should guide ICANN? The DOC? The GAC? A new governmental or non-governmental body? One idea - in the long run -. could by the formation of a new hybrid organisation composed by all stakeholders with a mandat to deal with public issues and a certain authority (which could come from an intergovernmental arrangement eventually within the framework of GAC)? The chain fo controversial cases will grow dramaticially in the future. If you take only GEO-TLDs, which are labeld in the GNSO report as one group of TLDs where we have "concerns", you will have soon an open pandora box. Projects so far which are on the horzon are .berlin, .nyc, .cym (Wales), .sco, .btn (Bretagne), .london. What about .basque, .tibet, . tchechnia, .kosovo? A good case is Germany and the .berlin proposal. The local government in Berlin (which is a land according to the German constitution) manages berlin.de in cooperation with a private company. It is naturally against the proposal arguing this would lead to "consumer confusion" (protecting their own business under berlin.de) . Paternalistic? Consumers are stupid and need guidance from the top? The funny thing is that the German Bundestag with the votes of the two main parties has adopted a TLD resolution which calls on ICANN to open the door for Geo-TLDs like .münchen, köln, .bayern etc to give consumers more chocse and to stimulate competition. Who is right? Is it consumer confusion or is it consumer choice? ALAC is planning to organize a workshop on that issue in San Juan to figure out the arguments of pro and con. But the more interesting issues is who decides on .berlin? If ICANN follows the .xxx procedure it will ask the GAC. GAC members will ask the German government but the German government has an internal problem to harmonize different approaches on the federal and the local level. If it is seen as a "cultural affair", then according to the German constiution, the federal government has no competences. Does it mean, that for such a decision ICANN has to consult with the local authorities directly? And how other governments will see this? Some may be happy to have next to the ccTLD also some big (or small) cities with a TLD for local marketing, tourism, local economy promotion, local language support (like .cat) etc. Others will fear that this will become very counterproductive, undermining national monopolies etc. Where to go? And who leads the process? And which body is entitled to make a final decision? A lut of fun is waiting down the TLD road .... 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Wed Apr 4 23:48:09 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 20:48:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <461403CE.9090308@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <672148.27648.qm@web58709.mail.re1.yahoo.com> This exactly is where the whole problem comes from. As far as design goes, ICANN is a fantastic patchwork, at best. If ICANN was a mere technical coordinator, then there is wide institutional hole for related and inevitable policy. Some think it is filled by the shadow of the US government. Problem is the latter intervenes only on a very ad-hoc basis, or in a very circuitous way. So the less one can say is the policy authority of, or related to, ICANN is discontinuous, "discrete", immature, constantly on the verge of both stiff arbitrary and pre-mature deliquescence, etc. ICANN has constantly be playing a role it really was neither designed nor equiped to play, the role someone doesn't want to play overtly, the role someone doesn't want anyone else to play. The question is how long will this last? And also, At this point, can the world practically afford to leave the policy role related to the DNS totally vacant? If not, how and by whom this role should be fulfilled? Meanwhile, the transition has unfortunately been on and on... too long, untill now all the governments are realizing what power they can exert over the central infrastructure of the Net (as opposed to just minding their domestic policies and trying to enforce them somewhere between the end user and the ISPs.) In a short while, they will all love ICANN and oppose any institutional change; the cacophony has only started with this .xxx debate. Mawaki --- Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > Milton Mueller wrote: > ... > > > Are you begging the question? The issue we are debating is > whether > > something like this should be a "policy decision" at all, or > whether > > ICANN is a coordinator of the root that focuses on technical > criteria. > > Clearly not on technical criteria alone -- otherwise probably > the whole > new TLD delegation process could be made almost automatic. And > clearly > ICANN is a body which has to handle/listen to national policy > questions > as well, which interfere with and inform its overall > decisions, reason > why it has the GAC in its innards, as well as many > "non-technical" civil > society organizations. > > --c.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 karl at cavebear.com Thu Apr 5 00:27:30 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:27:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <46139E46.7060107@bertola.eu> References: <46139E46.7060107@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <46147AB2.1030605@cavebear.com> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > However, on resources that > are not infinite (and sure, TLDs now are artificially scarce, but would > not be infinite anyway) To make that somewhat quantitative: Peter Deutsch (formerly of Bunyip and Cisco) and I ran an experiment a few years ago, on what today would be considered pretty wimpy computers. We took the .com zone that we had (I can't remember how we got it, or when, but it had a lot of of names in it.) We elevated those names so that they were each a TLD. We loaded it into bind and measured performance. We had to add memory to the machine but once we had enough, it loaded and response was amazingly good. Then I wrote a program to generate synthetic root zone files so that I could create root zones of any size and with a mix of character-string lengths (just to make sure I didn't accidentally get an advantage from some hashing mechanism somewhere). And then I had another program that generated queries, both hits on names that were in the zone file and misses on names that were not. I could adjust the hit/miss ratio. We measured responsivity and query loss. I don't think we did any really heavy traffic loads because we made the assumption that UDP based DNS queries could be spanned across multiple servers using standard load-balancing front-ends. We got into the millions and millions of TLDs, but never found an upper bound. We did not follow our scientific training - we didn't keep good lab notes and our observations were more subjective than objective - so to do it right we'd need to locate and resurrect the pieces and do it again. So take the result with a grain of salt, but it does appear that we can readily have tens upon tens of millions of TLDs without the server software melting. The limit on TLDs is probably more based on the chance of administrative error rather than on a hard technical limit. But .com teaches us that it is possible to administer a rather large (60,000,000 name zone) without a lot of administrative errors. If we assume a rather low number, well within the range of both the technology, the software, and administrative processes: 1,000,000 TLDs. If we aim at that number, we could allocate 10,000 per year and we would hit that highly conservative limit of today in year 2107, a century from now. So I think it is useful to drop the conceit that we need to conserve TLDs until the numbers reach at least 4 orders of magnitude greater than the 200..300 TLDs that exist today. However, since even a billion TLDs would be less than the number of people who might want one, we do need some mechanism to allocate. And that would bring us to the auction/lottery discussions we had a while back and also to some very good academic analysis of auctions and lottery methods of allocating TLDs. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Thu Apr 5 00:44:36 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:44:36 -0700 Subject: [governance] "stakeholder" - a misleading term!? In-Reply-To: <20070404101151.53E1462281@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4612DD83.8040701@bertola.eu> <1175641952.6t6khvsyi8w0@mail.servidores.unam.mx> <46130175.9060501@ipjustice.org> <830193695-1175667123-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-890073298-@bxe014-cell01.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <46135A5A.2020801@cavebear.com> <20070404101151.53E1462281@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <46147EB4.6000203@cavebear.com> Norbert Bollow wrote: > Karl Auerbach wrote: > >> ... that the concept of >> "stakeholder" gets us off on the wrong foot right from the start. > > In fact I agree with your point, even though I'm using the term > "stakeholder" anyway. Take a look at a 5 page note I submitted to the Athens IGF meeting on the subject of stakeholderism: Stakeholderism - The Wrong Road For Internet Governance http://www.cavebear.com/rw/igf-democracy-in-internet-governance.pdf --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Thu Apr 5 02:11:55 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 02:11:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] "stakeholder" - a misleading term!? In-Reply-To: <46147EB4.6000203@cavebear.com> References: <4612DD83.8040701@bertola.eu> <1175641952.6t6khvsyi8w0@mail.servidores.unam.mx> <46130175.9060501@ipjustice.org> <830193695-1175667123-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-890073298-@bxe014-cell01.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <46135A5A.2020801@cavebear.com> <20070404101151.53E1462281@quill.bollow.ch> <46147EB4.6000203@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410704042311v742f32beh5278f21d6df3cd4e@mail.gmail.com> Dear Karl Auerbach: Thank you for "nominating" *the individual* as a vital if not indeed *atomic * element in the Internet complex (paraphrase only of course). That's just an interpretation upon first appreciative reading, so really and directly - thank you for posting your 5 page note. And wondering, how are you with "constituent" rather than "stakeholder"? Very best wishes, and *Respectfully Interfacing,* LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff. Alternate casual email address: linda at 2007ismy50thyearincomputingandIamawoman.com P.S. Concepts of and movements toward a "People's Assembly" at the U.N. might handshake here. Takes examination. : On 4/5/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > >> ... that the concept of > >> "stakeholder" gets us off on the wrong foot right from the start. > > > > In fact I agree with your point, even though I'm using the term > > "stakeholder" anyway. > > Take a look at a 5 page note I submitted to the Athens IGF meeting on the > subject of stakeholderism: > > Stakeholderism - The Wrong Road For Internet Governance > > http://www.cavebear.com/rw/igf-democracy-in-internet-governance.pdf > > --karl-- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From michael_leibrandt at web.de Thu Apr 5 03:10:12 2007 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:10:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names Message-ID: <1518138248@web.de> Wolfgang and all, Besides the fact that I'm really getting tired of this "good people - bad governments" nonsens, one important correction to what has been said regarding the .berlin situation: The decision of the German Parlimanent clearly points out that only those TLD initiatives should be supported by the Government that are "carried or supported" by the relevant public authorities. Therefore a) the decision of the German Parliament is fully in line with the new GAC gTLD Principles and b) there is no contradiction at all between the different "layers" of public authority. So I don't see why ICANN should have a problem to take a decision, unless it would start to question internal decision making processes at the national level - something most us wouldn't like to see, right? Finally to all people outside Germany: Yes, even in my country every public authority has to act according to the existing legal framework. Those who claim that specific (local) Government action is wrong can always go to law. So there is actually no real need for conspiracy theories and especially no reason to mention this in the context of "censorship" (Wolfgang, at least you should know what censorship really means). Michael, Berlin _______________________________________________________________ SMS schreiben mit WEB.DE FreeMail - einfach, schnell und kostenguenstig. Jetzt gleich testen! http://f.web.de/?mc=021192 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Apr 5 04:11:00 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:11:00 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names References: <1518138248@web.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2AD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Michael, the question is not "good people vs. bad government", the question is the procedure: Who takes what kind of decision and how a policy development and decision making process is organized bottom up where governments are an integrated part in the multilayer multiplayer mechanism. If ICANN does not take content related decisions but content related decisions had to be made by somebody else the question is who makes this deciion? One government? All governments? Private Sector by market mechanism? Civil society? Or a - as I propose - a new not yet existing hybrid body which includes all stakeholders and developes a innovative procedure how to deal with such kind of controversial cases. And with regard to censorship: Yes I know what it is and I know also how to bypass this and to undermine it. In the long run even with draconian actions, censorship doesn-t work. In the .xxx case I did not follow the line and saying that this is censorship by ICANN. What I said is that the unclarity of the procedural environment opens the door for a new kind of global censorship. ICANN needs more guidance, help, support and protection not to be pulled into such a process. One additional point in the GAC-ICANN communication with regard to .xxx is the legal status of an advice according to ICANNs bylaws. Article 11, Section 2, para 1 says " i. The Governmental Advisory Committee may put issues to the Board directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to existing policies. j. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. The Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. k. If no such solution can be found, the ICANN Board will state in its final decision the reasons why the Governmental Advisory Committee advice was not followed, and such statement will be without prejudice to the rights or obligations of Governmental Advisory Committee members with regard to public policy issues falling within their responsibilities." In the joint GAC-ICANN meeting it was unclear whether the Wellington letter and its follow up is a "comment" or "advice". It was said that some governments have "strong concerns", others have "less concerns" and some are "neutral". What is this? A "comment"? A "receommendation"? An "advice"? For me the case makes the urgent need visible to reform the GAC. To come up with some internal GAC decision making procedures is a priority. It is unfair from the GAC to say "some of our members have strong concerns and now you have to decide on an issue which is not coverend by your narrow technical mandate". Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Michael Leibrandt [mailto:michael_leibrandt at web.de] Gesendet: Do 05.04.2007 09:10 An: LMcKnigh at syr.edu; Mueller at syr.edu; expression at ipjustice.org; goldstein.david at yahoo.com.au; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Wolfgang Kleinwächter Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names Wolfgang and all, Besides the fact that I'm really getting tired of this "good people - bad governments" nonsens, one important correction to what has been said regarding the .berlin situation: The decision of the German Parlimanent clearly points out that only those TLD initiatives should be supported by the Government that are "carried or supported" by the relevant public authorities. Therefore a) the decision of the German Parliament is fully in line with the new GAC gTLD Principles and b) there is no contradiction at all between the different "layers" of public authority. So I don't see why ICANN should have a problem to take a decision, unless it would start to question internal decision making processes at the national level - something most us wouldn't like to see, right? Finally to all people outside Germany: Yes, even in my country every public authority has to act according to the existing legal framework. Those who claim that specific (local) Government action is wrong can always go to law. So there is actually no real need for conspiracy theories and especially no reason to mention this in the context of "censorship" (Wolfgang, at least you should know what censorship really means). Michael, Berlin _______________________________________________________________ SMS schreiben mit WEB.DE FreeMail - einfach, schnell und kostenguenstig. Jetzt gleich testen! http://f.web.de/?mc=021192 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 5 10:56:02 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:56:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of CensorshipinDomain Names Message-ID: >>> guru at itforchange.net 4/4/2007 9:46 AM >>> >So 200 or so Governments not agreeing >amongst themselves does not in any way reduce >their legitimacy as stakeholders to this process. No one said govts were not legitimate actors per se. But if they don't agree, on what basis can they impose a uniform policy on the entire world, via ICANN? >Also are 'fundamental rights' divinely ordained ... Or are >they what societies (with active participation of Governments) >have accepted at particular points in time. This argument gets you into a dead end, an infinite regress. Who or what are the "societies" that establish rights? They are composed of people like you and me. And if I and others who agree strongly advocate for a free internet and free expression, then "society" may accept and institute that. Let's have that debate on the merits. We cannot sit poassively back and accept what "society" tells us is our rights. We must actively shape and define them, based on our knowledge and our conscience. That is the business we are in here, isn't it? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 5 12:09:52 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:09:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? Message-ID: >>> george.sadowsky at attglobal.net 4/4/2007 9:26 AM >>> >I worry that the "free speech imperialism" that >characterizes some positions regarding TLDs and >the segmentation of the domain name space >espoused today is an unproductive attempt to foist a >moderately narrow and parochial view of the world >onto a global structure, and that it will be >counterproductive. George, Name-calling of this sort is strangely Orwellian. You are calling me and other liberals who are concerned about the obvious resitrctions being imposed on TLD strings "imperialists" and "free speech nazis" (this is what you called me in Lisbon, remember?). By resisting ICANN's TLD policy all I am trying to do is leave the door open to diversity, contending ideas, controversial ideas and not have anything that powerful people don't like immediately thrown out of consideration. Tell me how this is "imperialistic," if you care to engage in rational discourse. Who am I forcing to do what by telling a global authority that it shouldn't censor domains? On the other hand, won't the policies you advocate reward intolerance? Aren't you are saying that any entity in the world that doesn't like someone else's label or speech will have grounds to challenge it and kill it. Is that not more akin to the policies of imperialist and fascist states than anything we are advocating? I do not, of course, believe that you are either an imperialist or a nazi and would never use those terms against you. Instead, I suspect that you believe that you can avoid controversy and make ICANN's life easier and gain political acceptance for it. You are thus advocating self-censorship and deference to authority, in the hopes that that will buy ICANN some time. The attitude is, "don't do anything that will provoke people." Apparently you fail to recognize that the price of this kind of appeasement of power never works long term, it only feeds their appetite for more control. And the subterranean anger you express by using unfair and strong terms such as "imperialist" and "nazi" indicates nothing about me, only how threatened you must feel by these efforts to clearly identify the implications of what ICANN is doing. There is no such thing as a "free speech nazi," George. Freedom of expression and action are the antithesis of those concepts and the only real safeguards against the intolerance and top-down control associated with those ideologies. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Thu Apr 5 13:02:07 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:02:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> Milton Mueller ha scritto: > You are thus advocating > self-censorship and deference to authority, in the hopes that that will > buy ICANN some time. The attitude is, "don't do anything that will > provoke people." There is a basic point that I think needs to be done here, even if it brings us much farther than Internet governance itself. What you call "self-censorship and deference to authority" (thus implying that governments speak for the sake of authority rather than to convey an actual feeling of their citizens, something that would at least deserve case by case evaluation) could be considered by others basic respect for different opinions, especially when the issues touch into the personal sphere of ethics. For example, I am an atheist and in my country blasphemy is not forbidden by law, but still I don't go around saying blasphemies about the gods of whatever religion, even if I'm technically free to do that. So, I consider abortion a right of every woman, but I would not see why you would want to make headlines by creating a .abortion TLD, thus possibly offending and provoking those cultures and individuals which have not matured that right yet. Note that this does not prevent abortion itself, where legal, or its discussion in any way! It's just overloading the domain name system with content-related value battles that do not pertain to it. I understand that the "respect" or "decency" argument is often used as an excuse to promote actual censorship. However, I think that in certain cases it is a valid argument and will become more valid as the world gets further integrated and needs more inclusion and reciprocal understanding; there needs to be a specific evaluation and balancing of different views and sensitivities. You need a tolerant attitude towards other people's taboos, or even just different views of the world; and an approach that uses dialogue to let people freely grow out of them, rather than aggressive vindication of your supposed freedom to disregard them. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wcurrie at apc.org Thu Apr 5 19:22:41 2007 From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 23:22:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1671674782-1175793733-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-1863645293-@bwe020-cell00.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Those of us who have been subject to empires understand one thing very clearly: no empire ever permitted freedom of speech. :) That said, the point is that if ICANN is reponsible only for the technical regulation of the internet (as was repeatedly insisted upon by ICANN's ultimate authority, the USG, during WSIS), then the moment it makes a decision on a matter that is not technical but semiotically, ideologically and connotatively loaded, e.g. on a TLD for the global pornography industry, it is moving out of technical regulation and into the sphere of public policy. This is one of the reasons why the EU placed the issue of public policy principles for the management of critic internet resources on the Tunis agenda. It is not going to go away by ignoring or downplaying it as an issue. It is the elephant in the room. The .xxx decision is a mere symptom of the global public policy malaise on developing globally acceptable rules for governing the internet in the global public interest. As others have observed, the USG missed an opportunity to deal with this issue head on at WSIS. I'm afraid the issue is now doomed to recur in the form of endlessly-recurring morbid symptoms until the next opportunity or crisis arises to deal with it - unless ICANN takes the initiative to discuss it openly through an approriate public, transparent and administratively fair process, in which all stakeholders can be heard. Willie Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld -----Original Message----- From: "Milton Mueller" Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:09:52 To:,"Karl Auerbach" , Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we going? >>> george.sadowsky at attglobal.net 4/4/2007 9:26 AM >>> >I worry that the "free speech imperialism" that >characterizes some positions regarding TLDs and >the segmentation of the domain name space >espoused today is an unproductive attempt to foist a >moderately narrow and parochial view of the world >onto a global structure, and that it will be >counterproductive. George, Name-calling of this sort is strangely Orwellian. You are calling me and other liberals who are concerned about the obvious resitrctions being imposed on TLD strings "imperialists" and "free speech nazis" (this is what you called me in Lisbon, remember?). By resisting ICANN's TLD policy all I am trying to do is leave the door open to diversity, contending ideas, controversial ideas and not have anything that powerful people don't like immediately thrown out of consideration. Tell me how this is "imperialistic," if you care to engage in rational discourse. Who am I forcing to do what by telling a global authority that it shouldn't censor domains? On the other hand, won't the policies you advocate reward intolerance? Aren't you are saying that any entity in the world that doesn't like someone else's label or speech will have grounds to challenge it and kill it. Is that not more akin to the policies of imperialist and fascist states than anything we are advocating? I do not, of course, believe that you are either an imperialist or a nazi and would never use those terms against you. Instead, I suspect that you believe that you can avoid controversy and make ICANN's life easier and gain political acceptance for it. You are thus advocating self-censorship and deference to authority, in the hopes that that will buy ICANN some time. The attitude is, "don't do anything that will provoke people." Apparently you fail to recognize that the price of this kind of appeasement of power never works long term, it only feeds their appetite for more control. And the subterranean anger you express by using unfair and strong terms such as "imperialist" and "nazi" indicates nothing about me, only how threatened you must feel by these efforts to clearly identify the implications of what ICANN is doing. There is no such thing as a "free speech nazi," George. Freedom of expression and action are the antithesis of those concepts and the only real safeguards against the intolerance and top-down control associated with those ideologies. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Thu Apr 5 15:08:20 2007 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:08:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Milton, I'm focusing solely upon the character strings that make up TLDs. I'm not focusing on free speech in other aspects of domain naming, or of life in general. In particular, I'm not talking about any level of a domain name other than the top level. What I am arguing is that there are character strings that, in a multicultural world, are broadly and specifically very offensive, and that the Internet will not suffer if one or more of those are not chosen as TLD names. BTW, my comment in Lisbon was an exaggerated caricature and was meant have some humorous content, contrasting espousal of free speech with the requirement that everyone must accept it. I'm sorry if you didn't recognize it as such. You are obviously not a nazi; we both understand that. I think that what is missing in your argument is the recognition that we live in a multicultural world and that the Internet is a global phenomenon. A minimum of decency and respect for the sensitivities of others would go a long way in making the evolution of Internet governance less contentious and more productive --- WITHOUT IN ANY WAY compromising the ability of the Internet to contain or provide any kind of legal content on it. What's wrong with that? More comments inserted below. Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 12:09 PM -0400 4/5/07, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>> george.sadowsky at attglobal.net 4/4/2007 9:26 AM >>> >>I worry that the "free speech imperialism" that >>characterizes some positions regarding TLDs and >>the segmentation of the domain name space >>espoused today is an unproductive attempt to foist a >>moderately narrow and parochial view of the world >>onto a global structure, and that it will be >>counterproductive. > >George, >Name-calling of this sort is strangely Orwellian. You are calling me >and other liberals who are concerned about the obvious resitrctions >being imposed on TLD strings "imperialists" and "free speech nazis" >(this is what you called me in Lisbon, remember?). > >By resisting ICANN's TLD policy all I am trying to do is leave the door >open to diversity, contending ideas, controversial ideas and not have >anything that powerful people don't like immediately thrown out of >consideration. Tell me how this is "imperialistic," if you care to >engage in rational discourse. Who am I forcing to do what by telling a >global authority that it shouldn't censor domains? You are potentially forcing people who use the Internet to confront symbols at the top level of the Internet, a very visible level, with powerful negative emotional content for them as a class, with no benefit except to please those who confront. Take my nazi example if you like, or take any pejorative term applied to any large class of people. Would you argue that if the Ku Klux Klan wanted to establish a TLD .nigg*r that it should be permitted? I am absolutely sure that you would get _their_ community support for that. > >On the other hand, won't the policies you advocate reward intolerance? >Aren't you are saying that any entity in the world that doesn't like >someone else's label or speech will have grounds to challenge it and >kill it. Is that not more akin to the policies of imperialist and >fascist states than anything we are advocating? I suppose that there is a very small risk of that, and you may invoke the slippery slope argument if you want. I see it somewhat differently -- as tolerance for the sensitivities of others. I am relatively sure that a reasonable system of governance would provide an effective screen for rejecting frivolous challenges. > >I do not, of course, believe that you are either an imperialist or a >nazi and would never use those terms against you. Instead, I suspect >that you believe that you can avoid controversy and make ICANN's life >easier and gain political acceptance for it. This has nothing to do with making ICANN's life easier. It has to do with getting on to realize the good things that the Internet has to offer and not get hung up on issues that have nothing to do with its content. > You are thus advocating >self-censorship and deference to authority, I thought that I was advocating for tolerance in a multicultural world. > in the hopes that that will >buy ICANN some time. My concern encompasses a much larger scope of civil behavior than ICANN. > The attitude is, "don't do anything that will >provoke people." Apparently you fail to recognize that the price of this >kind of appeasement of power never works long term, it only feeds their >appetite for more control. It's interesting that you put it in terms of appeasement of power -- quite a confrontational stance. I think of it as living together in a civilized manner. Perhaps we should be discussing how a revised ICANN, with the assistance of other sectors, can establish rules for a TLD process that recognizes this possibility and incorporates mechanisms to avoid it. > >And the subterranean anger you express by using unfair and strong terms >such as "imperialist" and "nazi" indicates nothing about me, only how >threatened you must feel by these efforts to clearly identify the >implications of what ICANN is doing. Milton, now you are being silly, maybe on purpose, I can't tell. I am not threatened. I do use humor and I do exaggerate from time to time to make a point. The serious point here is that in the name of free speech (which I like also, by the way), and from what appears to be a uni-cultural mindset on your part, you are trying to force everyone to accept your notion of how far free speech should go. I think that is reprehensible, and I think that you should reconsider your premises. Wearing cultural blinders in multicultural settings does not serve one well. > >There is no such thing as a "free speech nazi," George. Freedom of >expression and action are the antithesis of those concepts and the only >real safeguards against the intolerance and top-down control associated >with those ideologies. How about forcing free speech down everyone's throat (metaphorically speaking)? That is in effect what you want to do. I do remember that when you said "fuck" in one of your interventions in Lisbon you waited until it appeared on the screen and you seemed very pleased about it. Now you may well have offended some (but not all, and not me) of the people in the room, but you clearly didn't care one bit about that. I characterize that behavior as consciously and purposefully rude. Do you want to be remembered as that kind of a person? George ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From robin at ipjustice.org Thu Apr 5 14:15:33 2007 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:15:33 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in DomainNames In-Reply-To: <830193695-1175667123-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-890073298-@bxe014-cell01.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <4612DD83.8040701@bertola.eu> <1175641952.6t6khvsyi8w0@mail.servidores.unam.mx> <46130175.9060501@ipjustice.org> <830193695-1175667123-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-890073298-@bxe014-cell01.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <46153CC5.8090308@ipjustice.org> Thank you, Alejandro. It is heartening to hear that you and the board are not in favor of content regulation at ICANN. If we can agree to that much, we are most of the way there. :-) Robin Alejandro Pisanty wrote: >Robin, > >Vittorio - nor has the ICANN Board - has not expressed arguments for content regulation; quite the contrary. And I have expressed myself - in rather improper terms for which I beg excuses - about the nature of the arguments, not the nationality of those who put them forward. > >Yours, > >Alejandro Pisanty > >Sent via BlackBerry > >-----Original Message----- >From: Robin Gross >Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 18:37:57 >To:governance at lists.cpsr.org,Alejandro Pisanty >Cc:Vittorio Bertola >Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain > Names > >I presume there are better arguments for content regulation than the >national origin of those against content-regulation? > >Robin > > >Alejandro Pisanty wrote: > > > >>Vittorio, >> >>due to travel I'm not quite able to regularly access and especially reply to >>email, but am following this debate (I'm reading on Blackberry all day, but >>can't reply because of the thing's limitations, and my laptop connects only >>through a webmail - I have some firewall issues, which I've not been able to >>solve, with my usual ssh to server; and, am only connected this way once or >>twice a day.) >> >>So let me tell you YES, you are right, and pointing out the most serious >>problems with Milton's (and Froomkin's, etc.) positions, including the >>appalling parochiality of their US-centered views.) >> >>So, forza, Azzurri... >> >>Alx >> >>-- >>Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >>Director General de Servicios de Cómputo Académico >>UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico, D.F., Mexico >>Tels. +52-55-5622-8541, +52-55-5622-8542; Fax +52-55-5622-8540 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>----- Message from vb at bertola.eu --------- >>> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 01:04:35 +0200 >>> From: Vittorio Bertola >>>Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Vittorio Bertola >>>Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Domain Names >> >> >> >> >>> To: Milton Mueller >>> >>>Milton Mueller ha scritto: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>You can come up with all kinds of after-the-fact rationalizations, as >>>>Vittorio does, but there is only one thing that has changed between June >>>>2005 (when the ICANN Board voted to approve the application) and last >>>>week (when they voted to kill it) and that is the strong and sustained >>>>objections of governments, opponents of pornography and adult >>>>webmasters. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Actually, the most significant change in these years was that a relevant >>>part of the adult entertainment world, which initially supported the >>>proposal, changed their mind and started to actively oppose it. Vint >>>Cerf's vote, for example, was mostly due to this, as he said in his >>>declaration. And he was one of those who initially voted in favour of >>>negotiating an agreement. >>> >>>In any case, why do you think that opposition by governments should be >>>disregarded? They are a significant stakeholder and their opinion has to >>>be taken into account. Actually, one of ICANN's core values (see the >>>Bylaws) is: >>> >>>"11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that >>>governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and >>>duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' >>>recommendations." >>> >>> >>> >>>>.xxx was killed because it was controversial and ICANN >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>lacked the spine to stand up to that kind of pressure. full stop. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>It seems to me that you are trying to read the minds of Board members... >>>and not even correctly :-) Actually, you need more "spine" to stand up >>>to the multimillion dollar lawsuits that ICM is likely to bring. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Let me dispose of the absurd notion that the semantics of a domain name >>>>doesn't affect the ability to express oneself freely online. This >>>>argument has been decisively rejected by a court in the US. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Oh well, if a court in the US (one of the zillion courts in the US) says >>>so, then it's settled for the globe... :-) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>And it's intuitively obvious why this argument is silly. Imagine someone >>>>saying, "you cannot name your book "The Middle East: Peace or Aparthed" >>>>because that will offend the Israelis, but you can say whatever you like >>>>inside the book." Is that free expression? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Top level domains are not the expression of an individual, they are >>>broad group names that are to be used by thousands or millions of >>>individuals together. You simply can't pretend to have exactly your own >>>favourite string as TLD - even if we had one million of them, there >>>wouldn't be enough to grant one to every user. >>> >>>Still, while I see how your free expression is harmed by not being able >>>to set up a website at the URL sucks.com, I can't see how >>>your free expression is harmed by setting up your pro-abortion website >>>at proabortion.com rather than at pro.abortion. It is perhaps more >>>harmed by the fact that if no new gTLDs are introduced then it'll be >>>hard to find proabortion. still available. >>> >>>Incidentally, even if this wasn't a factor in the decision, I think >>>that, if ICANN had approved .xxx, one minute later there would have been >>>many governments suggesting to freeze the introduction of new gTLDs >>>until ICANN started to be more considerate in choices. In realpolitik >>>terms, it would have been a disaster. >>>-- >>>vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >>>--------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>>----- End message from vb at bertola.eu ----- >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> >> >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu Thu Apr 5 14:26:46 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:26:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <46153F66.7040401@bertola.eu> Robin Gross ha scritto: > Imposing all intolerances cumulatively on everyone is a terrible policy > choice. Please leave room for those who want to have a discussion at > .abortion to have that discussion. Please do not decide for everyone in > the world that that conversation can't happen because that right has not > evolved in all countries. Those countries will block that speech > without needing ICANN to prevent it. I'm not saying that ICANN should only approve what is approved by everyone. It should not reject only what is rejected by everyone, though. There needs to be dialogue, consensus building and, in the end, an attempt to respect everyone's opinions. Still, while I see the outrage and strong sentiments that such a proposal would stir, I fail to see what would be the advancement in rights determined by hosting a discussion on abortion at www.pro.abortion rather than at www.proabortion.com. I take the consideration about personal freedom, but I also see some people's private sensitivities being harmed with no practical gain. I have no final opinion on this, but I can't help wondering what's the point of that. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From robin at ipjustice.org Thu Apr 5 14:33:03 2007 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:33:03 -0700 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <46153F66.7040401@bertola.eu> References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <46153F66.7040401@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <461540DF.1000406@ipjustice.org> Is not a precedent for freedom of expression in Internet governance a practical gain? Robin Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Robin Gross ha scritto: > >> Imposing all intolerances cumulatively on everyone is a terrible >> policy choice. Please leave room for those who want to have a >> discussion at .abortion to have that discussion. Please do not >> decide for everyone in the world that that conversation can't happen >> because that right has not evolved in all countries. Those countries >> will block that speech without needing ICANN to prevent it. > > > I'm not saying that ICANN should only approve what is approved by > everyone. It should not reject only what is rejected by everyone, > though. There needs to be dialogue, consensus building and, in the > end, an attempt to respect everyone's opinions. > > Still, while I see the outrage and strong sentiments that such a > proposal would stir, I fail to see what would be the advancement in > rights determined by hosting a discussion on abortion at > www.pro.abortion rather than at www.proabortion.com. I take the > consideration about personal freedom, but I also see some people's > private sensitivities being harmed with no practical gain. I have no > final opinion on this, but I can't help wondering what's the point of > that. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Thu Apr 5 14:59:04 2007 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton A Samuels) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 13:59:04 -0500 Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship inDomain Names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lee: Many thanks for this very thoughtful discourse. Carlton The University of the West Indies [BTW, I confess that while I’m not American – well, civic American! - I did read the Administrative Procedures Act .and allied other treatises. Helped me immensely! -----Original Message----- From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 11:10 PM To: expression at ipjustice.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de; Milton Mueller; goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Subject: Re: AW: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship inDomain Names Hi Wolfgang, Good questions all. First to review my own history briefly, Milton and I had advocated an 'economically rational, technically/politically neutral' approach to gtld allocations a couple years ago, specifically to save the ICANN board - and staff - from having to make these kinds of political judgment calls. OK, that was a mistake, apparently you can't take out the politics; noone wanted to go the automomatic annual auction route. Even though auctions work fine for allocating all kinds of scarce resources. But still, the present alternative does seem a funny spectacle: to have the iCANN board preoccupied with sex - without saying that word - I mean deciding on .xxx versus other combinations of Roman letters. And the next wave of gtld applicants you point to is also what we foresaw, and warned ICANN about - this is just a small episode before the few applicants become a flood, and if ICANN says no to them all, they will all reasonably ask - their own governments if not ICANN directly - 'on what basis was this decision made?.' And really, on what basis can the ICANN board reject any of these next claimaints? Certainly not technical, since while not trivial entriely, adding gtld's these days is about as difficult...as adding data to a database. Yeah I know it is a special database, but still. So that gets us back to the need for ICANN staff and associated interests to all do their homework, and read up on the rule-making procedures laid in that classic of American jurisprudnce, the Administrative Procedures Act, of 1948 I believe. Ok, I haven;t read it recently either, but point is there are some basic rules that ICANN could adopt and impose on themselves if noone else will or can; I am sure there are comparable laws passed elsewhere which could be used as models as well. Point is it can be done by ICANN itself. But..then ICANN is judge and jury for itself? Sounds like a solution perhaps for ICANN, but maybe not for others. IGPer John Mathiason, as well as many more at the Athens IGF I session organized by Parminder, discussed what an Internet Framework Convention might be about. So if not ICANN by itself, then isn;t this institiutionalization of oversight issue exactly the kind of thing a framework convention could help address? (And you know what, if we talk about this more at IGF II following the san juan icann meeting, then guess what, a de facto framework convention may have begun without folks even noticing...) But really answering your question of who would be involved and how it could be managed to institute a multistakeholder review process for a global industry regulatory body - well that is not easy. Obviously ICANN as it stands needs some protection, even if just from itself, so it can do its job(s), and that is what the APA provided to eg US Federal Communications Commission staffers and commissioners alike: If they follow the rules, then the decisions made are usually respected by industry and the courts. Well OK, they get overturned all the time in the US courts, but the pressure for transparent decisionmaking is so strong that the FCCers try very hard to avoid that outcome. And I am sure ICANN staff would try equally hard to avoid being overturned on review, were there an Adminsitrative Procedures Act of the Internet somehow agreed to, and some process in place, as yet only ill-defined. When you figure it all out in San Juan, let us know! : ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de 4/4/2007 11:18 AM >>> Lee: What is still lacking is an 'Administrative Procedures Act' for the Internet, in partidular to guide ICANN on how it should go about and what it may or may not consider in its decisionmaking, whether for gtld's or anything else. Wolfgang: Lee, this is a good point. But who should adopt such an Act and who should guide ICANN? The DOC? The GAC? A new governmental or non-governmental body? One idea - in the long run -. could by the formation of a new hybrid organisation composed by all stakeholders with a mandat to deal with public issues and a certain authority (which could come from an intergovernmental arrangement eventually within the framework of GAC)? The chain fo controversial cases will grow dramaticially in the future. If you take only GEO-TLDs, which are labeld in the GNSO report as one group of TLDs where we have "concerns", you will have soon an open pandora box. Projects so far which are on the horzon are .berlin, .nyc, .cym (Wales), .sco, .btn (Bretagne), .london. What about .basque, .tibet, . tchechnia, .kosovo? A good case is Germany and the .berlin proposal. The local government in Berlin (which is a land according to the German constitution) manages berlin.de in cooperation with a private company. It is naturally against the proposal arguing this would lead to "consumer confusion" (protecting their own business under berlin.de) . Paternalistic? Consumers are stupid and need guidance from the top? The funny thing is that the German Bundestag with the votes of the two main parties has adopted a TLD resolution which calls on ICANN to open the door for Geo-TLDs like .münchen, köln, .bayern etc to give consumers more chocse and to stimulate competition. Who is right? Is it consumer confusion or is it consumer choice? ALAC is planning to organize a workshop on that issue in San Juan to figure out the arguments of pro and con. But the more interesting issues is who decides on .berlin? If ICANN follows the .xxx procedure it will ask the GAC. GAC members will ask the German government but the German government has an internal problem to harmonize different approaches on the federal and the local level. If it is seen as a "cultural affair", then according to the German constiution, the federal government has no competences. Does it mean, that for such a decision ICANN has to consult with the local authorities directly? And how other governments will see this? Some may be happy to have next to the ccTLD also some big (or small) cities with a TLD for local marketing, tourism, local economy promotion, local language support (like .cat) etc. Others will fear that this will become very counterproductive, undermining national monopolies etc. Where to go? And who leads the process? And which body is entitled to make a final decision? A lut of fun is waiting down the TLD road .... 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From trieste at gmail.com Thu Apr 5 15:11:47 2007 From: trieste at gmail.com (Demi Getschko) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 16:11:47 -0300 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> Hi Robin! I am a newcomer to the list and saw you your text. I do not think that anyone here is against free speech. But I really do not see a direct relationship between TLDs and free speech. Let me try an example ( btw, as an engineer, I always try to test a concept against its limits using some - imperfect - analogies). - may be we could compare TDL with labels, or official public sign on the streets/roads. - one can run any business anyone wants at the shops on streets, but we do not allow signs to all those business. The signs are more adequately used to show a limit set of global resources and, usually, that do not offend or scandalize the majority.. We usually do not have signs on the streets that points to an abortion clinic but, yes, we do have signs that point to hospitals, without entering in such inadequate details... If a sizable part of the community fell bad about some name, sign, picture (like those at the displays or posters on the streets, may be we would be intolerant if we force the people to look to something they do not like. This has nothing to do with the content itself, just the advertising of the content. In the internet, as we have to deal with thousands of cultures and susceptibilities, I really do not think is *fair* or *global* to impose the values of part of this community to the totum... (just my 2 cents) best demi On 4/5/07, Robin Gross wrote: > There seems to be some confusion about what speech is being regulated in > a new gtld policy that prohibits controversial ideas in the string. > Countries who outlaw abortion are not forced into a conversation about > abortion because a gtld of .abortion has been created. Countries are > very good at blocking access to domain names that offend them. I was in > Tunis and tried to access a number of websites that discuss civil > liberties and was not able to because the government blocked their > access. They didn't need ICANN to prevent that speech for them. > > "We" are not in a position to impose a conversation about abortion in > countries that choose to block .abortion. The govt makes that decision > for that country and blocks access. But ICANN policy will be imposed on > everyone. If ICANN chooses to prevent .abortion because some countries > are offended by it then those who have chosen to have that conversation > and who have a legal right to that conversation are prevented. > > What you are saying is that "we" may not have a discussion at .abortion. > > Imposing all intolerances cumulatively on everyone is a terrible policy > choice. Please leave room for those who want to have a discussion at > .abortion to have that discussion. Please do not decide for everyone in > the world that that conversation can't happen because that right has not > evolved in all countries. Those countries will block that speech > without needing ICANN to prevent it. > > Robin > > > > > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > Milton Mueller ha scritto: > > > >> You are thus advocating > >> self-censorship and deference to authority, in the hopes that that will > >> buy ICANN some time. The attitude is, "don't do anything that will > >> provoke people." > > > > > > There is a basic point that I think needs to be done here, even if it > > brings us much farther than Internet governance itself. > > > > What you call "self-censorship and deference to authority" (thus > > implying that governments speak for the sake of authority rather than > > to convey an actual feeling of their citizens, something that would at > > least deserve case by case evaluation) could be considered by others > > basic respect for different opinions, especially when the issues touch > > into the personal sphere of ethics. > > > > For example, I am an atheist and in my country blasphemy is not > > forbidden by law, but still I don't go around saying blasphemies about > > the gods of whatever religion, even if I'm technically free to do that. > > > > So, I consider abortion a right of every woman, but I would not see > > why you would want to make headlines by creating a .abortion TLD, thus > > possibly offending and provoking those cultures and individuals which > > have not matured that right yet. Note that this does not prevent > > abortion itself, where legal, or its discussion in any way! It's just > > overloading the domain name system with content-related value battles > > that do not pertain to it. > > > > I understand that the "respect" or "decency" argument is often used as > > an excuse to promote actual censorship. However, I think that in > > certain cases it is a valid argument and will become more valid as the > > world gets further integrated and needs more inclusion and reciprocal > > understanding; there needs to be a specific evaluation and balancing > > of different views and sensitivities. You need a tolerant attitude > > towards other people's taboos, or even just different views of the > > world; and an approach that uses dialogue to let people freely grow > > out of them, rather than aggressive vindication of your supposed > > freedom to disregard them. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 veni at veni.com Thu Apr 5 16:00:52 2007 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:00:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46155b44.20386fd2.064d.ffffdcbc@mx.google.com> George, I agree with your statements, esp. the ones on the fact that often people from the US forget that the other cultures are quite different from their own. thanks for making this point! At 02:08 PM 4/5/2007 -0500, George Sadowsky wrote: >Milton, > >I'm focusing solely upon the character strings that make up TLDs. >I'm not focusing on free speech in other aspects of domain naming, >or of life in general. In particular, I'm not talking about any >level of a domain name other than the top level. > >What I am arguing is that there are character strings that, in a >multicultural world, are broadly and specifically very offensive, >and that the Internet will not suffer if one or more of those are >not chosen as TLD names. > >BTW, my comment in Lisbon was an exaggerated caricature and was >meant have some humorous content, contrasting espousal of free >speech with the requirement that everyone must accept it. I'm sorry >if you didn't recognize it as such. You are obviously not a nazi; >we both understand that. > >I think that what is missing in your argument is the recognition >that we live in a multicultural world and that the Internet is a >global phenomenon. A minimum of decency and respect for the >sensitivities of others would go a long way in making the evolution >of Internet governance less contentious and more >productive --- WITHOUT IN ANY WAY compromising the ability of the >Internet to contain or provide any kind of legal content on it. > >What's wrong with that? Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com The opinions expressed above are those of the author, not of any organizations, associated with or related to the author in any given way. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Thu Apr 5 16:55:57 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:55:57 -0700 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> Demi Getschko wrote: > If a sizable part of the community fell bad about some name, sign, > picture (like those at the displays or posters on the streets, may be > we would be intolerant if we force the people to look to something > they do not like. Consider for example overt depictions of a man being tortured to death by being nailed to a pair of wooden timbers and being forced to wear a crown of thorns and pierced by a spear. It would not be hard to find people who do not like such displays. Should we then require the various Christian churches to abandon placing such displays on and in their buildings? Here in the US we long ago found it both infeasible and wrong to muzzle those who speak, or the names they use to advertise their existence (which is itself a form of speech) on the grounds that it might annoy some people or even make them intolerant. One of the few exceptions is one of extreme circumstances in which the speech or the sign is equivalent to an intentional or highly reckless physical act designed to elicit a dangerous physical response; and we certainly do not have that (yet) in any top level domain name that has been proposed. It is for reasons like this that I believe that the first principle of internet governance is that it should confine itself to matters that have a clear, direct, and compelling relationship to technical matters. For example, governance that deals with mechanisms through which end users (or their agents) can arrange for end-to-end, multi-ISP, pathways adequate to sustain usable VOIP would be a reasonable matter for internet governance. On the other hand, dividing domain names on the basis of perceived business plans, who operates them, or their customer base, all of these being non technical, really are not proper matters of internet governance. They are, instead better left to the normal work of national legislatures and the slow process of international agreements. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Thu Apr 5 16:13:42 2007 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton A Samuels) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:13:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> Message-ID: Question. Is there any space for [personal and informed] choice in this view? Carlton -----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 12:02 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we going? Milton Mueller ha scritto: > You are thus advocating > self-censorship and deference to authority, in the hopes that that will > buy ICANN some time. The attitude is, "don't do anything that will > provoke people." There is a basic point that I think needs to be done here, even if it brings us much farther than Internet governance itself. What you call "self-censorship and deference to authority" (thus implying that governments speak for the sake of authority rather than to convey an actual feeling of their citizens, something that would at least deserve case by case evaluation) could be considered by others basic respect for different opinions, especially when the issues touch into the personal sphere of ethics. For example, I am an atheist and in my country blasphemy is not forbidden by law, but still I don't go around saying blasphemies about the gods of whatever religion, even if I'm technically free to do that. So, I consider abortion a right of every woman, but I would not see why you would want to make headlines by creating a .abortion TLD, thus possibly offending and provoking those cultures and individuals which have not matured that right yet. Note that this does not prevent abortion itself, where legal, or its discussion in any way! It's just overloading the domain name system with content-related value battles that do not pertain to it. I understand that the "respect" or "decency" argument is often used as an excuse to promote actual censorship. However, I think that in certain cases it is a valid argument and will become more valid as the world gets further integrated and needs more inclusion and reciprocal understanding; there needs to be a specific evaluation and balancing of different views and sensitivities. You need a tolerant attitude towards other people's taboos, or even just different views of the world; and an approach that uses dialogue to let people freely grow out of them, rather than aggressive vindication of your supposed freedom to disregard them. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 5 18:02:54 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:02:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? Message-ID: >>> George Sadowsky 4/5/2007 3:08 PM >>> >I think that what is missing in your argument is the recognition >that we live in a multicultural world and that the Internet is a >global phenomenon. No. It is precisely the multicultural, diverse nature of the world that animates my desire to prevent ICANN from becoming a chokepoint. Such a chokepoint, as Robin eloquently put it, becomes a way of "imposing all intolerances cumulatively on everyone." Try to understand that, please. The TLD selection criteria being considered by ICANN will constantly pit one culture against another. It invites people to view TLD creation as a conferral of global approval and legitimacy on one set of ideas rather than as coordination of unique strings, the meaning of which different nations and cultures can negotiate and regulate according to their own norms. >A minimum of decency and respect for the >sensitivities of others would go a long way in making the >evolution of Internet governance less contentious and more >productive I understand this argument. Vittorio was making the same point. There is something to be said for it, as a guide to _personal_ conduct. But translated into institutionalized rules, it is a recipe for systematic suppression of diversity and dissent. If you are prevented by law from saying something that offends anyone, then your expression is seriously restricted. Global policy making processes for resource assignment are not the greatest way to enforce "decency and respect for sensitivities." Of course that does not mean I advocate going out of my way to offend people, just because it is legal to do it. And yes, there are jerks who will do that. But I think the problems posed by a few insensitive jerks is much smaller than putting into place a global machinery that encourages organized groups to object to and challenge the non-violent expressions of others. Anyway, I think we are finally getting to the core of the disagreement. The .xxx rejection was not fundamentally about its so-called lack of community support, or about concerns that it would lead ICANN into contractual content regulation. It was about this. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From robin at ipjustice.org Thu Apr 5 13:36:47 2007 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:36:47 -0700 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> There seems to be some confusion about what speech is being regulated in a new gtld policy that prohibits controversial ideas in the string. Countries who outlaw abortion are not forced into a conversation about abortion because a gtld of .abortion has been created. Countries are very good at blocking access to domain names that offend them. I was in Tunis and tried to access a number of websites that discuss civil liberties and was not able to because the government blocked their access. They didn't need ICANN to prevent that speech for them. "We" are not in a position to impose a conversation about abortion in countries that choose to block .abortion. The govt makes that decision for that country and blocks access. But ICANN policy will be imposed on everyone. If ICANN chooses to prevent .abortion because some countries are offended by it then those who have chosen to have that conversation and who have a legal right to that conversation are prevented. What you are saying is that "we" may not have a discussion at .abortion. Imposing all intolerances cumulatively on everyone is a terrible policy choice. Please leave room for those who want to have a discussion at .abortion to have that discussion. Please do not decide for everyone in the world that that conversation can't happen because that right has not evolved in all countries. Those countries will block that speech without needing ICANN to prevent it. Robin Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Milton Mueller ha scritto: > >> You are thus advocating >> self-censorship and deference to authority, in the hopes that that will >> buy ICANN some time. The attitude is, "don't do anything that will >> provoke people." > > > There is a basic point that I think needs to be done here, even if it > brings us much farther than Internet governance itself. > > What you call "self-censorship and deference to authority" (thus > implying that governments speak for the sake of authority rather than > to convey an actual feeling of their citizens, something that would at > least deserve case by case evaluation) could be considered by others > basic respect for different opinions, especially when the issues touch > into the personal sphere of ethics. > > For example, I am an atheist and in my country blasphemy is not > forbidden by law, but still I don't go around saying blasphemies about > the gods of whatever religion, even if I'm technically free to do that. > > So, I consider abortion a right of every woman, but I would not see > why you would want to make headlines by creating a .abortion TLD, thus > possibly offending and provoking those cultures and individuals which > have not matured that right yet. Note that this does not prevent > abortion itself, where legal, or its discussion in any way! It's just > overloading the domain name system with content-related value battles > that do not pertain to it. > > I understand that the "respect" or "decency" argument is often used as > an excuse to promote actual censorship. However, I think that in > certain cases it is a valid argument and will become more valid as the > world gets further integrated and needs more inclusion and reciprocal > understanding; there needs to be a specific evaluation and balancing > of different views and sensitivities. You need a tolerant attitude > towards other people's taboos, or even just different views of the > world; and an approach that uses dialogue to let people freely grow > out of them, rather than aggressive vindication of your supposed > freedom to disregard them. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Thu Apr 5 22:27:15 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 07:57:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era ofCensorshipinDomain Names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070406022801.33DDFE0493@smtp3.electricembers.net> Dear Milton, Thank you for your response. 1. "But if they don't agree, on what basis can they impose a uniform policy on the entire world, via ICANN? " I must confess surprise at such a simplistic statement. Policy formulation is complex, inter alia, because it is a a process of negotiation amongst different interest groups. If everybody agreed easily and initially, there would be no need for political processes at all. Look at WTO, WIPO, Kyoto protocol ... In every such space there is fierce contestation and negotiation. The current Doha round of WTO is caught in strong differences, should Governments persist to try and find a meaningful consensus or should they abandon it? These are new global spaces and the processes of policy making perhaps is being discovered / invented as we go along. All stakeholders, including civil society, certainly governments, private sector, with or without ICANN (which is all said and done, is under the legal oversight of a single country, even as it makes decisions on global, multilateral issues, hence being vulnerable to being considered an archaic entity - we agree on this point) have to discuss the ways by which we will govern these new spaces that are already critical and becoming even more critical to our lives. But even before that we need to acknowledge that this is a public policy space and different interest groups will have a legitimate presence in this space. For some of us, it is a mantra that 'the internet community is not only those who logon to the internt, but all those whose lives are impacted by it' by the later definition, we cover practically whole of humanity, 90% +, of who are not part of these internet governance spaces as these governance lists ... For what its worth and with all its drawbacks and limitations, as of today, their only hope to having their interests represented in internet governance is through their Governments (not really through the few hundred individuals on this list, however well read, intelligent and compassionate we may be) 2. "This argument gets you into a dead end, an infinite regress. Who or what are the "societies" that establish rights? They are composed of people like you and me. And if I and others who agree strongly advocate for a free internet and free expression, then "society" may accept and institute that. Let's have that debate on the merits. We cannot sit poassively back and accept what "society" tells us is our rights. We must actively shape and define them, based on our knowledge and our conscience. That is the business we are in here, isn't it? " I agree with this point made above. Of course, society is not independent of the individuals **and institutions** comprising it and we all shape such rights together. My point was slightly different, I was stating that your strong objection to Vittorio, asking why Governments opposition should not be considered, was not valid. You said that the Government opposition should not be considered - "Not if they are proposing to restrict a fundamental human right." My point is that fundamental rights are themselves constituted in society through these very Governments and are enforced (not by you, me or any other individual) by the same Governments. The understanding and interpretation of such 'restriction on fundamental rights' itself needs to be debated and understood widely. Hence I don't know if we can apriori refuse Government role based on such beliefs. Regards Guru -----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 8:26 PM To: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era ofCensorshipinDomain Names >>> guru at itforchange.net 4/4/2007 9:46 AM >>> >So 200 or so Governments not agreeing amongst themselves does not in any way reduce their legitimacy as stakeholders to this process. No one said govts were not legitimate actors per se. But if they don't agree, on what basis can they impose a uniform policy on the entire world, via ICANN? >Also are 'fundamental rights' divinely ordained ... Or are they what societies (with active participation of Governments) have accepted at >particular points in time. This argument gets you into a dead end, an infinite regress. Who or what are the "societies" that establish rights? They are composed of people like you and me. And if I and others who agree strongly advocate for a free internet and free expression, then "society" may accept and institute that. Let's have that debate on the merits. We cannot sit poassively back and accept what "society" tells us is our rights. We must actively shape and define them, based on our knowledge and our conscience. That is the business we are in here, isn't it? -----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 9:11 AM To: vb at bertola.eu Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of CensorshipinDomain Names >>> Vittorio Bertola 04/03/07 7:04 PM >>> >In any case, why do you think that opposition by governments should be disregarded? They are a significant stakeholder and their opinion has >to be taken into account. Not if they are proposing to restrict a fundamental human right. And "governments" don't have a single opinion, in case you hadn't noticed. We have over 200 of them and their laws don't agree on this matter. This business of lumping so-called "stakeholders" into homogeneous groups is really getting out of hand. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From trieste at gmail.com Thu Apr 5 22:45:34 2007 From: trieste at gmail.com (Demi Getschko) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 23:45:34 -0300 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> Karl, this is exacty my argument. May be we do not want to be in the very same situation you are depicting below... I do not make judgements about what kind of symbol a given religion/sect choose but, for the same reason, I think have to avoid incurring in the same errors, and impinging to others signs and symbols that could be offensive to them... This (I suppose) is on of the main reasons to have the public comments period. best demi On 4/5/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: > Demi Getschko wrote: > > > If a sizable part of the community fell bad about some name, sign, > > picture (like those at the displays or posters on the streets, may be > > we would be intolerant if we force the people to look to something > > they do not like. > > Consider for example overt depictions of a man being tortured to death by being > nailed to a pair of wooden timbers and being forced to wear a crown of thorns > and pierced by a spear. > > It would not be hard to find people who do not like such displays. > > Should we then require the various Christian churches to abandon placing such > displays on and in their buildings? > > Here in the US we long ago found it both infeasible and wrong to muzzle those > who speak, or the names they use to advertise their existence (which is itself > a form of speech) on the grounds that it might annoy some people or even make > them intolerant. One of the few exceptions is one of extreme circumstances in > which the speech or the sign is equivalent to an intentional or highly reckless > physical act designed to elicit a dangerous physical response; and we certainly > do not have that (yet) in any top level domain name that has been proposed. > > It is for reasons like this that I believe that the first principle of internet > governance is that it should confine itself to matters that have a clear, > direct, and compelling relationship to technical matters. > > For example, governance that deals with mechanisms through which end users (or > their agents) can arrange for end-to-end, multi-ISP, pathways adequate to > sustain usable VOIP would be a reasonable matter for internet governance. > > On the other hand, dividing domain names on the basis of perceived business > plans, who operates them, or their customer base, all of these being non > technical, really are not proper matters of internet governance. They are, > instead better left to the normal work of national legislatures and the slow > process of international agreements. > > --karl-- > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From shahshah at irnic.ir Fri Apr 6 05:41:23 2007 From: shahshah at irnic.ir (Siavash Shahshahani) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 13:11:23 +0330 (IRST) Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <4612DD83.8040701@bertola.eu> References: <4612DD83.8040701@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <2568.172.16.16.119.1175852483.squirrel@chapar.irnic.ir> > Milton Mueller ha scritto: >> You can come up with all kinds of after-the-fact rationalizations, as >> Vittorio does, but there is only one thing that has changed between June >> 2005 (when the ICANN Board voted to approve the application) and last >> week (when they voted to kill it) and that is the strong and sustained >> objections of governments, opponents of pornography and adult >> webmasters. > > Actually, the most significant change in these years was that a relevant > part of the adult entertainment world, which initially supported the > proposal, changed their mind and started to actively oppose it. To put this piece of debate into a more accurate form, the crucial factor here was the postponement of the final decision itself, and that came about only because of the letters from GAC and USG. Siavash ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Apr 6 07:21:05 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 13:21:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> Hello to all, Two simple remarks - on a personal basis : On the Milton / George debate : As it has already been mentionned, there are two extreme options that simply do not work : - anything accepted / legal in one country / culture should be accepted / legal on the Internet as a whole; - anything forbidden / illegal in one country / culture should be forbidden on the Internet as a whole. Once we accept these two options must be out of the table, we are confronted with much simpler questions : what should be the rules to organize the coexistence of different value sets in the common space of the Internet ? how are we going to discuss them ? and more than anything : where ? Regarding the Demi / Karl discussion : In the physical world, cultural spaces and the corresponding communities are separated by some physical distance : the agreed public signs for each community progressively evolve along a sort of geographic continuum. To take Karl's pertinent example of the cross : the symbol is very present in countries with strong christian communities, much less in countries with other dominant religions. Likewise for "porn" : any pharmacy in France today - or many advertising billboards for that matter - display images of women so naked that they wouldn't have even been allowed in the "porn" mags of my youth and they would be considered very offensive for people with very strong muslim moral references for instance. I Community references evolve and what is agreed at one time in one zone is deifferent from what is accepted as common in another time or another zone. This is just a fact. And, let's be clear, this is why countries implemented borders and sometimes fought aggressively to defend their own conception of society rules - for better or worse. Problem is : the Internet is a common space and it does not provide similar boundaries or a continuum for progressively moving from one cultural space to another. With a single click (or even without in the case of pop-ups), it is just like a Star Trek Holodeck : as if you were to move in one second from the most sexy Las Vegas table dance club to the inner part of St Peter in Rome or the Kabbah in Mecca. Or, to take another domain of reference : from the die-hard Davos capitalist crowd to the strongest Porto Alegre anti-globalization crowds. Those two examples show : 1) that this mere distinction between a continuum in the physical space and the Holodeck effect raises new problems : you do not deal with the Internet space exactly the same way you deal with the physical world; seems obvious but maybe worth reminding; 2) that in certain cases (the Las Vegas - St Peter example) you may deal with a difficulty to preserve free circulation through the Internet Space while at the same time avoiding unnecessarily offending people who would like to remainin a coherent space. This applies both for avoiding the placement of the equivalent of signs advertising lap dances on the right of St Peter's altar AND for not positioning moral condemnations or call to repentance at the entrance of entertainment sites; 3) that in other cases, maybe the Davos - Porto Alegre example, the Holodeck effect placing together streams of information that are competing views on the same subject micht actually be beneficial to a better understanding.; In any case, the whole discussion is, once again, about coexistence of different cultural and value sets in a common environment. This is a debate that has not taken place yet and will necessarily impose itself. It deserves better than just talking past one another. Using physical world analogies is useful : to understand how people feel and to understand what is similar and what is different in the virtual world as opposed to the physical one. Best Bertrand On 4/6/07, Demi Getschko wrote: > > Karl, this is exacty my argument. May be we do not want to be in the > very same situation you are depicting below... I do not make > judgements about what kind of symbol a given religion/sect choose but, > for the same reason, I think have to avoid incurring in the same > errors, and impinging to others signs and symbols that could be > offensive to them... This (I suppose) is on of the main reasons to > have the public comments period. > best > demi > > On 4/5/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > Demi Getschko wrote: > > > > > If a sizable part of the community fell bad about some name, sign, > > > picture (like those at the displays or posters on the streets, may be > > > we would be intolerant if we force the people to look to something > > > they do not like. > > > > Consider for example overt depictions of a man being tortured to death > by being > > nailed to a pair of wooden timbers and being forced to wear a crown of > thorns > > and pierced by a spear. > > > > It would not be hard to find people who do not like such displays. > > > > Should we then require the various Christian churches to abandon placing > such > > displays on and in their buildings? > > > > Here in the US we long ago found it both infeasible and wrong to muzzle > those > > who speak, or the names they use to advertise their existence (which is > itself > > a form of speech) on the grounds that it might annoy some people or even > make > > them intolerant. One of the few exceptions is one of extreme > circumstances in > > which the speech or the sign is equivalent to an intentional or highly > reckless > > physical act designed to elicit a dangerous physical response; and we > certainly > > do not have that (yet) in any top level domain name that has been > proposed. > > > > It is for reasons like this that I believe that the first principle of > internet > > governance is that it should confine itself to matters that have a > clear, > > direct, and compelling relationship to technical matters. > > > > For example, governance that deals with mechanisms through which end > users (or > > their agents) can arrange for end-to-end, multi-ISP, pathways adequate > to > > sustain usable VOIP would be a reasonable matter for internet > governance. > > > > On the other hand, dividing domain names on the basis of perceived > business > > plans, who operates them, or their customer base, all of these being non > > technical, really are not proper matters of internet governance. They > are, > > instead better left to the normal work of national legislatures and the > slow > > process of international agreements. > > > > --karl-- > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- 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 Fri Apr 6 08:20:14 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 08:20:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4C197C5D-7D46-43E1-A852-76D03504C94A@psg.com> On 6 apr 2007, at 07.21, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > - anything accepted / legal in one country / culture should be > accepted / legal on the Internet as a whole; i do not see why this is untenable when speaking of the Internet. i am also not sure i know what 'as a whole' means in this context, in that we already know that countries are filtering on anything they don't approve of. the Internet as a whole barely exists anymore. but in terms of the core of the Internet, why shouldn't anything that is acceptable at least somewhere be available. with it being up to the local government to stop their citizens from the exercise of freedom according to their local customs - every country exercises some constraint on what it believes proper behavior from their subjects. personally, i don't approve of the firewalls countries put up nor do i think they are legitimate under internal agreements such as the UDHR, but that is a unfortunate issue that each people has to fight on its own against their own governments. we can't pretend that most countries are not already at least monitoring, if not controlling, what crosses their national borders through the Internet. BTW: my position is based not on the USan so called right to free speech, but on the UDHR which a lot of the countries that complain about the imperialism of freedom of expression have signed: Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. And while i one of those who believes that the relation between a label in a TLD and a word with meaning is purely subjective and a happy coincidence, i do accept that a domain name is a media through which one can receive and impart information. 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 wcurrie at apc.org Fri Apr 6 09:19:56 2007 From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 10:19:56 -0300 (BRT) Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50280.151.205.99.178.1175865596.squirrel@webmail.apc.org> Could anyone explain which of the following public policy objectives contained in the GAC's operating principles were applied in the deliberations, decision and reasons for the decision of the ICANN Board on the .xxx application? 3. ICANN’s decision making should take into account public policy objectives including, among other things: • secure, reliable and affordable functioning of the Internet, including uninterrupted service and universal connectivity; • the robust development of the Internet, in the interest of the public good, for government, private, educational, and commercial purposes, world wide; • transparency and non-discriminatory practices in ICANN’s role in the allocation of Internet names and address; • effective competition at all appropriate levels of activity and conditions for fair competition, which will bring benefits to all categories of users including, greater choice, lower prices, and better services; • fair information practices, including respect for personal privacy and issues of consumer concern; and • freedom of expression. These are the reasons the iCANN Board gave for its decision: Therefore, the Board has determined that: - ICM’s Application and the Revised Agreement fail to meet, among other things, the Sponsored Community criteria of the RFP specification. - Based on the extensive public comment and from the GAC's communiqués that this agreement raises public policy issues. - Approval of the ICM Application and Revised Agreement is not appropriate as they do not resolve the issues raised in the GAC Communiqués, and ICM’s response does not address the GAC’s concern for offensive content, and similarly avoids the GAC’s concern for the protection of vulnerable members of the community. The Board does not believe these public policy concerns can be credibly resolved with the mechanisms proposed by the applicant. - The ICM Application raises significant law enforcement compliance issues because of countries' varying laws relating to content and practices that define the nature of the application, therefore obligating ICANN to acquire a responsibility related to content and conduct. - The Board agrees with the reference in the GAC communiqué from Lisbon, that under the Revised Agreement, there are credible scenarios that lead to circumstances in which ICANN would be forced to assume an ongoing management and oversight role regarding Internet content, which is inconsistent with its technical mandate. Accordingly, it is resolved (07.__) that the Proposed Agreement with ICM concerning the .XXX sTLD is rejected and the application request for a delegation of the .XXX sTLD is hereby denied. Are these the only reasons that ICANN will give on the matter? willie >>>> George Sadowsky 4/5/2007 3:08 PM >>I think that what is missing in your argument is the recognition that we live in a multicultural world and that the Internet is a global phenomenon. > > No. It is precisely the multicultural, diverse nature of the world that animates my desire to prevent ICANN from becoming a chokepoint. Such a chokepoint, as Robin eloquently put it, becomes a way of "imposing all intolerances cumulatively on everyone." > > Try to understand that, please. > > The TLD selection criteria being considered by ICANN will constantly pit one culture against another. It invites people to view TLD creation as a conferral of global approval and legitimacy on one set of ideas rather than as coordination of unique strings, the meaning of which different nations and cultures can negotiate and regulate according to their own norms. > >>A minimum of decency and respect for the >>sensitivities of others would go a long way in making the >>evolution of Internet governance less contentious and more >>productive > > I understand this argument. Vittorio was making the same point. > There is something to be said for it, as a guide to _personal_ conduct. But translated into institutionalized rules, it is a recipe for > systematic suppression of diversity and dissent. If you are prevented by law from saying something that offends anyone, then your expression is seriously restricted. Global policy making processes for resource assignment are not the greatest way to enforce "decency and respect for sensitivities." Of course that does not mean I advocate going out of my way to offend people, just because it is legal to do it. And yes, there are jerks who will do that. But I think the problems posed by a few insensitive jerks is much smaller than putting into place a global machinery that encourages organized groups to object to and challenge the non-violent expressions of others. > > Anyway, I think we are finally getting to the core of the disagreement. The .xxx rejection was not fundamentally about its so-called lack of community support, or about concerns that it would lead ICANN into contractual content regulation. It was about this. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > Willie Currie Communications and Information Policy Programme Manager Association for Progressive Communications (APC) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From trieste at gmail.com Fri Apr 6 09:26:44 2007 From: trieste at gmail.com (Demi Getschko) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 10:26:44 -0300 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1038953b0704060626m1e5c1782m14ece2e666d6de6@mail.gmail.com> Agreed, Bertrand! And just one more thing: I think all of us agree that in France there is freedom to profess any religion. Notwithstanding (and here I am *not* discussing the merit of the decision, just trying to make a distinction between free speech and free display of signs and, tentatively, one more analogy with TLDs), the France government in some way restricts public abusive display of religious symbols in the schools, like big crosses, the veil, the kippah etc etc. Best demi On 4/6/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Hello to all, > > Two simple remarks - on a personal basis : > > On the Milton / George debate : > > As it has already been mentionned, there are two extreme options that > simply do not work : > - anything accepted / legal in one country / culture should be accepted / > legal on the Internet as a whole; > - anything forbidden / illegal in one country / culture should be > forbidden on the Internet as a whole. > > Once we accept these two options must be out of the table, we are > confronted with much simpler questions : what should be the rules to > organize the coexistence of different value sets in the common space of the > Internet ? how are we going to discuss them ? and more than anything : where > ? > > > Regarding the Demi / Karl discussion : > > In the physical world, cultural spaces and the corresponding communities are > separated by some physical distance : the agreed public signs for each > community progressively evolve along a sort of geographic continuum. To take > Karl's pertinent example of the cross : the symbol is very present in > countries with strong christian communities, much less in countries with > other dominant religions. Likewise for "porn" : any pharmacy in France today > - or many advertising billboards for that matter - display images of women > so naked that they wouldn't have even been allowed in the "porn" mags of my > youth and they would be considered very offensive for people with very > strong muslim moral references for instance. I > > Community references evolve and what is agreed at one time in one zone is > deifferent from what is accepted as common in another time or another zone. > This is just a fact. And, let's be clear, this is why countries implemented > borders and sometimes fought aggressively to defend their own conception of > society rules - for better or worse. > > Problem is : the Internet is a common space and it does not provide similar > boundaries or a continuum for progressively moving from one cultural space > to another. With a single click (or even without in the case of pop-ups), it > is just like a Star Trek Holodeck : as if you were to move in one second > from the most sexy Las Vegas table dance club to the inner part of St Peter > in Rome or the Kabbah in Mecca. Or, to take another domain of reference : > from the die-hard Davos capitalist crowd to the strongest Porto Alegre > anti-globalization crowds. > > Those two examples show : > 1) that this mere distinction between a continuum in the physical space and > the Holodeck effect raises new problems : you do not deal with the Internet > space exactly the same way you deal with the physical world; seems obvious > but maybe worth reminding; > 2) that in certain cases (the Las Vegas - St Peter example) you may deal > with a difficulty to preserve free circulation through the Internet Space > while at the same time avoiding unnecessarily offending people who would > like to remainin a coherent space. This applies both for avoiding the > placement of the equivalent of signs advertising lap dances on the right of > St Peter's altar AND for not positioning moral condemnations or call to > repentance at the entrance of entertainment sites; > 3) that in other cases, maybe the Davos - Porto Alegre example, the Holodeck > effect placing together streams of information that are competing views on > the same subject micht actually be beneficial to a better understanding.; > > In any case, the whole discussion is, once again, about coexistence of > different cultural and value sets in a common environment. This is a debate > that has not taken place yet and will necessarily impose itself. It deserves > better than just talking past one another. Using physical world analogies is > useful : to understand how people feel and to understand what is similar and > what is different in the virtual world as opposed to the physical one. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > > > > On 4/6/07, Demi Getschko wrote: > > > > Karl, this is exacty my argument. May be we do not want to be in the > > very same situation you are depicting below... I do not make > > judgements about what kind of symbol a given religion/sect choose but, > > for the same reason, I think have to avoid incurring in the same > > errors, and impinging to others signs and symbols that could be > > offensive to them... This (I suppose) is on of the main reasons to > > have the public comments period. > > best > > demi > > > > On 4/5/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > Demi Getschko wrote: > > > > > > > If a sizable part of the community fell bad about some name, sign, > > > > picture (like those at the displays or posters on the streets, may be > > > > we would be intolerant if we force the people to look to something > > > > they do not like. > > > > > > Consider for example overt depictions of a man being tortured to death > by being > > > nailed to a pair of wooden timbers and being forced to wear a crown of > thorns > > > and pierced by a spear. > > > > > > It would not be hard to find people who do not like such displays. > > > > > > Should we then require the various Christian churches to abandon placing > such > > > displays on and in their buildings? > > > > > > Here in the US we long ago found it both infeasible and wrong to muzzle > those > > > who speak, or the names they use to advertise their existence (which is > itself > > > a form of speech) on the grounds that it might annoy some people or even > make > > > them intolerant. One of the few exceptions is one of extreme > circumstances in > > > which the speech or the sign is equivalent to an intentional or highly > reckless > > > physical act designed to elicit a dangerous physical response; and we > certainly > > > do not have that (yet) in any top level domain name that has been > proposed. > > > > > > It is for reasons like this that I believe that the first principle of > internet > > > governance is that it should confine itself to matters that have a > clear, > > > direct, and compelling relationship to technical matters. > > > > > > For example, governance that deals with mechanisms through which end > users (or > > > their agents) can arrange for end-to-end, multi-ISP, pathways adequate > to > > > sustain usable VOIP would be a reasonable matter for internet > governance. > > > > > > On the other hand, dividing domain names on the basis of perceived > business > > > plans, who operates them, or their customer base, all of these being non > > > technical, really are not proper matters of internet governance. They > are, > > > instead better left to the normal work of national legislatures and the > slow > > > process of international agreements. > > > > > > --karl-- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Apr 6 09:29:10 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 15:29:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <4C197C5D-7D46-43E1-A852-76D03504C94A@psg.com> References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> <4C197C5D-7D46-43E1-A852-76D03504C94A@psg.com> Message-ID: <954259bd0704060629q4b9a0f8sfce811cc77661774@mail.gmail.com> Avri, you are right about the importance of the term "as a whole" in my previous formulations. This shows the connection with the question of the unicity of the Internet or its structuration into sub-parts. My comments were made in the framework of a supposed unified Internet and global common rules - what seemed to me the context of Milton and George's discussion. If, as you mention and can indeed be argued is true, Internet "as a whole" (ie "as a single whole") does not exist anymore, then the debate shifts a bit. You said : > - anything accepted / legal in one country / culture should be > accepted / legal on the Internet as a whole; i do not see why this is untenable when speaking of the Internet. But immediately afterwards, you're making a very interesting distinction between "accepted / legal" and "available" when you write : "why shouldn't anything that is acceptable at least somewhere be available ?". This means our statements are not contradictory : - what I meant was : declaring something legal everywhere because it is legal somewhere is not globally accepted - nor probably practical - what you say is : if it is accepted / legal somewhere, it should be potentially accessible everywhere, with the correction of the national laws. The direction you indicate puts a strong emphasis on the distinction between the core and the periphery. In that context, you suggest if I understand well, that "emission" (ie something accepted in one country) is freely distributed throughout the "core", and therefore potentially "accessible" everywhere. Then, "reception" is filtered by national governments on a territorial basis. This is a technically viable option. And as you mention, it may be the direction the world is already taking. But at the same time, I wonder if leaving to each community the responsibility to handle the fight against its own potentially oppressive authorities is not relinquishing part of the power the universality of the Internet has given to individual citizens, irrespective of frontiers. Aren't we runing the risk of trading the very political objectives of freedom of expression for the purity of the technical vision (regulation at the edges) ? Furthermore, the pure geographical basis may be limiting. Aren't we dealing here with much more fractal communities ? Diasporas scattered around the world; different countries sharing some common views; communities of interest sharing similar values, irrespective of frontiers. In the context of the discussion on IDNs, aren't we going to see the emergence of content control rule sets matching the use of character sets because they correspond somewhat with cultural boundaries ? Once again, I do not want to get too much into the specifics. There are many solutions but the major question is the one Karl was asking : what kind of governance (including rules but also "decision-making procedures") should apply to a global community of a billion people ? And what are the respective roles of the different categories of stakeholders ? The solution you mention : technical and economical governance rules for a neutral core and public policy and regulation for governments alone at the periphery is one among many. As the .xxx debate illustrates though, the interconnection between the technical, social, economical and political dimensions of most of the delicate issues might prevent such a solution. It does not mean of course that there is no part that can be technically isolated - or that the end-to-end principle is not to be defended any more. But I wonder whether this interconnectedness is not precisely why a "multi-stakeholder" governance framework was finally considered necessary. We just need to invent it to be able to have this discussion in a way that allows to move forward and clarifies things as we progress. But there is no doubt this is a major debate. Thanks for the comments. Best Bertrand On 4/6/07, Avri Doria wrote: > > > On 6 apr 2007, at 07.21, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > > > > - anything accepted / legal in one country / culture should be > > accepted / legal on the Internet as a whole; > i do not see why this is untenable when speaking of the Internet. > > i am also not sure i know what 'as a whole' means in this context, in > that we already know that countries are filtering on anything they > don't approve of. the Internet as a whole barely exists anymore. but in terms of the core of the Internet, why shouldn't anything that > is acceptable at least somewhere be available. with it being up to > the local government to stop their citizens from the exercise of > freedom according to their local customs - every country exercises > some constraint on what it believes proper behavior from their subjects. > > personally, i don't approve of the firewalls countries put up nor do > i think they are legitimate under internal agreements such as the > UDHR, but that is a unfortunate issue that each people has to fight > on its own against their own governments. we can't pretend that most > countries are not already at least monitoring, if not controlling, > what crosses their national borders through the Internet. > > BTW: my position is based not on the USan so called right to free > speech, but on the UDHR which a lot of the countries that complain > about the imperialism of freedom of expression have signed: > > Article 19. > > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; > this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and > to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media > and regardless of frontiers. > > And while i one of those who believes that the relation between a > label in a TLD and a word with meaning is purely subjective and a > happy coincidence, i do accept that a domain name is a media through > which one can receive and impart information. > > > 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 > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Apr 6 09:39:20 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 15:39:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <1038953b0704060626m1e5c1782m14ece2e666d6de6@mail.gmail.com> References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> <1038953b0704060626m1e5c1782m14ece2e666d6de6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <954259bd0704060639v6efd60b7ga484e234e9bb1fd6@mail.gmail.com> Demi, As you make that reference, just a few precisions regarding the French regime in schools : 1) this is applicable to public schools - not to confessional schools, a lot of which exist; 2) the key notion here is "laïcité" or the clear distinction between church and state; 3) the exact term was not "abusive" display of religious symbols but "ostensible" display, meaning very visible - no notion of abuse here. More generally, the law adopted in 2004 folllowed a very intense debate, not unlike the one we are facing here. In my view, it tried to strike a difficult balance between different and equally viable principles : respect for cultures and religions, defense of a major republican principle in France, laicity. Best On 4/6/07, Demi Getschko wrote: > > Agreed, Bertrand! > > And just one more thing: I think all of us agree that in France there > is freedom to profess any religion. Notwithstanding (and here I am > *not* discussing the merit of the decision, just trying to make a > distinction between free speech and free display of signs and, > tentatively, one more analogy with TLDs), the France government in > some way restricts public abusive display of religious symbols in the > schools, like big crosses, the veil, the kippah etc etc. > Best > > demi > > > > On 4/6/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > Hello to all, > > > > Two simple remarks - on a personal basis : > > > > On the Milton / George debate : > > > > As it has already been mentionned, there are two extreme options that > > simply do not work : > > - anything accepted / legal in one country / culture should be accepted > / > > legal on the Internet as a whole; > > - anything forbidden / illegal in one country / culture should be > > forbidden on the Internet as a whole. > > > > Once we accept these two options must be out of the table, we are > > confronted with much simpler questions : what should be the rules to > > organize the coexistence of different value sets in the common space of > the > > Internet ? how are we going to discuss them ? and more than anything : > where > > ? > > > > > > Regarding the Demi / Karl discussion : > > > > In the physical world, cultural spaces and the corresponding communities > are > > separated by some physical distance : the agreed public signs for each > > community progressively evolve along a sort of geographic continuum. To > take > > Karl's pertinent example of the cross : the symbol is very present in > > countries with strong christian communities, much less in countries with > > other dominant religions. Likewise for "porn" : any pharmacy in France > today > > - or many advertising billboards for that matter - display images of > women > > so naked that they wouldn't have even been allowed in the "porn" mags of > my > > youth and they would be considered very offensive for people with very > > strong muslim moral references for instance. I > > > > Community references evolve and what is agreed at one time in one zone > is > > deifferent from what is accepted as common in another time or another > zone. > > This is just a fact. And, let's be clear, this is why countries > implemented > > borders and sometimes fought aggressively to defend their own conception > of > > society rules - for better or worse. > > > > Problem is : the Internet is a common space and it does not provide > similar > > boundaries or a continuum for progressively moving from one cultural > space > > to another. With a single click (or even without in the case of > pop-ups), it > > is just like a Star Trek Holodeck : as if you were to move in one > second > > from the most sexy Las Vegas table dance club to the inner part of St > Peter > > in Rome or the Kabbah in Mecca. Or, to take another domain of reference > : > > from the die-hard Davos capitalist crowd to the strongest Porto Alegre > > anti-globalization crowds. > > > > Those two examples show : > > 1) that this mere distinction between a continuum in the physical space > and > > the Holodeck effect raises new problems : you do not deal with the > Internet > > space exactly the same way you deal with the physical world; seems > obvious > > but maybe worth reminding; > > 2) that in certain cases (the Las Vegas - St Peter example) you may deal > > with a difficulty to preserve free circulation through the Internet > Space > > while at the same time avoiding unnecessarily offending people who would > > like to remainin a coherent space. This applies both for avoiding the > > placement of the equivalent of signs advertising lap dances on the right > of > > St Peter's altar AND for not positioning moral condemnations or call to > > repentance at the entrance of entertainment sites; > > 3) that in other cases, maybe the Davos - Porto Alegre example, the > Holodeck > > effect placing together streams of information that are competing views > on > > the same subject micht actually be beneficial to a better > understanding.; > > > > In any case, the whole discussion is, once again, about coexistence of > > different cultural and value sets in a common environment. This is a > debate > > that has not taken place yet and will necessarily impose itself. It > deserves > > better than just talking past one another. Using physical world > analogies is > > useful : to understand how people feel and to understand what is similar > and > > what is different in the virtual world as opposed to the physical one. > > > > Best > > > > Bertrand > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/6/07, Demi Getschko wrote: > > > > > > Karl, this is exacty my argument. May be we do not want to be in the > > > very same situation you are depicting below... I do not make > > > judgements about what kind of symbol a given religion/sect choose but, > > > for the same reason, I think have to avoid incurring in the same > > > errors, and impinging to others signs and symbols that could be > > > offensive to them... This (I suppose) is on of the main reasons to > > > have the public comments period. > > > best > > > demi > > > > > > On 4/5/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > > Demi Getschko wrote: > > > > > > > > > If a sizable part of the community fell bad about some name, sign, > > > > > picture (like those at the displays or posters on the streets, may > be > > > > > we would be intolerant if we force the people to look to something > > > > > they do not like. > > > > > > > > Consider for example overt depictions of a man being tortured to > death > > by being > > > > nailed to a pair of wooden timbers and being forced to wear a crown > of > > thorns > > > > and pierced by a spear. > > > > > > > > It would not be hard to find people who do not like such displays. > > > > > > > > Should we then require the various Christian churches to abandon > placing > > such > > > > displays on and in their buildings? > > > > > > > > Here in the US we long ago found it both infeasible and wrong to > muzzle > > those > > > > who speak, or the names they use to advertise their existence (which > is > > itself > > > > a form of speech) on the grounds that it might annoy some people or > even > > make > > > > them intolerant. One of the few exceptions is one of extreme > > circumstances in > > > > which the speech or the sign is equivalent to an intentional or > highly > > reckless > > > > physical act designed to elicit a dangerous physical response; and > we > > certainly > > > > do not have that (yet) in any top level domain name that has been > > proposed. > > > > > > > > It is for reasons like this that I believe that the first principle > of > > internet > > > > governance is that it should confine itself to matters that have a > > clear, > > > > direct, and compelling relationship to technical matters. > > > > > > > > For example, governance that deals with mechanisms through which end > > users (or > > > > their agents) can arrange for end-to-end, multi-ISP, pathways > adequate > > to > > > > sustain usable VOIP would be a reasonable matter for internet > > governance. > > > > > > > > On the other hand, dividing domain names on the basis of perceived > > business > > > > plans, who operates them, or their customer base, all of these being > non > > > > technical, really are not proper matters of internet governance. > They > > are, > > > > instead better left to the normal work of national legislatures and > the > > slow > > > > process of international agreements. > > > > > > > > --karl-- > > > > > > Bertrand de La Chapelle "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Mueller at syr.edu Fri Apr 6 09:48:48 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:48:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era ofCensorshipinDomain Names Message-ID: >>> guru at itforchange.net 4/5/2007 10:27 PM >>> >>1. "But if they don't agree, on what basis can they impose >>a uniform policy on the entire world, via ICANN? " > >I must confess surprise at such a simplistic statement. >Policy formulation is complex, inter alia, because it is a a >process of negotiation amongst different interest groups. You misunderstood my argument. My point was not that governments did not find themselves in immediate and total agreement. My point was exactly that on ICANN-related issues governments have not undertaken _any_ process of lawful negotiation and agreement, and even when they have attempted to do so, they still have not come to a formal agreement. Indeed, they insist that the IG Forum NOT engage in such agreement-producing processes. Did you ever hear of a process called WSIS? What was the result? Enhanced cooperation? What was the result of that? If governments cannot agree under formal circumstances it is wrong for them to exert unaccountable, untransparent, lawless, informal influence over ICANN processes. Currently, government's influence over ICANN processes is what we call "regulation by raised eyebrow;" it consists of veiled threats, informal and arbitrary pressure and backroom agreements. As you know, IGP has proposed that governments _be responsible_ and enter into formal negotiations on a framework convention for the Internet. The most powerful governments are opposed because they do not want to subject themselves to such a discipline. Without democratic representation and lawful, accountable processes governments are just a bunch of thugs with guns. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Apr 6 10:02:17 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 16:02:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <954259bd0704060639v6efd60b7ga484e234e9bb1fd6@mail.gmail.com> References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> <1038953b0704060626m1e5c1782m14ece2e666d6de6@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060639v6efd60b7ga484e234e9bb1fd6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <978E6999-6D8B-49A6-93C3-B1CAB9D7AF8A@ras.eu.org> Bertrand, It should probably be more important to tell Demi that this law has been tabled first to forbid the veil in public schools. Then it became problematic not to address symbols of other religions: kippah, sikh's turban, etc., and big crosses - and I should better avoid dealing here with the special regime for the Alsace-Moselle region... That's to say that analogies are generally misleading... if not leading exactly to the contrary of the point one wants to make. Meryem Le 6 avr. 07 à 15:39, Bertrand de La Chapelle a écrit : > Demi, > > As you make that reference, just a few precisions regarding the > French regime in schools : > 1) this is applicable to public schools - not to confessional > schools, a lot of which exist; > 2) the key notion here is "laïcité" or the clear distinction > between church and state; > 3) the exact term was not "abusive" display of religious symbols > but "ostensible" display, meaning very visible - no notion of abuse > here. > > More generally, the law adopted in 2004 folllowed a very intense > debate, not unlike the one we are facing here. In my view, it tried > to strike a difficult balance between different and equally viable > principles : respect for cultures and religions, defense of a major > republican principle in France, laicity. > > Best > > On 4/6/07, Demi Getschko wrote: Agreed, Bertrand! > > And just one more thing: I think all of us agree that in France there > is freedom to profess any religion. Notwithstanding (and here I am > *not* discussing the merit of the decision, just trying to make a > distinction between free speech and free display of signs and, > tentatively, one more analogy with TLDs), the France government in > some way restricts public abusive display of religious symbols in the > schools, like big crosses, the veil, the kippah etc etc. > Best > > demi > > > > On 4/6/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > Hello to all, > > > > Two simple remarks - on a personal basis : > > > > On the Milton / George debate : > > > > As it has already been mentionned, there are two extreme options > that > > simply do not work : > > - anything accepted / legal in one country / culture should be > accepted / > > legal on the Internet as a whole; > > - anything forbidden / illegal in one country / culture should be > > forbidden on the Internet as a whole. > > > > Once we accept these two options must be out of the table, we are > > confronted with much simpler questions : what should be the rules to > > organize the coexistence of different value sets in the common > space of the > > Internet ? how are we going to discuss them ? and more than > anything : where > > ? > > > > > > Regarding the Demi / Karl discussion : > > > > In the physical world, cultural spaces and the corresponding > communities are > > separated by some physical distance : the agreed public signs for > each > > community progressively evolve along a sort of geographic > continuum. To take > > Karl's pertinent example of the cross : the symbol is very > present in > > countries with strong christian communities, much less in > countries with > > other dominant religions. Likewise for "porn" : any pharmacy in > France today > > - or many advertising billboards for that matter - display > images of women > > so naked that they wouldn't have even been allowed in the "porn" > mags of my > > youth and they would be considered very offensive for people with > very > > strong muslim moral references for instance. I > > > > Community references evolve and what is agreed at one time in one > zone is > > deifferent from what is accepted as common in another time or > another zone. > > This is just a fact. And, let's be clear, this is why countries > implemented > > borders and sometimes fought aggressively to defend their own > conception of > > society rules - for better or worse. > > > > Problem is : the Internet is a common space and it does not > provide similar > > boundaries or a continuum for progressively moving from one > cultural space > > to another. With a single click (or even without in the case of > pop-ups), it > > is just like a Star Trek Holodeck : as if you were to move in > one second > > from the most sexy Las Vegas table dance club to the inner part > of St Peter > > in Rome or the Kabbah in Mecca. Or, to take another domain of > reference : > > from the die-hard Davos capitalist crowd to the strongest Porto > Alegre > > anti-globalization crowds. > > > > Those two examples show : > > 1) that this mere distinction between a continuum in the physical > space and > > the Holodeck effect raises new problems : you do not deal with > the Internet > > space exactly the same way you deal with the physical world; > seems obvious > > but maybe worth reminding; > > 2) that in certain cases (the Las Vegas - St Peter example) you > may deal > > with a difficulty to preserve free circulation through the > Internet Space > > while at the same time avoiding unnecessarily offending people > who would > > like to remainin a coherent space. This applies both for avoiding > the > > placement of the equivalent of signs advertising lap dances on > the right of > > St Peter's altar AND for not positioning moral condemnations or > call to > > repentance at the entrance of entertainment sites; > > 3) that in other cases, maybe the Davos - Porto Alegre example, > the Holodeck > > effect placing together streams of information that are competing > views on > > the same subject micht actually be beneficial to a better > understanding.; > > > > In any case, the whole discussion is, once again, about > coexistence of > > different cultural and value sets in a common environment. This > is a debate > > that has not taken place yet and will necessarily impose itself. > It deserves > > better than just talking past one another. Using physical world > analogies is > > useful : to understand how people feel and to understand what is > similar and > > what is different in the virtual world as opposed to the physical > one. > > > > Best > > > > Bertrand > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/6/07, Demi Getschko < trieste at gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > > Karl, this is exacty my argument. May be we do not want to be > in the > > > very same situation you are depicting below... I do not make > > > judgements about what kind of symbol a given religion/sect > choose but, > > > for the same reason, I think have to avoid incurring in the same > > > errors, and impinging to others signs and symbols that could be > > > offensive to them... This (I suppose) is on of the main reasons to > > > have the public comments period. > > > best > > > demi > > > > > > On 4/5/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > > Demi Getschko wrote: > > > > > > > > > If a sizable part of the community fell bad about some > name, sign, > > > > > picture (like those at the displays or posters on the > streets, may be > > > > > we would be intolerant if we force the people to look to > something > > > > > they do not like. > > > > > > > > Consider for example overt depictions of a man being tortured > to death > > by being > > > > nailed to a pair of wooden timbers and being forced to wear a > crown of > > thorns > > > > and pierced by a spear. > > > > > > > > It would not be hard to find people who do not like such > displays. > > > > > > > > Should we then require the various Christian churches to > abandon placing > > such > > > > displays on and in their buildings? > > > > > > > > Here in the US we long ago found it both infeasible and wrong > to muzzle > > those > > > > who speak, or the names they use to advertise their existence > (which is > > itself > > > > a form of speech) on the grounds that it might annoy some > people or even > > make > > > > them intolerant. One of the few exceptions is one of extreme > > circumstances in > > > > which the speech or the sign is equivalent to an intentional > or highly > > reckless > > > > physical act designed to elicit a dangerous physical > response; and we > > certainly > > > > do not have that (yet) in any top level domain name that has > been > > proposed. > > > > > > > > It is for reasons like this that I believe that the first > principle of > > internet > > > > governance is that it should confine itself to matters that > have a > > clear, > > > > direct, and compelling relationship to technical matters. > > > > > > > > For example, governance that deals with mechanisms through > which end > > users (or > > > > their agents) can arrange for end-to-end, multi-ISP, pathways > adequate > > to > > > > sustain usable VOIP would be a reasonable matter for internet > > governance. > > > > > > > > On the other hand, dividing domain names on the basis of > perceived > > business > > > > plans, who operates them, or their customer base, all of > these being non > > > > technical, really are not proper matters of internet > governance. They > > are, > > > > instead better left to the normal work of national > legislatures and the > > slow > > > > process of international agreements. > > > > > > > > --karl-- > > > > > > > > Bertrand de La Chapelle > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine > de Saint Exupéry > ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 wcurrie at apc.org Fri Apr 6 10:08:04 2007 From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:08:04 -0300 (BRT) Subject: [governance] Where are we going? Message-ID: <50629.151.205.99.178.1175868484.squirrel@webmail.apc.org> Looking at the Wellington Communique reference as the GAC's view on the .xxx/ICM application in the Lisbon Communique that is referenced in one of the reasons in the ICANN Board's denial of the application, there is a list of public policy aspects identified by members of the GAC which include the degree to which the .xxx application would: - take appropriate measures to restrict access to illegal and offensive content: - support the development of tools and programs to protect vulnerable members of the community: - maintain accurate details of registrants and assist law enforcement agencies to identify and contact the owners of particular websites, if need be; and - act to ensure the protection of intellectual property and trademark rights, personal names, country names, namesof historical, cultural and religious significance and names of geographic identifiers drawing on best practices in the development of registration and eligibility rules. Again the question is which of these public policy aspects are covered in the GAC's public policy objectives in its 'Operating Principles'? The GAC further goes on to 'request confirmation from the Board that any contract currently under negotiation between ICANN and ICM Registry would include enforceable provisions covering all of ICM Registray's commitments, and such information on the proposed contract being made available to member countries through the GAC. The GAC ends by noting that 'several members of the GAC are emphatically opposed from apublic policy perspective to the introduction of a .xxx sTLD.' Principle 2 of the GAC's "Operating Principles' provides that: The GAC shall provide advice and communicate issues and views to the ICANN Board. The GAC is not a decision making body. Such advice given by the GAC shall be without prejudice to the responsibilities of any public authority with regard to the bodies and activities of ICANN, including the Supporting Organisations and Councils. It would appear that the GAC's request of the ICANN Board to confirm that any contract with ICM Registry includes enforceable provisions covering all of ICM Registry's commitments, exceeds its powers as an advisor. The request for confirmation constructs the GAC as a public policy body to whom ICANN must account with regard to the contents of a draft contract that was then under negotation with ICM Registry. When this is followed up by GAC's note regarding the opposition of some unnamed GAC members to the .xxx application, this has the appearance of external interference/ intimidation in ICANN's deliberations on the application and by this being referenced in the ICANN Board's reasons for denying the application creates the perception and perhaps the reality that board members of ICANN were not applying their minds freely to the application before them. If one then puts this together with Susan Crawfords dissent, in which she states: 'I've also looked back at the GAC communique conveyed to us in Wellington, and I have compared it to the revised agreement, appendix S. And I do think the GAC's concerns have been adequately addressed.' then one has to start to think that the ICANN decision is a travesty of administrative justice, that there is grounds by ICM Registry to take ICANN's decision on judicial review in the courts of California, and to wonder whataction would be appropriate for civil society organisations to take to raise its concerns formally with ICANN, the GAC and the USG. willie Willie Currie Communications and Information Policy Programme Manager Association for Progressive Communications (APC) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Apr 6 10:10:42 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 16:10:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <50280.151.205.99.178.1175865596.squirrel@webmail.apc.org> References: <50280.151.205.99.178.1175865596.squirrel@webmail.apc.org> Message-ID: <954259bd0704060710g551666eeq85b475d385a6bf72@mail.gmail.com> Dear Willie, Two points in response to your question : 1) the Board's decision on .xxx was only refering to the GAC's Communiqués and not to the GAC new gTLD Principles : - these Principles were only adopted in Lisbon and are intended to apply only to future calls for proposals (this is explicitedly mentionned in the text) - the decision regarding .xxx was - and had to be - in relation to the initial call for proposals as far as the sponsorship criteria evaluation was concerned. 2) the Board's decision was in fact refering to the Wellington communiqué and, more explicitely, to a part of the GAC's Lisbon communiqué that read : ".xxx the GAC reaffirms the letter sent to the ICANN Board on 2nd February 2007. the Wellington communiqué remains a valid and important expression of the GAC's views on .xxx. the GAC does not consider the information provided by the Board to have answered the GAC concerns as to whether the ICM application meets the sponsorship criteria. The GAC also call the Board's attention to the comment from the Government of canada to the ICANN online Public Forum and expresses concern that, with the revised proposed ICANN-ICM Registry agreement, the corporation could be moving towards assuming an ongoing management and oversight role regarding Internet Content, which would be inconsistent witht its technical mandate." Text of the Lisbon communiqué is at : http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac27com.pdf Hope this answers your questions. Best Bertrand On 4/6/07, wcurrie at apc.org wrote: > > Could anyone explain which of the following public policy objectives > contained in the GAC's operating principles were applied in the > deliberations, decision and reasons for the decision of the ICANN Board on > the .xxx application? > > 3. ICANN's decision making should take into account public policy > objectives including, among other things: > > • secure, reliable and affordable functioning of the Internet, > including > uninterrupted service and universal connectivity; > > • the robust development of the Internet, in the interest of the > public > good, for government, private, educational, and commercial purposes, world > wide; > > • transparency and non-discriminatory practices in ICANN's role in > the > allocation of Internet names and address; > > • effective competition at all appropriate levels of activity and > conditions for fair competition, which will bring benefits to all > categories of users including, greater choice, lower prices, and better > services; > > • fair information practices, including respect for personal privacy > and > issues of consumer concern; and > > • freedom of expression. > > These are the reasons the iCANN Board gave for its decision: > > Therefore, the Board has determined that: > > - ICM's Application and the Revised Agreement fail to meet, among other > things, the Sponsored Community criteria of the RFP specification. > - Based on the extensive public comment and from the GAC's communiqués > that this agreement raises public policy issues. > - Approval of the ICM Application and Revised Agreement is not appropriate > as they do not resolve the issues raised in the GAC Communiqués, and ICM's > response does not address the GAC's concern for offensive content, and > similarly avoids the GAC's concern for the protection of vulnerable > members of the community. The Board does not believe these public policy > concerns can be credibly resolved with the mechanisms proposed by the > applicant. > - The ICM Application raises significant law enforcement compliance issues > because of countries' varying laws relating to content and practices that > define the nature of the application, therefore obligating ICANN to > acquire a responsibility related to content and conduct. > - The Board agrees with the reference in the GAC communiqué from Lisbon, > that under the Revised Agreement, there are credible scenarios that lead > to circumstances in which ICANN would be forced to assume an ongoing > management and oversight role regarding Internet content, which is > inconsistent with its technical mandate. > > Accordingly, it is resolved (07.__) that the Proposed Agreement with ICM > concerning the .XXX sTLD is rejected and the application request for a > delegation of the .XXX sTLD is hereby denied. > > Are these the only reasons that ICANN will give on the matter? > > willie > > >>>> George Sadowsky 4/5/2007 3:08 PM > >>I think that what is missing in your argument is the recognition that we > live in a multicultural world and that the Internet is a global > phenomenon. > > > > No. It is precisely the multicultural, diverse nature of the world that > animates my desire to prevent ICANN from becoming a chokepoint. Such a > chokepoint, as Robin eloquently put it, becomes a way of "imposing all > intolerances cumulatively on everyone." > > > > Try to understand that, please. > > > > The TLD selection criteria being considered by ICANN will constantly pit > one culture against another. It invites people to view TLD creation as a > conferral of global approval and legitimacy on one set of ideas rather > than as coordination of unique strings, the meaning of which different > nations and cultures can negotiate and regulate according to their own > norms. > > > >>A minimum of decency and respect for the > >>sensitivities of others would go a long way in making the > >>evolution of Internet governance less contentious and more > >>productive > > > > I understand this argument. Vittorio was making the same point. > > There is something to be said for it, as a guide to _personal_ conduct. > But translated into institutionalized rules, it is a recipe for > > systematic suppression of diversity and dissent. If you are prevented by > law from saying something that offends anyone, then your expression is > seriously restricted. Global policy making processes for resource > assignment are not the greatest way to enforce "decency and respect for > sensitivities." Of course that does not mean I advocate going out of my > way to offend people, just because it is legal to do it. And yes, there > are jerks who will do that. But I think the problems posed by a few > insensitive jerks is much smaller than putting into place a global > machinery that encourages organized groups to object to and challenge > the non-violent expressions of others. > > > > Anyway, I think we are finally getting to the core of the disagreement. > The .xxx rejection was not fundamentally about its so-called lack of > community support, or about concerns that it would lead ICANN into > contractual content regulation. It was about this. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > Willie Currie > Communications and Information Policy Programme Manager > Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Apr 6 10:15:43 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 16:15:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <978E6999-6D8B-49A6-93C3-B1CAB9D7AF8A@ras.eu.org> References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> <1038953b0704060626m1e5c1782m14ece2e666d6de6@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060639v6efd60b7ga484e234e9bb1fd6@mail.gmail.com> <978E6999-6D8B-49A6-93C3-B1CAB9D7AF8A@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <954259bd0704060715o4c1327d6qeb488e52706d085a@mail.gmail.com> Meryem is also perfectly right in her comments. But as for analogies, let me say again what I said in a previous message : "Using physical world analogies is useful : to understand how people feel and to understand what is similar and what is different in the virtual world as opposed to the physical one." Analogies in the scientific world are considered as the best and worst of things : leading to incredibly innovative insights or on the contrary to complete mistakes by extrapolation. It's exactly the same regarding policy issues : let's not hesitate to use them as long as they enlighten the discussion and we remain clear that they are exactly that, analogies and not equivalences. Best Bertrand On 4/6/07, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > Bertrand, > > It should probably be more important to tell Demi that this law has > been tabled first to forbid the veil in public schools. Then it > became problematic not to address symbols of other religions: kippah, > sikh's turban, etc., and big crosses - and I should better avoid > dealing here with the special regime for the Alsace-Moselle region... > That's to say that analogies are generally misleading... if not > leading exactly to the contrary of the point one wants to make. > > Meryem > > Le 6 avr. 07 à 15:39, Bertrand de La Chapelle a écrit : > > > Demi, > > > > As you make that reference, just a few precisions regarding the > > French regime in schools : > > 1) this is applicable to public schools - not to confessional > > schools, a lot of which exist; > > 2) the key notion here is "laïcité" or the clear distinction > > between church and state; > > 3) the exact term was not "abusive" display of religious symbols > > but "ostensible" display, meaning very visible - no notion of abuse > > here. > > > > More generally, the law adopted in 2004 folllowed a very intense > > debate, not unlike the one we are facing here. In my view, it tried > > to strike a difficult balance between different and equally viable > > principles : respect for cultures and religions, defense of a major > > republican principle in France, laicity. > > > > Best > > > > On 4/6/07, Demi Getschko wrote: Agreed, Bertrand! > > > > And just one more thing: I think all of us agree that in France there > > is freedom to profess any religion. Notwithstanding (and here I am > > *not* discussing the merit of the decision, just trying to make a > > distinction between free speech and free display of signs and, > > tentatively, one more analogy with TLDs), the France government in > > some way restricts public abusive display of religious symbols in the > > schools, like big crosses, the veil, the kippah etc etc. > > Best > > > > demi > > > > > > > > On 4/6/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > > Hello to all, > > > > > > Two simple remarks - on a personal basis : > > > > > > On the Milton / George debate : > > > > > > As it has already been mentionned, there are two extreme options > > that > > > simply do not work : > > > - anything accepted / legal in one country / culture should be > > accepted / > > > legal on the Internet as a whole; > > > - anything forbidden / illegal in one country / culture should be > > > forbidden on the Internet as a whole. > > > > > > Once we accept these two options must be out of the table, we are > > > confronted with much simpler questions : what should be the rules to > > > organize the coexistence of different value sets in the common > > space of the > > > Internet ? how are we going to discuss them ? and more than > > anything : where > > > ? > > > > > > > > > Regarding the Demi / Karl discussion : > > > > > > In the physical world, cultural spaces and the corresponding > > communities are > > > separated by some physical distance : the agreed public signs for > > each > > > community progressively evolve along a sort of geographic > > continuum. To take > > > Karl's pertinent example of the cross : the symbol is very > > present in > > > countries with strong christian communities, much less in > > countries with > > > other dominant religions. Likewise for "porn" : any pharmacy in > > France today > > > - or many advertising billboards for that matter - display > > images of women > > > so naked that they wouldn't have even been allowed in the "porn" > > mags of my > > > youth and they would be considered very offensive for people with > > very > > > strong muslim moral references for instance. I > > > > > > Community references evolve and what is agreed at one time in one > > zone is > > > deifferent from what is accepted as common in another time or > > another zone. > > > This is just a fact. And, let's be clear, this is why countries > > implemented > > > borders and sometimes fought aggressively to defend their own > > conception of > > > society rules - for better or worse. > > > > > > Problem is : the Internet is a common space and it does not > > provide similar > > > boundaries or a continuum for progressively moving from one > > cultural space > > > to another. With a single click (or even without in the case of > > pop-ups), it > > > is just like a Star Trek Holodeck : as if you were to move in > > one second > > > from the most sexy Las Vegas table dance club to the inner part > > of St Peter > > > in Rome or the Kabbah in Mecca. Or, to take another domain of > > reference : > > > from the die-hard Davos capitalist crowd to the strongest Porto > > Alegre > > > anti-globalization crowds. > > > > > > Those two examples show : > > > 1) that this mere distinction between a continuum in the physical > > space and > > > the Holodeck effect raises new problems : you do not deal with > > the Internet > > > space exactly the same way you deal with the physical world; > > seems obvious > > > but maybe worth reminding; > > > 2) that in certain cases (the Las Vegas - St Peter example) you > > may deal > > > with a difficulty to preserve free circulation through the > > Internet Space > > > while at the same time avoiding unnecessarily offending people > > who would > > > like to remainin a coherent space. This applies both for avoiding > > the > > > placement of the equivalent of signs advertising lap dances on > > the right of > > > St Peter's altar AND for not positioning moral condemnations or > > call to > > > repentance at the entrance of entertainment sites; > > > 3) that in other cases, maybe the Davos - Porto Alegre example, > > the Holodeck > > > effect placing together streams of information that are competing > > views on > > > the same subject micht actually be beneficial to a better > > understanding.; > > > > > > In any case, the whole discussion is, once again, about > > coexistence of > > > different cultural and value sets in a common environment. This > > is a debate > > > that has not taken place yet and will necessarily impose itself. > > It deserves > > > better than just talking past one another. Using physical world > > analogies is > > > useful : to understand how people feel and to understand what is > > similar and > > > what is different in the virtual world as opposed to the physical > > one. > > > > > > Best > > > > > > Bertrand > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/6/07, Demi Getschko < trieste at gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > > > > Karl, this is exacty my argument. May be we do not want to be > > in the > > > > very same situation you are depicting below... I do not make > > > > judgements about what kind of symbol a given religion/sect > > choose but, > > > > for the same reason, I think have to avoid incurring in the same > > > > errors, and impinging to others signs and symbols that could be > > > > offensive to them... This (I suppose) is on of the main reasons to > > > > have the public comments period. > > > > best > > > > demi > > > > > > > > On 4/5/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > > > Demi Getschko wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > If a sizable part of the community fell bad about some > > name, sign, > > > > > > picture (like those at the displays or posters on the > > streets, may be > > > > > > we would be intolerant if we force the people to look to > > something > > > > > > they do not like. > > > > > > > > > > Consider for example overt depictions of a man being tortured > > to death > > > by being > > > > > nailed to a pair of wooden timbers and being forced to wear a > > crown of > > > thorns > > > > > and pierced by a spear. > > > > > > > > > > It would not be hard to find people who do not like such > > displays. > > > > > > > > > > Should we then require the various Christian churches to > > abandon placing > > > such > > > > > displays on and in their buildings? > > > > > > > > > > Here in the US we long ago found it both infeasible and wrong > > to muzzle > > > those > > > > > who speak, or the names they use to advertise their existence > > (which is > > > itself > > > > > a form of speech) on the grounds that it might annoy some > > people or even > > > make > > > > > them intolerant. One of the few exceptions is one of extreme > > > circumstances in > > > > > which the speech or the sign is equivalent to an intentional > > or highly > > > reckless > > > > > physical act designed to elicit a dangerous physical > > response; and we > > > certainly > > > > > do not have that (yet) in any top level domain name that has > > been > > > proposed. > > > > > > > > > > It is for reasons like this that I believe that the first > > principle of > > > internet > > > > > governance is that it should confine itself to matters that > > have a > > > clear, > > > > > direct, and compelling relationship to technical matters. > > > > > > > > > > For example, governance that deals with mechanisms through > > which end > > > users (or > > > > > their agents) can arrange for end-to-end, multi-ISP, pathways > > adequate > > > to > > > > > sustain usable VOIP would be a reasonable matter for internet > > > governance. > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, dividing domain names on the basis of > > perceived > > > business > > > > > plans, who operates them, or their customer base, all of > > these being non > > > > > technical, really are not proper matters of internet > > governance. They > > > are, > > > > > instead better left to the normal work of national > > legislatures and the > > > slow > > > > > process of international agreements. > > > > > > > > > > --karl-- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bertrand de La Chapelle > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine > > de Saint Exupéry > > ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From iza at anr.org Fri Apr 6 10:26:36 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 23:26:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <1038953b0704060626m1e5c1782m14ece2e666d6de6@mail.gmail.com> References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> <1038953b0704060626m1e5c1782m14ece2e666d6de6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: It's so difficult to catch-up! Personally and very frankly, I don't feel like including .xxx to gTLD is such a big deal, and by the same token, denying .xxx is also not the most important policy issue for us. I also tend to agree with what Bertrand wrote. As Vittorio put it in the Board discussion in Lisbon, I see big cultural differences in the .xxx debate, namely, most supporters of .xxx to be added in the gTLD zone is from the US, except, perhaps Peter Dengate Thrush from New Zealand also supported its inclusion, though I am not sure how far New Zealand is from US socio-culturally ;-) One phrase that comes to my mind around this debate is the famous one John Barlow wrote ten years ago: "In Cyberspace, the First Amendment is a local ordinance." To me, it suggests that what is accepted in one country does not become universal rule. Of course, I understand many non-US people advocate Free speech and which is in fact included in the Universal Declaration of Human Right, not in US constitution alone, and our Japanese constitution also has the similar clause. However, definition/interpretation of free speech differ quite a lot - which is most obviously displayed in the limit or acceptance of porn/nudity expressions in different societies. Free speech in this context is not absolute term by itself. New French rule concerning religious expression is also another good example. Many Muslim countries, they do not allow Western displays of nudes, right? Clearly, here we do not have one universal rule be it real world or cyber world. In the cyberspace, as Bertrand well described, where there is no geographic progression of different cultures, the "g" TLD space, unlike ccTLD space, is naturally regarded as more global space than local/country/culture specific areas. If so, to me it is quite natural for such proposal as .xxx to be perceived as very offensive to some cultural/societal people. In Japan, making ".xxx" as public label is almost unacceptable (though there are some groups who might support this, of course). Please don't misunderstand, while xxx, or hard-core porns are very much illegal, so-called soft porns, quite bizarre photos and pictures are widely distributed and displayed in general magazines or some TV commercials in Japan. We just have different values and corresponding rules or systems. I also think "bottom up consensus" in a community usually means that if there is very strong opposition/dissent from some communities/stakeholders remains, in good faith, then even that is a minority, we should respect that and not take decision based on simple majority even though the majority could not accept with the reasons given from the minority. So, I may say that if .xxx proposal receives such strong opposition from some cultures/societies, ignoring them and put it into one sTLD is, even it is labeled and controlled as sTLD, may not be the best solution now. If, as Karl argued well, there are 5,000 or 50,000 TLDs are implemented, then the weight of one .xxx may become irrelevant. But that is still far from reality at this point - I like that to happen, though, so that we can end this rather counter-productive debate. best, izumi 2007/4/6, Demi Getschko : > Agreed, Bertrand! > > And just one more thing: I think all of us agree that in France there > is freedom to profess any religion. Notwithstanding (and here I am > *not* discussing the merit of the decision, just trying to make a > distinction between free speech and free display of signs and, > tentatively, one more analogy with TLDs), the France government in > some way restricts public abusive display of religious symbols in the > schools, like big crosses, the veil, the kippah etc etc. > Best > > demi > > > > On 4/6/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > Hello to all, > > > > Two simple remarks - on a personal basis : > > > > On the Milton / George debate : > > > > As it has already been mentionned, there are two extreme options that > > simply do not work : > > - anything accepted / legal in one country / culture should be accepted / > > legal on the Internet as a whole; > > - anything forbidden / illegal in one country / culture should be > > forbidden on the Internet as a whole. > > > > Once we accept these two options must be out of the table, we are > > confronted with much simpler questions : what should be the rules to > > organize the coexistence of different value sets in the common space of the > > Internet ? how are we going to discuss them ? and more than anything : where > > ? > > > > > > Regarding the Demi / Karl discussion : > > > > In the physical world, cultural spaces and the corresponding communities are > > separated by some physical distance : the agreed public signs for each > > community progressively evolve along a sort of geographic continuum. To take > > Karl's pertinent example of the cross : the symbol is very present in > > countries with strong christian communities, much less in countries with > > other dominant religions. Likewise for "porn" : any pharmacy in France today > > - or many advertising billboards for that matter - display images of women > > so naked that they wouldn't have even been allowed in the "porn" mags of my > > youth and they would be considered very offensive for people with very > > strong muslim moral references for instance. I > > > > Community references evolve and what is agreed at one time in one zone is > > deifferent from what is accepted as common in another time or another zone. > > This is just a fact. And, let's be clear, this is why countries implemented > > borders and sometimes fought aggressively to defend their own conception of > > society rules - for better or worse. > > > > Problem is : the Internet is a common space and it does not provide similar > > boundaries or a continuum for progressively moving from one cultural space > > to another. With a single click (or even without in the case of pop-ups), it > > is just like a Star Trek Holodeck : as if you were to move in one second > > from the most sexy Las Vegas table dance club to the inner part of St Peter > > in Rome or the Kabbah in Mecca. Or, to take another domain of reference : > > from the die-hard Davos capitalist crowd to the strongest Porto Alegre > > anti-globalization crowds. > > > > Those two examples show : > > 1) that this mere distinction between a continuum in the physical space and > > the Holodeck effect raises new problems : you do not deal with the Internet > > space exactly the same way you deal with the physical world; seems obvious > > but maybe worth reminding; > > 2) that in certain cases (the Las Vegas - St Peter example) you may deal > > with a difficulty to preserve free circulation through the Internet Space > > while at the same time avoiding unnecessarily offending people who would > > like to remainin a coherent space. This applies both for avoiding the > > placement of the equivalent of signs advertising lap dances on the right of > > St Peter's altar AND for not positioning moral condemnations or call to > > repentance at the entrance of entertainment sites; > > 3) that in other cases, maybe the Davos - Porto Alegre example, the Holodeck > > effect placing together streams of information that are competing views on > > the same subject micht actually be beneficial to a better understanding.; > > > > In any case, the whole discussion is, once again, about coexistence of > > different cultural and value sets in a common environment. This is a debate > > that has not taken place yet and will necessarily impose itself. It deserves > > better than just talking past one another. Using physical world analogies is > > useful : to understand how people feel and to understand what is similar and > > what is different in the virtual world as opposed to the physical one. > > > > Best > > > > Bertrand > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/6/07, Demi Getschko wrote: > > > > > > Karl, this is exacty my argument. May be we do not want to be in the > > > very same situation you are depicting below... I do not make > > > judgements about what kind of symbol a given religion/sect choose but, > > > for the same reason, I think have to avoid incurring in the same > > > errors, and impinging to others signs and symbols that could be > > > offensive to them... This (I suppose) is on of the main reasons to > > > have the public comments period. > > > best > > > demi > > > > > > On 4/5/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > > Demi Getschko wrote: > > > > > > > > > If a sizable part of the community fell bad about some name, sign, > > > > > picture (like those at the displays or posters on the streets, may be > > > > > we would be intolerant if we force the people to look to something > > > > > they do not like. > > > > > > > > Consider for example overt depictions of a man being tortured to death > > by being > > > > nailed to a pair of wooden timbers and being forced to wear a crown of > > thorns > > > > and pierced by a spear. > > > > > > > > It would not be hard to find people who do not like such displays. > > > > > > > > Should we then require the various Christian churches to abandon placing > > such > > > > displays on and in their buildings? > > > > > > > > Here in the US we long ago found it both infeasible and wrong to muzzle > > those > > > > who speak, or the names they use to advertise their existence (which is > > itself > > > > a form of speech) on the grounds that it might annoy some people or even > > make > > > > them intolerant. One of the few exceptions is one of extreme > > circumstances in > > > > which the speech or the sign is equivalent to an intentional or highly > > reckless > > > > physical act designed to elicit a dangerous physical response; and we > > certainly > > > > do not have that (yet) in any top level domain name that has been > > proposed. > > > > > > > > It is for reasons like this that I believe that the first principle of > > internet > > > > governance is that it should confine itself to matters that have a > > clear, > > > > direct, and compelling relationship to technical matters. > > > > > > > > For example, governance that deals with mechanisms through which end > > users (or > > > > their agents) can arrange for end-to-end, multi-ISP, pathways adequate > > to > > > > sustain usable VOIP would be a reasonable matter for internet > > governance. > > > > > > > > On the other hand, dividing domain names on the basis of perceived > > business > > > > plans, who operates them, or their customer base, all of these being non > > > > technical, really are not proper matters of internet governance. They > > are, > > > > instead better left to the normal work of national legislatures and the > > slow > > > > process of international agreements. > > > > > > > > --karl-- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ____________________ > > Bertrand de La Chapelle > > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > > Information Society > > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs > > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > > Exupéry > > ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wcurrie at apc.org Fri Apr 6 10:28:27 2007 From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:28:27 -0300 (BRT) Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <954259bd0704060710g551666eeq85b475d385a6bf72@mail.gmail.com> References: <50280.151.205.99.178.1175865596.squirrel@webmail.apc.org> <954259bd0704060710g551666eeq85b475d385a6bf72@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <50735.151.205.99.178.1175869707.squirrel@webmail.apc.org> Thanks Bertrand. 1) The GAC Operating Prinicples I was looking at were amended at Mar del Plata in April 2005, so I took them to be the principles that would govern the GAC's actions during the period of the .xxx application. Am I wrong in thinking this? 2) The Wellington Communique is referenced in the Lisbon Communique and is now inscibed into the reasons given by the Board, so it has a material bearing on those decisions, as i explore in my subsequent post. willie > Dear Willie, > > Two points in response to your question : > > 1) the Board's decision on .xxx was only refering to the GAC's Communiqués > and not to the GAC new gTLD Principles : > - these Principles were only adopted in Lisbon and are intended to apply > only to future calls for proposals (this is explicitedly mentionned in the > text) > - the decision regarding .xxx was - and had to be - in relation to the > initial call for proposals as far as the sponsorship criteria evaluation > was > concerned. > > 2) the Board's decision was in fact refering to the Wellington communiqué > and, more explicitely, to a part of the GAC's Lisbon communiqué that read > : > > ".xxx > the GAC reaffirms the letter sent to the ICANN Board on 2nd February 2007. > the Wellington communiqué remains a valid and important expression of the > GAC's views on .xxx. the GAC does not consider the information provided by > the Board to have answered the GAC concerns as to whether the ICM > application meets the sponsorship criteria. > > The GAC also call the Board's attention to the comment from the Government > of canada to the ICANN online Public Forum and expresses concern that, > with > the revised proposed ICANN-ICM Registry agreement, the corporation could > be > moving towards assuming an ongoing management and oversight role regarding > Internet Content, which would be inconsistent witht its technical > mandate." > > Text of the Lisbon communiqué is at : > http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac27com.pdf > > Hope this answers your questions. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > On 4/6/07, wcurrie at apc.org wrote: >> >> Could anyone explain which of the following public policy objectives >> contained in the GAC's operating principles were applied in the >> deliberations, decision and reasons for the decision of the ICANN Board >> on >> the .xxx application? >> >> 3. ICANN's decision making should take into account public policy >> objectives including, among other things: >> >> ? secure, reliable and affordable functioning of the Internet, >> including >> uninterrupted service and universal connectivity; >> >> ? the robust development of the Internet, in the interest of the >> public >> good, for government, private, educational, and commercial purposes, >> world >> wide; >> >> ? transparency and non-discriminatory practices in ICANN's role in >> the >> allocation of Internet names and address; >> >> ? effective competition at all appropriate levels of activity and >> conditions for fair competition, which will bring benefits to all >> categories of users including, greater choice, lower prices, and better >> services; >> >> ? fair information practices, including respect for personal >> privacy >> and >> issues of consumer concern; and >> >> ? freedom of expression. >> >> These are the reasons the iCANN Board gave for its decision: >> >> Therefore, the Board has determined that: >> >> - ICM's Application and the Revised Agreement fail to meet, among other >> things, the Sponsored Community criteria of the RFP specification. >> - Based on the extensive public comment and from the GAC's communiqués >> that this agreement raises public policy issues. >> - Approval of the ICM Application and Revised Agreement is not >> appropriate >> as they do not resolve the issues raised in the GAC Communiqués, and >> ICM's >> response does not address the GAC's concern for offensive content, and >> similarly avoids the GAC's concern for the protection of vulnerable >> members of the community. The Board does not believe these public policy >> concerns can be credibly resolved with the mechanisms proposed by the >> applicant. >> - The ICM Application raises significant law enforcement compliance >> issues >> because of countries' varying laws relating to content and practices >> that >> define the nature of the application, therefore obligating ICANN to >> acquire a responsibility related to content and conduct. >> - The Board agrees with the reference in the GAC communiqué from Lisbon, >> that under the Revised Agreement, there are credible scenarios that lead >> to circumstances in which ICANN would be forced to assume an ongoing >> management and oversight role regarding Internet content, which is >> inconsistent with its technical mandate. >> >> Accordingly, it is resolved (07.__) that the Proposed Agreement with ICM >> concerning the .XXX sTLD is rejected and the application request for a >> delegation of the .XXX sTLD is hereby denied. >> >> Are these the only reasons that ICANN will give on the matter? >> >> willie >> >> >>>> George Sadowsky 4/5/2007 3:08 PM >> >>I think that what is missing in your argument is the recognition that >> we >> live in a multicultural world and that the Internet is a global >> phenomenon. >> > >> > No. It is precisely the multicultural, diverse nature of the world >> that >> animates my desire to prevent ICANN from becoming a chokepoint. Such a >> chokepoint, as Robin eloquently put it, becomes a way of "imposing all >> intolerances cumulatively on everyone." >> > >> > Try to understand that, please. >> > >> > The TLD selection criteria being considered by ICANN will constantly >> pit >> one culture against another. It invites people to view TLD creation as a >> conferral of global approval and legitimacy on one set of ideas rather >> than as coordination of unique strings, the meaning of which different >> nations and cultures can negotiate and regulate according to their own >> norms. >> > >> >>A minimum of decency and respect for the >> >>sensitivities of others would go a long way in making the >> >>evolution of Internet governance less contentious and more >> >>productive >> > >> > I understand this argument. Vittorio was making the same point. >> > There is something to be said for it, as a guide to _personal_ >> conduct. >> But translated into institutionalized rules, it is a recipe for >> > systematic suppression of diversity and dissent. If you are prevented >> by >> law from saying something that offends anyone, then your expression is >> seriously restricted. Global policy making processes for resource >> assignment are not the greatest way to enforce "decency and respect for >> sensitivities." Of course that does not mean I advocate going out of my >> way to offend people, just because it is legal to do it. And yes, there >> are jerks who will do that. But I think the problems posed by a few >> insensitive jerks is much smaller than putting into place a global >> machinery that encourages organized groups to object to and challenge >> the non-violent expressions of others. >> > >> > Anyway, I think we are finally getting to the core of the >> disagreement. >> The .xxx rejection was not fundamentally about its so-called lack of >> community support, or about concerns that it would lead ICANN into >> contractual content regulation. It was about this. >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> >> >> Willie Currie >> Communications and Information Policy Programme Manager >> Association for Progressive Communications (APC) >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") > Willie Currie Communications and Information Policy Programme Manager Association for Progressive Communications (APC) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tvest at eyeconomics.com Fri Apr 6 11:20:21 2007 From: tvest at eyeconomics.com (Tom Vest) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:20:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> <1038953b0704060626m1e5c1782m14ece2e666d6de6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:26 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > I also think "bottom up consensus" in a community usually means that > if there is very strong opposition/dissent from some > communities/stakeholders remains, in good faith, then even that is a > minority, we should respect that and not take decision based on simple > majority even though the majority could not accept with the reasons > given from the minority. Hi Izumi, Without commenting on this particular issue, your suggestion runs afoul of the same kind of infinite regress that Milton recognized a couple of days back. If one assumes that Milton is also speaking for a "minority of stakeholders" who strongly disagree with the latest decision, how do you reconcile the conflict? TV On Apr 5, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Milton Mueller wrote: >> Also are 'fundamental rights' divinely ordained ... Or are >> they what societies (with active participation of Governments) >> have accepted at particular points in time. > > This argument gets you into a dead end, an infinite regress. Who or > what are the "societies" that establish rights? They are composed of > people like you and me. And if I and others who agree strongly > advocate > for a free internet and free expression, then "society" may accept and > institute that. Let's have that debate on the merits. We cannot sit > poassively back and accept what "society" tells us is our rights. We > must actively shape and define them, based on our knowledge and our > conscience. That is the business we are in here, isn't it? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 6 11:19:55 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 08:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] names or numbers? - the evil semantics Message-ID: <28454.70134.qm@web58709.mail.re1.yahoo.com> On the spurious notion that content-related issues can totally be ignored while dealing with TLD... *names* (and it doesn't make much of a difference if you call them 'strings' instead.) Granted, it is possible to have a rule that requests the steward of the authoritative root server to add to the database any TLD whose applicant meets minimum operational criteria. But I'm afraid this is not so simple with names (would perfectly work though with IP number-only system.) Because people relate to possible meaning of TLD strings, content issues are lurking somewhere in the process (from application to authorization to use). And if some people choose one string and not another one, some other are likely to contend that choice on the same basis: meaning. So, it seems we can't do way with semantics (thus, with content.) Imagine an intenret without DNS... and we were only to use IP numbers to navigate the Web. Do you remember the reasons why the DNS was set up? Wasn't semantics one of these? And once you introduce name in a system, you introduce semantics inevitably, and with semantics, what we call in French "le loup dans la bergerie" (the wolf in the sheepfold). Certainly an internet addressing system based on numbers only would have saved us quite a few (huge) policy issues and debates, and resources. But such internet probably wouldn't have the great social impact of the one we know. The thing is, our brains are not computers, our universe not a flat digital/numerical one; we are poor symbolic beings and we need meaning. We declare wars and we slaughter for it. So are we the evil? Mawaki ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Apr 6 11:17:12 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 17:17:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <50735.151.205.99.178.1175869707.squirrel@webmail.apc.org> References: <50280.151.205.99.178.1175865596.squirrel@webmail.apc.org> <954259bd0704060710g551666eeq85b475d385a6bf72@mail.gmail.com> <50735.151.205.99.178.1175869707.squirrel@webmail.apc.org> Message-ID: <954259bd0704060817g4b60b595o1a473bb5389746f5@mail.gmail.com> Dear Willie, On 4/6/07, wcurrie at apc.org wrote: > > Thanks Bertrand. > > 1) The GAC Operating Prinicples I was looking at were amended at Mar del > Plata in April 2005, so I took them to be the principles that would govern > the GAC's actions during the period of the .xxx application. Am I wrong in > thinking this? Unless I'm mistaken, the Mar del Plata Principles were related to ccTLDs. There may be common sets of principles, but ccTLD principles are not appropriate to deal with .xxx application. In addition, the timing is still mostly posterior to the call for proposals. 2) The Wellington Communique is referenced in the Lisbon Communique and is > now inscibed into the reasons given by the Board, so it has a material > bearing on those decisions, as i explore in my subsequent post. Regarding your second post, I won't comment on your remarks except to say that one benefit of the .xxx discussion is to put on the agenda the question of the appropriate modalities of interaction between the different categories of stakeholders within ICANN. In particular, it only demonstrates, as I have repeatedly said in the public fora, the need to have more systematic interaction between GAC members and other constituencies within ICANN early in the discussion of issues. Not so much because of the "rights" of governments but because it is useful. The point is to identify as early as possible the different technical, social, economic and political dimensions of a given issue. I have been defending the multi-stakeholder principle within civil society for four years within the UN process of WSIS. I am defending today the same principle of multi-stakeholder interaction in the different space of ICANN regarding the useful role of government involvement. Not because I would have orders to do it; but because it's the same constructive battle and I believe in it. Everything in the last five years has confirmed in my experience that positions elaborated within closed constituencies are difficult to reconcile at a later stage and that early multi-stakeholder interaction is essential to generate consensus. It is valid for interaction among governments in UN-like fora and for business-technical communities interactions in the ICANN context. The .xxx issue was a test case. Early interaction was weak and we must learn from it. Irrespective of what happens now, if it were to lead us to deper analysis of principles and working methods, it would not be useless. Best Bertrand willie > > > Dear Willie, > > > > Two points in response to your question : > > > > 1) the Board's decision on .xxx was only refering to the GAC's > Communiqués > > and not to the GAC new gTLD Principles : > > - these Principles were only adopted in Lisbon and are intended to apply > > only to future calls for proposals (this is explicitedly mentionned in > the > > text) > > - the decision regarding .xxx was - and had to be - in relation to the > > initial call for proposals as far as the sponsorship criteria evaluation > > was > > concerned. > > > > 2) the Board's decision was in fact refering to the Wellington > communiqué > > and, more explicitely, to a part of the GAC's Lisbon communiqué that > read > > : > > > > ".xxx > > the GAC reaffirms the letter sent to the ICANN Board on 2nd February > 2007. > > the Wellington communiqué remains a valid and important expression of > the > > GAC's views on .xxx. the GAC does not consider the information provided > by > > the Board to have answered the GAC concerns as to whether the ICM > > application meets the sponsorship criteria. > > > > The GAC also call the Board's attention to the comment from the > Government > > of canada to the ICANN online Public Forum and expresses concern that, > > with > > the revised proposed ICANN-ICM Registry agreement, the corporation could > > be > > moving towards assuming an ongoing management and oversight role > regarding > > Internet Content, which would be inconsistent witht its technical > > mandate." > > > > Text of the Lisbon communiqué is at : > > http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac27com.pdf > > > > Hope this answers your questions. > > > > Best > > > > Bertrand > > > > > > On 4/6/07, wcurrie at apc.org wrote: > >> > >> Could anyone explain which of the following public policy objectives > >> contained in the GAC's operating principles were applied in the > >> deliberations, decision and reasons for the decision of the ICANN Board > >> on > >> the .xxx application? > >> > >> 3. ICANN's decision making should take into account public policy > >> objectives including, among other things: > >> > >> ? secure, reliable and affordable functioning of the Internet, > >> including > >> uninterrupted service and universal connectivity; > >> > >> ? the robust development of the Internet, in the interest of the > >> public > >> good, for government, private, educational, and commercial purposes, > >> world > >> wide; > >> > >> ? transparency and non-discriminatory practices in ICANN's role > in > >> the > >> allocation of Internet names and address; > >> > >> ? effective competition at all appropriate levels of activity and > >> conditions for fair competition, which will bring benefits to all > >> categories of users including, greater choice, lower prices, and better > >> services; > >> > >> ? fair information practices, including respect for personal > >> privacy > >> and > >> issues of consumer concern; and > >> > >> ? freedom of expression. > >> > >> These are the reasons the iCANN Board gave for its decision: > >> > >> Therefore, the Board has determined that: > >> > >> - ICM's Application and the Revised Agreement fail to meet, among other > >> things, the Sponsored Community criteria of the RFP specification. > >> - Based on the extensive public comment and from the GAC's communiqués > >> that this agreement raises public policy issues. > >> - Approval of the ICM Application and Revised Agreement is not > >> appropriate > >> as they do not resolve the issues raised in the GAC Communiqués, and > >> ICM's > >> response does not address the GAC's concern for offensive content, and > >> similarly avoids the GAC's concern for the protection of vulnerable > >> members of the community. The Board does not believe these public > policy > >> concerns can be credibly resolved with the mechanisms proposed by the > >> applicant. > >> - The ICM Application raises significant law enforcement compliance > >> issues > >> because of countries' varying laws relating to content and practices > >> that > >> define the nature of the application, therefore obligating ICANN to > >> acquire a responsibility related to content and conduct. > >> - The Board agrees with the reference in the GAC communiqué from > Lisbon, > >> that under the Revised Agreement, there are credible scenarios that > lead > >> to circumstances in which ICANN would be forced to assume an ongoing > >> management and oversight role regarding Internet content, which is > >> inconsistent with its technical mandate. > >> > >> Accordingly, it is resolved (07.__) that the Proposed Agreement with > ICM > >> concerning the .XXX sTLD is rejected and the application request for a > >> delegation of the .XXX sTLD is hereby denied. > >> > >> Are these the only reasons that ICANN will give on the matter? > >> > >> willie > >> > >> >>>> George Sadowsky 4/5/2007 3:08 PM > >> >>I think that what is missing in your argument is the recognition that > >> we > >> live in a multicultural world and that the Internet is a global > >> phenomenon. > >> > > >> > No. It is precisely the multicultural, diverse nature of the world > >> that > >> animates my desire to prevent ICANN from becoming a chokepoint. Such a > >> chokepoint, as Robin eloquently put it, becomes a way of "imposing all > >> intolerances cumulatively on everyone." > >> > > >> > Try to understand that, please. > >> > > >> > The TLD selection criteria being considered by ICANN will constantly > >> pit > >> one culture against another. It invites people to view TLD creation as > a > >> conferral of global approval and legitimacy on one set of ideas rather > >> than as coordination of unique strings, the meaning of which different > >> nations and cultures can negotiate and regulate according to their own > >> norms. > >> > > >> >>A minimum of decency and respect for the > >> >>sensitivities of others would go a long way in making the > >> >>evolution of Internet governance less contentious and more > >> >>productive > >> > > >> > I understand this argument. Vittorio was making the same point. > >> > There is something to be said for it, as a guide to _personal_ > >> conduct. > >> But translated into institutionalized rules, it is a recipe for > >> > systematic suppression of diversity and dissent. If you are prevented > >> by > >> law from saying something that offends anyone, then your expression is > >> seriously restricted. Global policy making processes for resource > >> assignment are not the greatest way to enforce "decency and respect for > >> sensitivities." Of course that does not mean I advocate going out of my > >> way to offend people, just because it is legal to do it. And yes, there > >> are jerks who will do that. But I think the problems posed by a few > >> insensitive jerks is much smaller than putting into place a global > >> machinery that encourages organized groups to object to and challenge > >> the non-violent expressions of others. > >> > > >> > Anyway, I think we are finally getting to the core of the > >> disagreement. > >> The .xxx rejection was not fundamentally about its so-called lack of > >> community support, or about concerns that it would lead ICANN into > >> contractual content regulation. It was about this. > >> > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > > >> > For all list information and functions, see: > >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > > >> > >> > >> Willie Currie > >> Communications and Information Policy Programme Manager > >> Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > ____________________ > > Bertrand de La Chapelle > > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > > Information Society > > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs > > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint > > Exupéry > > ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") > > > > > Willie Currie > Communications and Information Policy Programme Manager > Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- 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 Fri Apr 6 10:55:09 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 10:55:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <954259bd0704060710g551666eeq85b475d385a6bf72@mail.gmail.com> References: <50280.151.205.99.178.1175865596.squirrel@webmail.apc.org> <954259bd0704060710g551666eeq85b475d385a6bf72@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 6 apr 2007, at 10.10, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > 1) the Board's decision on .xxx was only refering to the GAC's > Communiqués and not to the GAC new gTLD Principles : > - these Principles were only adopted in Lisbon and are intended to > apply only to future calls for proposals (this is explicitedly > mentionned in the text) > - the decision regarding .xxx was - and had to be - in relation to > the initial call for proposals as far as the sponsorship criteria > evaluation was concerned. the board decision was taken the day after the principles communiqué came out and the principles were quite specific (as you said) about applying to all decisions made after the communiqué was released. of course i do not know whether the board took the communique into account during their end stage deliberations, but i would very surprised if they hadn't. i am not sure i see where they responded to them in the decision. 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 iza at anr.org Fri Apr 6 12:22:18 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 01:22:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> <1038953b0704060626m1e5c1782m14ece2e666d6de6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Tom, I think my words below quoted were not as sufficient as should be. My original intent was, a new GTLD proposal should be put in place only when there is a strong consensus by the community, in this case ICANN constituencies. Yet as we all saw, that proposal could not gain the consensus, rather, majority of the Board said No. I think we should follow that decision, in this case as no consensus to put forward the proposal was reached. [Correct me if I am wrong] I think, your comment on Milton's recognized infinite regress may continue, unless we reach meta-consensus on the general framework of introducing the new TLDs, which I am not sure if could ever reach, but should try hard. For that, in the long run, I tend to agree with what Karl is suggesting - to have many TLDs as long as they do no harm technically. Until that be agreed by consensus, only limited number of TLDs be introduced, in which case some degree of cultural, social, value judgement might be inevitable, again, unless we reach a strong consensus not to do so, which is very unlikely. By "we" I mean not only supply side of DNS, but also individual users, non-commercial users, business users, and governments/GAC etc. Though I like ICANN to be as much a narrow technical coordination entity as possible, the reality it is surrounded by does not allow that, and we must see that reality composed of political, economical, social, cultural, ethical, if you like, and technical dimensions, all together. Just sticking in technical area only and live in hopes and dreams does not give us any solution I am afraid. Of course, I like to see much more innovations to come. Thanks, izumi 2007/4/7, Tom Vest : > > On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:26 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > I also think "bottom up consensus" in a community usually means that > > if there is very strong opposition/dissent from some > > communities/stakeholders remains, in good faith, then even that is a > > minority, we should respect that and not take decision based on simple > > majority even though the majority could not accept with the reasons > > given from the minority. > > Hi Izumi, > > Without commenting on this particular issue, your suggestion runs > afoul of the same kind of infinite regress that Milton recognized a > couple of days back. If one assumes that Milton is also speaking for > a "minority of stakeholders" who strongly disagree with the latest > decision, how do you reconcile the conflict? > > TV > > On Apr 5, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Milton Mueller wrote: > > >> Also are 'fundamental rights' divinely ordained ... Or are > >> they what societies (with active participation of Governments) > >> have accepted at particular points in time. > > > > This argument gets you into a dead end, an infinite regress. Who or > > what are the "societies" that establish rights? They are composed of > > people like you and me. And if I and others who agree strongly > > advocate > > for a free internet and free expression, then "society" may accept and > > institute that. Let's have that debate on the merits. We cannot sit > > poassively back and accept what "society" tells us is our rights. We > > must actively shape and define them, based on our knowledge and our > > conscience. That is the business we are in here, isn't it? > > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Fri Apr 6 12:07:24 2007 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 12:07:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Back to the future (after many interventions that came while I was asleep) . The .xxx debacle is a symptom of a real problem that will continue to assert itself. Now forget about the details of .xxx and go back to Karl's original question - what do we want in the future? At 6:02 PM -0400 4/5/07, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>> George Sadowsky 4/5/2007 3:08 PM >>>> >>I think that what is missing in your argument is the recognition >>that we live in a multicultural world and that the Internet is a >>global phenomenon. > >No. It is precisely the multicultural, diverse nature of the world that >animates my desire to prevent ICANN from becoming a chokepoint. Such a >chokepoint, as Robin eloquently put it, becomes a way of "imposing all >intolerances cumulatively on everyone." > >Try to understand that, please. I understand the reasoning, but I differ regarding the remedy. Omitting the extreme positions, which Bertrand has aptly described, in a multicultural environment there will be disputes over specific sensitive labels, whether having to do with sex, religion, the king, or whatever. I think that ultimately some organization is going to inject itself into the label-semantics business (which is quite different from the actual content business), and I would rather see it be a revision of, say, the current GAC structure than the UN General Assembly, or the ITU, or UNESCO, or some other body. The danger is that the external body, once being given or taking a mandate to get into judging top-level names, will be tempted to get into judging content also. I think it is not realistic that the growth of the TLD name space can avoid this. If I am right, let's plan for a transition that is broadly and globallly acceptable, and that retains maximum freedom and autonomy for the Internet's degrees of freedom and the rest of ICANN's functionality, rather than risking their erosion by stubbornly adhering to a principle with respect to top level label semantics. > > >The TLD selection criteria being considered by ICANN will constantly >pit one culture against another. It invites people to view TLD creation >as a conferral of global approval and legitimacy on one set of ideas >rather than as coordination of unique strings, the meaning of which >different nations and cultures can negotiate and regulate according to >their own norms. > >>A minimum of decency and respect for the >>sensitivities of others would go a long way in making the >>evolution of Internet governance less contentious and more >>productive > >I understand this argument. Vittorio was making the same point. >There is something to be said for it, as a guide to _personal_ conduct. >But translated into institutionalized rules, it is a recipe for >systematic suppression of diversity and dissent. If you are prevented by >law from saying something that offends anyone, then your expression is >seriously restricted. Global policy making processes for resource >assignment are not the greatest way to enforce "decency and respect for >sensitivities." Of course that does not mean I advocate going out of my >way to offend people, just because it is legal to do it. And yes, there >are jerks who will do that. But I think the problems posed by a few >insensitive jerks is much smaller than putting into place a global >machinery that encourages organized groups to object to and challenge >the non-violent expressions of others. Insensitive jerks have a way of magnifying the destructive power of their insensitivity. Small wars have been started by insensitive jerks. Closer to home, Brett Fawcett reports that the GAC has just closed its public discussion forum because of obscenities posted to it by some insensitive jerks. We have huge decency and sensitivity deficits in many walks of life, including in the Internet community, and we are paying for it. Let's not adopt policies which threaten to increase these deficits. > >Anyway, I think we are finally getting to the core of the disagreement. >The .xxx rejection was not fundamentally about its so-called lack of >community support, or about concerns that it would lead ICANN into >contractual content regulation. It was about this. According to the Board members who commented, assuming that they are telling the truth that's not correct. They argued that the content, and the label, did not influence their decision. (If I were on the Board, I would have thought differently.) I think that the community support issue was a real one, but to be fair it did not appear to be the subject of much study by anyone, just claims in both directions. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Fri Apr 6 12:51:53 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 09:51:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Message-ID: <200704061812.l36ICsgS005475@hauki.tarvainen.info> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From shailam at yahoo.com Fri Apr 6 13:01:05 2007 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 10:01:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <664543.32712.qm@web54312.mail.yahoo.com> Hi All This issue has caused major disagreements at home and divorce may follow shortly!!!. I would like to write a major symposium on this analyzing intellectually my reasons , but I don't have the time.There are universally acknowledged evils such as violence and porn.We should not be afraid of being stake holders for what is ethically right. Arent we mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters first before anything ? As such shouldnt we protect the basic safety of "peoples" before we indulge in allowing some their esoteric freedoms. Shaila Rao Mistry President Jayco MMI California Avri Doria wrote: On 6 apr 2007, at 10.10, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > 1) the Board's decision on .xxx was only refering to the GAC's > Communiqués and not to the GAC new gTLD Principles : > - these Principles were only adopted in Lisbon and are intended to > apply only to future calls for proposals (this is explicitedly > mentionned in the text) > - the decision regarding .xxx was - and had to be - in relation to > the initial call for proposals as far as the sponsorship criteria > evaluation was concerned. the board decision was taken the day after the principles communiqué came out and the principles were quite specific (as you said) about applying to all decisions made after the communiqué was released. of course i do not know whether the board took the communique into account during their end stage deliberations, but i would very surprised if they hadn't. i am not sure i see where they responded to them in the decision. 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 conventional wisdom ?..... takes you some of the way... challenge assumptions !!....... GO all the way ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Fri Apr 6 13:02:09 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 10:02:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] VeriSign Raises: .com & .net Registry Fees Message-ID: When VeriSign renegotiated its domain contacts for .com and .net, many feared the company would begin raising rates. It appears as if some of those fears are being realized. The company said later Thursday that it would raise the fees for .com domains to $6.42 from $6, a 7 percent increase, and from $3.50 to $3.85 for .net domains, a 10 percent increase. The changes would take effect on October 15. ... [News Report: http://www.betanews.com/article/VeriSign_Raises_com_net_Registry_Fees/117587062 6 ] -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Apr 6 13:08:50 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 02:08:50 +0900 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> <1038953b0704060626m1e5c1782m14ece2e666d6de6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >It's so difficult to catch-up! > >Personally and very frankly, I don't feel like including .xxx to gTLD >is such a big deal, and by the same token, denying .xxx is also not >the most important policy issue for us. Agree 100%. One of the tragedies of xxx is the amount of time wasted. Shame it continues to distract when the next IGF consultation is about 6 weeks away. Perhaps we can keep up our successful run on non-contributions and leave comments to a few misguided souls who want to hand the whole process back over to governments? (Bureau anyone?) >I also tend to agree with what Bertrand wrote. > >As Vittorio put it in the Board discussion in Lisbon, I see >big cultural differences in the .xxx debate, namely, most supporters >of .xxx to be added in the gTLD zone is from the US, except, perhaps >Peter Dengate Thrush from New Zealand also supported its inclusion, >though I am not sure how far New Zealand is from US socio-culturally ;-) I think the others in the minority were: Joi Ito's (Japan), Rajasekhar Ramaraj (India), David Wodlet (Canada - I think). So Susan's the only director from the US. Quite a diverse bunch in many respects. Not mentioning this to be picky, but I think all these generalizations are pointless. (how did people from predominantly Catholic countries vote... I blame the pope... on today of all days :-) I don't belive the xxx decision was about free speech or censorship -- it was a screw-up. Brought out the worst in the sponsored TLD process. It's not a sign of any new problems in ICANN and anything that ICANN isn't trying to fix (except to emphasize problems with GAC in the way it provides policy advice). Hopefully there will be enough board members so annoyed at the mess they've created they'll look more seriously at the slow GNSO processes and kick some life into creating predictable processes for new TLDs. Or I hope so. I don't know how ICANN uses the fee it gets from new TLD applicants, but spending a little more on looking to see if there is an organized sponsoring community --and if there is finding out what that community thinks-- might have been a good idea. xxx comment process was clearly riddled with form letters from a few organized groups (astroturf or not), but it should have been clear some real investigation was necessary. It was stupid to waste so much time and effort only to have a real organization ("Free Speech Coalition" ) arrive so late in the day with some quite damning comments about lack of support from at least their part of the sponsoring community. The board's failure to direct staff to look into the degree of support (sponsored'ness) was a significant screw up. Porn's a multi billion dollar/yen/pound business world wide. Analysts follow it, lobbyists lobby for it. It shouldn't be hard to find out who to ask if ICM had support. And I don't buy the ICANN narrow technical mission argument, shouldn't touch content. ICANN doesn't do much technical stuff. It's a regulator. It sets prices. It judges business plans and gives away multi-million dollar gifts. And it comes under political pressure (WSIS, like that didn't have the slightest influence on ICANN and the board...?) When Susan Crawford mentioned political pressures, I think it's pretty obvious she was talking about sustained pressure that began with NTIA and GAC intervention last year. I remember one board member at the time mentioning having received threats of violence in response to his opinions on xxx. To deny pressure seems either silly or a sign of of cloth ears: board members are there to listen and soak up the pressure of lack of consensus. Every year the NomCom selects people for leadership positions in ICANN and one of the things we say is we are trying to select people who place the broad public interest ahead of any particular interests. I would be perfectly happy for any board member to say "I say no to xxx in the root, one reason is I think xxx fails to serve the public interest" (because... some rightwing nut congressman in the US will try to use it to force filtering... or we've seen attempts like this with kids.us and it doesn't work and actually tends to restrict speech... or whatever reason they wished to stand up for). Equally, they might support xxx in the name of the public interest (... because I think it will help, marginally, clean up the porn industry and while the business might fail it's worth a try. Or whatever.) No problem with it. So long as they justify their decision either way. Anyway, xxx's irrelevant. So what are we going to prepare for the IGF Consultation? Happy Easter, Adam >One phrase that comes to my mind around this debate is the famous >one John Barlow wrote ten years ago: "In Cyberspace, the First >Amendment is a local ordinance." > >To me, it suggests that what is accepted in one country does not >become universal rule. > >Of course, I understand many non-US people advocate Free speech and >which is in fact included in the Universal Declaration of Human Right, >not in US constitution alone, and our Japanese constitution also has >the similar clause. > >However, definition/interpretation of free speech differ quite a lot - >which is most obviously displayed in the limit or acceptance of >porn/nudity expressions in different societies. Free speech in this >context is not absolute term by itself. New French rule concerning >religious expression is also another good example. >Many Muslim countries, they do not allow Western displays of nudes, right? >Clearly, here we do not have one universal rule be it real world or >cyber world. > >In the cyberspace, as Bertrand well described, where there is no >geographic progression of different cultures, the "g" TLD space, >unlike ccTLD space, is naturally regarded as more global space than >local/country/culture specific areas. > >If so, to me it is quite natural for such proposal as .xxx to be >perceived as very offensive to some cultural/societal people. >In Japan, making ".xxx" as public label is almost unacceptable (though >there are some groups who might support this, of course). Please don't >misunderstand, while xxx, or hard-core porns are very much illegal, >so-called soft porns, quite bizarre photos and pictures are widely >distributed and displayed in general magazines or some TV commercials >in Japan. We just have different values and corresponding rules or >systems. > >I also think "bottom up consensus" in a community usually means that >if there is very strong opposition/dissent from some >communities/stakeholders remains, in good faith, then even that is a >minority, we should respect that and not take decision based on simple >majority even though the majority could not accept with the reasons >given from the minority. So, I may say that if .xxx proposal receives >such strong opposition from some cultures/societies, ignoring them and >put it into one sTLD is, even it is labeled and controlled as sTLD, >may not be the best solution now. If, as Karl argued well, there are >5,000 or 50,000 TLDs are implemented, then the weight of one .xxx may >become irrelevant. But that is still far from reality at this point - >I like that to happen, though, so that we can end this rather >counter-productive debate. > >best, > > >izumi > > > >2007/4/6, Demi Getschko : >>Agreed, Bertrand! >> >>And just one more thing: I think all of us agree that in France there >>is freedom to profess any religion. Notwithstanding (and here I am >>*not* discussing the merit of the decision, just trying to make a >>distinction between free speech and free display of signs and, >>tentatively, one more analogy with TLDs), the France government in >>some way restricts public abusive display of religious symbols in the >>schools, like big crosses, the veil, the kippah etc etc. >>Best >> >>demi >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wcurrie at apc.org Fri Apr 6 12:39:13 2007 From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 13:39:13 -0300 (BRT) Subject: [governance] Where are we going? Message-ID: <50009.151.205.99.178.1175877553.squirrel@webmail.apc.org> Dear Bertrand 1) I see these are three documents on the ICANN GAC site http://gac.icann.org/web/index.shtml a. GAC Operating principles amended in Mar del Plata, April 2005 which lays out the scope of the GAC and the principles governing its conduct b. PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES FOR THE DELEGATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF COUNTRY CODE TOP LEVEL DOMAINS, adopted at Mar del Plata, April 2005 c. GAC principles regarding new gTLDs presented by GAC in Lisbon, 28 March 2007 I was referring to the public policy objectives in the first document on GAC Operating Principles. 2) I agree with your point that 'one benefit of the .xxx discussion is to put on the agenda the question of the appropriate modalities of interaction between the different categories of stakeholders within ICANN.' But I would ask - how much is the .xxx debacle a function of a lack of early interaction between stakeholders and the relative novelty of multi-stakeholder participation: wouldn't the same problems with respect to public policy principles in relation to the management of critical internet resources arise? And was this not why the matter was placed on the Tunis Agenda as part of a multi-stakeholder process of enhanced cooperation? What is the thinking of governments in Europe now about 'enhanced cooperation'? It seems to have slipped quietly off the agenda and been studiously ignored at the level of the IGF... Best Willie > Dear Willie, > On 4/6/07, wcurrie at apc.org wrote: >> Thanks Bertrand. >> 1) The GAC Operating Prinicples I was looking at were amended at Mar del >> Plata in April 2005, so I took them to be the principles that would govern the GAC's actions during the period of the .xxx application. Am I wrong in thinking this? > Unless I'm mistaken, the Mar del Plata Principles were related to ccTLDs. > There may be common sets of principles, but ccTLD principles are not appropriate to deal with .xxx application. In addition, the timing is still > mostly posterior to the call for proposals. > 2) The Wellington Communique is referenced in the Lisbon Communique and is >> now inscibed into the reasons given by the Board, so it has a material bearing on those decisions, as i explore in my subsequent post. > Regarding your second post, I won't comment on your remarks except to say > that one benefit of the .xxx discussion is to put on the agenda the question of the appropriate modalities of interaction between the different > categories of stakeholders within ICANN. > In particular, it only demonstrates, as I have repeatedly said in the public > fora, the need to have more systematic interaction between GAC members and > other constituencies within ICANN early in the discussion of issues. Not so much because of the "rights" of governments but because it is useful. The > point is to identify as early as possible the different technical, social, > economic and political dimensions of a given issue. > I have been defending the multi-stakeholder principle within civil society > for four years within the UN process of WSIS. I am defending today the same principle of multi-stakeholder interaction in the different space of ICANN > regarding the useful role of government involvement. Not because I would > have orders to do it; but because it's the same constructive battle and I > believe in it. Everything in the last five years has confirmed in my experience that positions elaborated within closed constituencies are difficult to reconcile at a later stage and that early multi-stakeholder interaction is essential to generate consensus. It is valid for > interaction > among governments in UN-like fora and for business-technical communities interactions in the ICANN context. > The .xxx issue was a test case. Early interaction was weak and we must learn > from it. Irrespective of what happens now, if it were to lead us to deper > analysis of principles and working methods, it would not be useless. Best > Bertrand > willie >> > Dear Willie, >> > >> > Two points in response to your question : >> > >> > 1) the Board's decision on .xxx was only refering to the GAC's >> Communiqués >> > and not to the GAC new gTLD Principles : >> > - these Principles were only adopted in Lisbon and are intended to >> apply >> > only to future calls for proposals (this is explicitedly mentionned in >> the >> > text) >> > - the decision regarding .xxx was - and had to be - in relation to the >> > initial call for proposals as far as the sponsorship criteria >> evaluation >> > was >> > concerned. >> > >> > 2) the Board's decision was in fact refering to the Wellington >> communiqué >> > and, more explicitely, to a part of the GAC's Lisbon communiqué that >> read >> > : >> > >> > ".xxx >> > the GAC reaffirms the letter sent to the ICANN Board on 2nd February >> 2007. >> > the Wellington communiqué remains a valid and important expression of >> the >> > GAC's views on .xxx. the GAC does not consider the information >> provided >> by >> > the Board to have answered the GAC concerns as to whether the ICM application meets the sponsorship criteria. >> > >> > The GAC also call the Board's attention to the comment from the >> Government >> > of canada to the ICANN online Public Forum and expresses concern that, >> > with >> > the revised proposed ICANN-ICM Registry agreement, the corporation >> could >> > be >> > moving towards assuming an ongoing management and oversight role >> regarding >> > Internet Content, which would be inconsistent witht its technical mandate." >> > >> > Text of the Lisbon communiqué is at : >> > http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac27com.pdf >> > >> > Hope this answers your questions. >> > >> > Best >> > >> > Bertrand >> > >> > >> > On 4/6/07, wcurrie at apc.org wrote: >> >> >> >> Could anyone explain which of the following public policy objectives contained in the GAC's operating principles were applied in the deliberations, decision and reasons for the decision of the ICANN >> Board >> >> on >> >> the .xxx application? >> >> >> >> 3. ICANN's decision making should take into account public >> policy >> >> objectives including, among other things: >> >> >> >> ? secure, reliable and affordable functioning of the Internet, including >> >> uninterrupted service and universal connectivity; >> >> >> >> ? the robust development of the Internet, in the interest of >> the >> >> public >> >> good, for government, private, educational, and commercial purposes, world >> >> wide; >> >> >> >> ? transparency and non-discriminatory practices in ICANN's role >> in >> >> the >> >> allocation of Internet names and address; >> >> >> >> ? effective competition at all appropriate levels of activity >> and >> >> conditions for fair competition, which will bring benefits to all categories of users including, greater choice, lower prices, and >> better >> >> services; >> >> >> >> ? fair information practices, including respect for personal privacy >> >> and >> >> issues of consumer concern; and >> >> >> >> ? freedom of expression. >> >> >> >> These are the reasons the iCANN Board gave for its decision: >> >> >> >> Therefore, the Board has determined that: >> >> >> >> - ICM's Application and the Revised Agreement fail to meet, among >> other >> >> things, the Sponsored Community criteria of the RFP specification. - Based on the extensive public comment and from the GAC's >> communiqués >> >> that this agreement raises public policy issues. >> >> - Approval of the ICM Application and Revised Agreement is not appropriate >> >> as they do not resolve the issues raised in the GAC Communiqués, and ICM's >> >> response does not address the GAC's concern for offensive content, >> and >> >> similarly avoids the GAC's concern for the protection of vulnerable members of the community. The Board does not believe these public >> policy >> >> concerns can be credibly resolved with the mechanisms proposed by the >> >> applicant. >> >> - The ICM Application raises significant law enforcement compliance issues >> >> because of countries' varying laws relating to content and practices that >> >> define the nature of the application, therefore obligating ICANN to acquire a responsibility related to content and conduct. >> >> - The Board agrees with the reference in the GAC communiqué from >> Lisbon, >> >> that under the Revised Agreement, there are credible scenarios that >> lead >> >> to circumstances in which ICANN would be forced to assume an ongoing management and oversight role regarding Internet content, which is inconsistent with its technical mandate. >> >> >> >> Accordingly, it is resolved (07.__) that the Proposed Agreement with >> ICM >> >> concerning the .XXX sTLD is rejected and the application request for >> a >> >> delegation of the .XXX sTLD is hereby denied. >> >> >> >> Are these the only reasons that ICANN will give on the matter? >> >> >> >> willie >> >> >> >> >>>> George Sadowsky 4/5/2007 3:08 PM >> >> >>I think that what is missing in your argument is the recognition >> that >> >> we >> >> live in a multicultural world and that the Internet is a global phenomenon. >> >> > >> >> > No. It is precisely the multicultural, diverse nature of the world >> >> that >> >> animates my desire to prevent ICANN from becoming a chokepoint. Such >> a >> >> chokepoint, as Robin eloquently put it, becomes a way of "imposing >> all >> >> intolerances cumulatively on everyone." >> >> > >> >> > Try to understand that, please. >> >> > >> >> > The TLD selection criteria being considered by ICANN will >> constantly >> >> pit >> >> one culture against another. It invites people to view TLD creation >> as >> a >> >> conferral of global approval and legitimacy on one set of ideas >> rather >> >> than as coordination of unique strings, the meaning of which >> different >> >> nations and cultures can negotiate and regulate according to their >> own >> >> norms. >> >> > >> >> >>A minimum of decency and respect for the >> >> >>sensitivities of others would go a long way in making the >> >> >>evolution of Internet governance less contentious and more productive >> >> > >> >> > I understand this argument. Vittorio was making the same point. There is something to be said for it, as a guide to _personal_ >> >> conduct. >> >> But translated into institutionalized rules, it is a recipe for >> >> > systematic suppression of diversity and dissent. If you are >> prevented >> >> by >> >> law from saying something that offends anyone, then your expression >> is >> >> seriously restricted. Global policy making processes for resource assignment are not the greatest way to enforce "decency and respect >> for >> >> sensitivities." Of course that does not mean I advocate going out of >> my >> >> way to offend people, just because it is legal to do it. And yes, >> there >> >> are jerks who will do that. But I think the problems posed by a few insensitive jerks is much smaller than putting into place a global machinery that encourages organized groups to object to and challenge >> >> the non-violent expressions of others. >> >> > >> >> > Anyway, I think we are finally getting to the core of the >> >> disagreement. >> >> The .xxx rejection was not fundamentally about its so-called lack of community support, or about concerns that it would lead ICANN into contractual content regulation. It was about this. >> >> > >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> > >> >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Willie Currie >> >> Communications and Information Policy Programme Manager >> >> Association for Progressive Communications (APC) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > ____________________ >> > Bertrand de La Chapelle >> > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for >> the >> > Information Society >> > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs >> > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> > >> > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >> Saint >> > Exupéry >> > ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") >> > >> Willie Currie >> Communications and Information Policy Programme Manager >> Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") Willie Currie Communications and Information Policy Programme Manager Association for Progressive Communications (APC) Willie Currie Communications and Information Policy Programme Manager Association for Progressive Communications (APC) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Fri Apr 6 13:23:21 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:23:21 -0700 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46168209.4040907@cavebear.com> I suspect that I must have not been clear when I was drawing my analogies. You are quite right that national borders and geographic spaces have insulated people into their own cultural spaces and that the internet is one (but not the only) technology that has begun to erase that insulation. My point is that we (in the sense of all of us, everywhere, not just those of us here on this list) have not yet had the time (it's only been about 10 years so far) to mull over the implications and come up with viable approaches. And thus, because we are likely not to come up with a satisfactory solution in the short term, ought to refrain from engaging on matters of internet governance except on terms in which the processes and decisions of that governance are based solely on internet technical necessity. We could call this a principle of expediency or, perhaps with a bit of humor, call it a principle of recognized incompetency on our part to deal with matters not grounded in technical necessity. Thus, taking DNS as an example, because we are ill equipped to be social arbiters and regulators, internet governance over the question of new TLDs should be based solely and exclusively on the technical capacity of those providing new TLDs to adhere to broadly accepted and used written internet technical standards and also on the technical issue of the impact of a new TLD on the technical behaviour and operation of the net. Yes, there will be non-technical side effects. But since we are not equipped to deal with those side effects in a rational, principled way, and since that is already the realm of national governments, internet governance should not attempt to base its decisions on those side effects. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Fri Apr 6 13:46:34 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:46:34 -0700 Subject: [governance] Purposes of DNS (Was: Where are we going?) In-Reply-To: <28454.70134.qm@web58709.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <28454.70134.qm@web58709.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4616877A.6070709@cavebear.com> Mawaki Chango wrote: > Imagine an intenret without DNS... and we were only to use IP > numbers to navigate the Web. DNS was established not merely to add a mnemonic or semantic layering over numbers. In computer science there is an old phrase - every problem can be solved by adding another level of indirection. DNS is such a layer of indirection. We gain a lot through DNS with regard to establishing service names that can be remapped through DNS without affecting the application uttering those names. And DNS provides a one-to-many mapping through which a single name may represent several service points. This is very useful and not possible through an address based system. Not all DNS names contain strings that are easily parsed by people. in-addr.arpa names look like sequences of numbes, IDN's will be opaque to most human eyes, ENUM names don't resonate with any emotional power, and (blame me, RFC1001/1002) the DNS name used inside CIFS are bit shuffled into incomprehensibility, etc. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Apr 6 11:31:04 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 08:31:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <034401c77860$973f2580$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> A simple (and probably naïve) question here... What is to stop a domain name such as .xxx.tv (or .f**kfest.cat for that matter) being established or would it matter? Would/could/should ICANN or whoever is the supreme authority here maintain jurisdiction over the naming patterns of the sub-tld's (or the organizations managing the existing tld's)... My understanding is that they are in turn self-regulated but what if that doesn't work for some reason or is it the case that any principles of governance in this area established by ICANN will automatically filter down/out to the other domain name governing bodies? MG -----Original Message----- From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: April 6, 2007 7:27 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: Bertrand de La Chapelle Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we going? It's so difficult to catch-up! Personally and very frankly, I don't feel like including .xxx to gTLD is such a big deal, and by the same token, denying .xxx is also not the most important policy issue for us. I also tend to agree with what Bertrand wrote. As Vittorio put it in the Board discussion in Lisbon, I see big cultural differences in the .xxx debate, namely, most supporters of .xxx to be added in the gTLD zone is from the US, except, perhaps Peter Dengate Thrush from New Zealand also supported its inclusion, though I am not sure how far New Zealand is from US socio-culturally ;-) One phrase that comes to my mind around this debate is the famous one John Barlow wrote ten years ago: "In Cyberspace, the First Amendment is a local ordinance." To me, it suggests that what is accepted in one country does not become universal rule. Of course, I understand many non-US people advocate Free speech and which is in fact included in the Universal Declaration of Human Right, not in US constitution alone, and our Japanese constitution also has the similar clause. However, definition/interpretation of free speech differ quite a lot - which is most obviously displayed in the limit or acceptance of porn/nudity expressions in different societies. Free speech in this context is not absolute term by itself. New French rule concerning religious expression is also another good example. Many Muslim countries, they do not allow Western displays of nudes, right? Clearly, here we do not have one universal rule be it real world or cyber world. In the cyberspace, as Bertrand well described, where there is no geographic progression of different cultures, the "g" TLD space, unlike ccTLD space, is naturally regarded as more global space than local/country/culture specific areas. If so, to me it is quite natural for such proposal as .xxx to be perceived as very offensive to some cultural/societal people. In Japan, making ".xxx" as public label is almost unacceptable (though there are some groups who might support this, of course). Please don't misunderstand, while xxx, or hard-core porns are very much illegal, so-called soft porns, quite bizarre photos and pictures are widely distributed and displayed in general magazines or some TV commercials in Japan. We just have different values and corresponding rules or systems. I also think "bottom up consensus" in a community usually means that if there is very strong opposition/dissent from some communities/stakeholders remains, in good faith, then even that is a minority, we should respect that and not take decision based on simple majority even though the majority could not accept with the reasons given from the minority. So, I may say that if .xxx proposal receives such strong opposition from some cultures/societies, ignoring them and put it into one sTLD is, even it is labeled and controlled as sTLD, may not be the best solution now. If, as Karl argued well, there are 5,000 or 50,000 TLDs are implemented, then the weight of one .xxx may become irrelevant. But that is still far from reality at this point - I like that to happen, though, so that we can end this rather counter-productive debate. best, izumi 2007/4/6, Demi Getschko : > Agreed, Bertrand! > > And just one more thing: I think all of us agree that in France there > is freedom to profess any religion. Notwithstanding (and here I am > *not* discussing the merit of the decision, just trying to make a > distinction between free speech and free display of signs and, > tentatively, one more analogy with TLDs), the France government in > some way restricts public abusive display of religious symbols in the > schools, like big crosses, the veil, the kippah etc etc. Best > > demi > > > > On 4/6/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > Hello to all, > > > > Two simple remarks - on a personal basis : > > > > On the Milton / George debate : > > > > As it has already been mentionned, there are two extreme options > > that simply do not work : > > - anything accepted / legal in one country / culture should be > > accepted / legal on the Internet as a whole; > > - anything forbidden / illegal in one country / culture should be > > forbidden on the Internet as a whole. > > > > Once we accept these two options must be out of the table, we are > > confronted with much simpler questions : what should be the rules to > > organize the coexistence of different value sets in the common space > > of the Internet ? how are we going to discuss them ? and more than > > anything : where ? > > > > > > Regarding the Demi / Karl discussion : > > > > In the physical world, cultural spaces and the corresponding > > communities are separated by some physical distance : the agreed > > public signs for each community progressively evolve along a sort of > > geographic continuum. To take Karl's pertinent example of the cross > > : the symbol is very present in countries with strong christian > > communities, much less in countries with other dominant religions. > > Likewise for "porn" : any pharmacy in France today > > - or many advertising billboards for that matter - display images of women > > so naked that they wouldn't have even been allowed in the "porn" mags of my > > youth and they would be considered very offensive for people with very > > strong muslim moral references for instance. I > > > > Community references evolve and what is agreed at one time in one > > zone is deifferent from what is accepted as common in another time > > or another zone. This is just a fact. And, let's be clear, this is > > why countries implemented borders and sometimes fought aggressively > > to defend their own conception of society rules - for better or > > worse. > > > > Problem is : the Internet is a common space and it does not provide > > similar boundaries or a continuum for progressively moving from one > > cultural space to another. With a single click (or even without in > > the case of pop-ups), it is just like a Star Trek Holodeck : as if > > you were to move in one second from the most sexy Las Vegas table > > dance club to the inner part of St Peter in Rome or the Kabbah in > > Mecca. Or, to take another domain of reference : from the die-hard > > Davos capitalist crowd to the strongest Porto Alegre > > anti-globalization crowds. > > > > Those two examples show : > > 1) that this mere distinction between a continuum in the physical > > space and the Holodeck effect raises new problems : you do not deal > > with the Internet space exactly the same way you deal with the > > physical world; seems obvious but maybe worth reminding; > > 2) that in certain cases (the Las Vegas - St Peter example) you may > > deal with a difficulty to preserve free circulation through the > > Internet Space while at the same time avoiding unnecessarily > > offending people who would like to remainin a coherent space. This > > applies both for avoiding the placement of the equivalent of signs > > advertising lap dances on the right of St Peter's altar AND for not > > positioning moral condemnations or call to repentance at the > > entrance of entertainment sites; > > 3) that in other cases, maybe the Davos - Porto Alegre example, the Holodeck > > effect placing together streams of information that are competing views on > > the same subject micht actually be beneficial to a better understanding.; > > > > In any case, the whole discussion is, once again, about coexistence > > of different cultural and value sets in a common environment. This > > is a debate that has not taken place yet and will necessarily impose > > itself. It deserves better than just talking past one another. Using > > physical world analogies is useful : to understand how people feel > > and to understand what is similar and what is different in the > > virtual world as opposed to the physical one. > > > > Best > > > > Bertrand > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/6/07, Demi Getschko wrote: > > > > > > Karl, this is exacty my argument. May be we do not want to be in > > > the very same situation you are depicting below... I do not make > > > judgements about what kind of symbol a given religion/sect choose > > > but, for the same reason, I think have to avoid incurring in the > > > same errors, and impinging to others signs and symbols that could > > > be offensive to them... This (I suppose) is on of the main reasons > > > to have the public comments period. best > > > demi > > > > > > On 4/5/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > > Demi Getschko wrote: > > > > > > > > > If a sizable part of the community fell bad about some name, > > > > > sign, picture (like those at the displays or posters on the > > > > > streets, may be we would be intolerant if we force the people > > > > > to look to something they do not like. > > > > > > > > Consider for example overt depictions of a man being tortured to > > > > death > > by being > > > > nailed to a pair of wooden timbers and being forced to wear a > > > > crown of > > thorns > > > > and pierced by a spear. > > > > > > > > It would not be hard to find people who do not like such > > > > displays. > > > > > > > > Should we then require the various Christian churches to abandon > > > > placing > > such > > > > displays on and in their buildings? > > > > > > > > Here in the US we long ago found it both infeasible and wrong to > > > > muzzle > > those > > > > who speak, or the names they use to advertise their existence > > > > (which is > > itself > > > > a form of speech) on the grounds that it might annoy some people > > > > or even > > make > > > > them intolerant. One of the few exceptions is one of extreme > > circumstances in > > > > which the speech or the sign is equivalent to an intentional or > > > > highly > > reckless > > > > physical act designed to elicit a dangerous physical response; > > > > and we > > certainly > > > > do not have that (yet) in any top level domain name that has > > > > been > > proposed. > > > > > > > > It is for reasons like this that I believe that the first > > > > principle of > > internet > > > > governance is that it should confine itself to matters that have > > > > a > > clear, > > > > direct, and compelling relationship to technical matters. > > > > > > > > For example, governance that deals with mechanisms through which > > > > end > > users (or > > > > their agents) can arrange for end-to-end, multi-ISP, pathways > > > > adequate > > to > > > > sustain usable VOIP would be a reasonable matter for internet > > governance. > > > > > > > > On the other hand, dividing domain names on the basis of > > > > perceived > > business > > > > plans, who operates them, or their customer base, all of these > > > > being non technical, really are not proper matters of internet > > > > governance. They > > are, > > > > instead better left to the normal work of national legislatures > > > > and the > > slow > > > > process of international agreements. > > > > > > > > --karl-- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ____________________ > > Bertrand de La Chapelle > > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for > > the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French > > Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > > Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting > > humans") > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance !DSPAM:2676,46165a2174229095819235! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Apr 6 11:35:09 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 17:35:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: References: <50280.151.205.99.178.1175865596.squirrel@webmail.apc.org> <954259bd0704060710g551666eeq85b475d385a6bf72@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <954259bd0704060835p54b6e858j9de61aab86d21fd1@mail.gmail.com> Well, Avri, As usual, an interesting request for precision :-) You wrote : "the principles were quite specific (as you said) about applying to all decisions made after the communiqué was released." The exact quote from the text is : "for the purposes and scope of this document, new gTLDs are defined as any gTLDs added to the Top Level domain name space after the date of the adoption of these principles by the GAC." The two formulations are slightly different : one speaks about "decisions" and the other one about "addition". Still, now that you put your finger on it, I understand that the communiqué could be interpreted the way you do. The only thing I can say is that when drafting the document and this paragraph in particular, the GAC clearly had in mind the future wave of TLDs and not the upcoming decision on .xxx. Even in discussions within the GAC, .xxx as such was treated as aseparate matter and agenda item. I do not think there was an idea within the GAC that the Board would apply the gTLD principles to its decision on .xxx. And I do not think it did. As a matter of fact, this is why a special section of the Lisbon GAC communiqué was devoted to .xxx and I understand the Board's decision referred only to GAC communiqués. Hope this clarifies the situation. But the question was worth asking. Best Bertrand On 4/6/07, Avri Doria wrote: > > > On 6 apr 2007, at 10.10, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > > 1) the Board's decision on .xxx was only refering to the GAC's > > Communiqués and not to the GAC new gTLD Principles : > > - these Principles were only adopted in Lisbon and are intended to > > apply only to future calls for proposals (this is explicitedly > > mentionned in the text) > > - the decision regarding .xxx was - and had to be - in relation to > > the initial call for proposals as far as the sponsorship criteria > > evaluation was concerned. > > > the board decision was taken the day after the principles communiqué > came out and the principles were quite specific (as you said) about > applying to all decisions made after the communiqué was released. > > of course i do not know whether the board took the communique into > account during their end stage deliberations, but i would very > surprised if they hadn't. i am not sure i see where they responded > to them in the decision. > > > 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 > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Fri Apr 6 12:54:23 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 09:54:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Class Action Lawsuit against RegisterFly.com Message-ID: A recent lawsuit was filed against RegisterFly.com, Enom, and Icann [Suite Info: http://registerfly-lawsuit.com/ ]. [News Report: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/05/icann_registerfly_litigation/ ] 1. I am interested knowing if anybody on this Mail-List has done business with RegisterFly.com (used them as Register) within the past two years? 2. If you did, are you going to join in the �Class Action Lawsuit� ? I�d just like to get a show of hands of People who were affected within this group. If there are more than 21 individuals, that would form a �Class�, which could then be represented. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Apr 6 18:07:21 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 18:07:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <4AF307EE-49FD-4E19-AB1E-2F0166093013@ras.eu.org> References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> <4C197C5D-7D46-43E1-A852-76D03504C94A@psg.com> <4AF307EE-49FD-4E19-AB1E-2F0166093013@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <9FB3A142-1D71-4365-B585-7303A4CD3E93@psg.com> hi, On 6 apr 2007, at 10.46, Meryem Marzouki wrote: > > Le 6 avr. 07 à 14:20, Avri Doria a écrit : > >> BTW: my position is based not on the USan so called right to free >> speech, but on the UDHR which a lot of the countries that complain >> about the imperialism of freedom of expression have signed: >> >> Article 19. >> >> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; >> this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference >> and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any >> media and regardless of frontiers. > > But, Avri, a Declaration should be considered as a whole, and there > are other articles in UDHR, like, e.g.: > > "Article 29 > (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free > and full development of his personality is possible. > > (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be > subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely > for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the > rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements > of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic > society. > > (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary > to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." Yes, I know about the escape clause. but i think it does not alter what i am saying. It certainly goes far to enable much of the constraint imposed within a country and supports the deployment of the great firewalls. i think the most important one to notice here is #3. Generally in the UN context one country cannot interfere in the actions in another country. At least not without there being some extreme case and with a decision of the UN, or a treaty. We have no such UN declaration permitting countries to act against other countries who allow the registrations of nasty vile insulting geographic labels. So I see no way in which the national enabler for censorship grants any relief to ICANN. There is no lawful basis for ICANN to apply limitations on article 19. BTW< i do agree that countries and their citizens should adhere to all the treaties, covenants and other instruments they have signed. In many cases the law will already allow to the prohibitions that are being sought. > > which is more than enough to support other positions. There's only > one way out from this endless discussion: ICANN shouldn't be > expected to adhere to these principles (in any case, it's not bound > by them - only governments are). I disagree they should adhere to all those that are relevant. > Yes, the .xxx case is a blatant case of content regulation > (whatever stength the meaning of a domain name is granted w.r.t. to > full pages of text). But it's only the latest at this step. What > about the supremacy of trademark protection over any other > criteria? Isn't that content regulation too? yes and a much more difficult problem. especially as the commons of language, the words we use in speech and writing, are being marked. 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 ki_chango at yahoo.com Fri Apr 6 18:43:51 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 15:43:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Purposes of DNS (Was: Where are we going?) In-Reply-To: <4616877A.6070709@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <1064.40178.qm@web58709.mail.re1.yahoo.com> All that is good to know, and yes, saying the *the whole purpose* of the DNS is semantics *would* be restrictive. Still, most of the policy problems we are wrestling with are not due to the technical community, and I don't find many people from the general community (users, at large) who relate much to the applications you're referring to. But again, you're right that the DNS fulfil other functions than the one I *only* emphasized earlier. Mawaki --- Karl Auerbach wrote: > Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > Imagine an intenret without DNS... and we were only to use > IP > > numbers to navigate the Web. > > DNS was established not merely to add a mnemonic or semantic > layering > over numbers. > > In computer science there is an old phrase - every problem can > be solved > by adding another level of indirection. > > DNS is such a layer of indirection. We gain a lot through DNS > with > regard to establishing service names that can be remapped > through DNS > without affecting the application uttering those names. > > And DNS provides a one-to-many mapping through which a single > name may > represent several service points. This is very useful and not > possible > through an address based system. > > Not all DNS names contain strings that are easily parsed by > people. > in-addr.arpa names look like sequences of numbes, IDN's will > be opaque > to most human eyes, ENUM names don't resonate with any > emotional power, > and (blame me, RFC1001/1002) the DNS name used inside CIFS are > bit > shuffled into incomprehensibility, etc. > > --karl-- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri Apr 6 21:49:08 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 09:49:08 +0800 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> <1038953b0704060626m1e5c1782m14ece2e666d6de6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4616F894.2040403@Malcolm.id.au> Adam Peake wrote: >> Personally and very frankly, I don't feel like including .xxx to gTLD >> is such a big deal, and by the same token, denying .xxx is also not >> the most important policy issue for us. > > Agree 100%. One of the tragedies of xxx is the amount of time wasted. > Shame it continues to distract when the next IGF consultation is about 6 > weeks away. Perhaps we can keep up our successful run on > non-contributions and leave comments to a few misguided souls who want > to hand the whole process back over to governments? (Bureau anyone?) ...snip... > Anyway, xxx's irrelevant. > > So what are we going to prepare for the IGF Consultation? Hear hear on xxx. But on the IGF Consultation, really, what is there to say? I take is that the Advisory Group is continuing to serve in an acting capacity pending its reappointment (or otherwise - though who am I kidding) by the UN Secretary-General. So why, despite having promised during the February consultations to improve its transparency, have we heard nothing more from it since then? Is it really just because nothing has been happening? We (along with many others) have already *given* our views of what changes should be made for Rio. I don't see any point in reiterating our views again into the void. You ask why the IGC has a poor record of getting submissions written on time? Maybe that's one reason why. What we need before the May consultations is for a report to be made by the Advisory Group and the host nation to say what use has been made of those existing submissions, before we bother writing more. This is exactly the same problem that existed in Athens. Time and time again, people would make the same points; in written submissions, at the consultations, in plenary sessions, in the follow-up process. Time and again their views would sink into the depths, never to resurface. A number of really useful proposals simply got lost in this way. Does anyone remember the Swiss Internet User Group's proposal for Internet Quality Labels? No? What about Geneva Net Dialogue's offer to help out with the IGF Web site? Anyone? The big problem here is not a lack of consultation, it is in what happens to that consultation. Currently, it vanishes into the ether, unacknowledged and unimplemented. No wonder people feel unempowered and become apathetic. Frankly, the May consultations might as well be cancelled unless there is anything new that anyone has to say. And why would they have anything new to say, without having had any feedback on the last consultations from the Secretariat, Advisory Group or host nation? -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Fri Apr 6 23:28:37 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:28:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? Message-ID: George, So we agree, ICANN and the GAC do global content regulation, or semantics label regulation if you prefer. And we also agree that ICANN/GAC needs more transparent and objective procedures to follow while it goes about its regulatory business, whether it justifies specificx decisions on technical or other groiunds. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> george.sadowsky at attglobal.net 4/6/2007 12:07 PM >>> Back to the future (after many interventions that came while I was asleep) . The .xxx debacle is a symptom of a real problem that will continue to assert itself. Now forget about the details of .xxx and go back to Karl's original question - what do we want in the future? At 6:02 PM -0400 4/5/07, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>> George Sadowsky 4/5/2007 3:08 PM >>>> >>I think that what is missing in your argument is the recognition >>that we live in a multicultural world and that the Internet is a >>global phenomenon. > >No. It is precisely the multicultural, diverse nature of the world that >animates my desire to prevent ICANN from becoming a chokepoint. Such a >chokepoint, as Robin eloquently put it, becomes a way of "imposing all >intolerances cumulatively on everyone." > >Try to understand that, please. I understand the reasoning, but I differ regarding the remedy. Omitting the extreme positions, which Bertrand has aptly described, in a multicultural environment there will be disputes over specific sensitive labels, whether having to do with sex, religion, the king, or whatever. I think that ultimately some organization is going to inject itself into the label-semantics business (which is quite different from the actual content business), and I would rather see it be a revision of, say, the current GAC structure than the UN General Assembly, or the ITU, or UNESCO, or some other body. The danger is that the external body, once being given or taking a mandate to get into judging top-level names, will be tempted to get into judging content also. I think it is not realistic that the growth of the TLD name space can avoid this. If I am right, let's plan for a transition that is broadly and globallly acceptable, and that retains maximum freedom and autonomy for the Internet's degrees of freedom and the rest of ICANN's functionality, rather than risking their erosion by stubbornly adhering to a principle with respect to top level label semantics. > > >The TLD selection criteria being considered by ICANN will constantly >pit one culture against another. It invites people to view TLD creation >as a conferral of global approval and legitimacy on one set of ideas >rather than as coordination of unique strings, the meaning of which >different nations and cultures can negotiate and regulate according to >their own norms. > >>A minimum of decency and respect for the >>sensitivities of others would go a long way in making the >>evolution of Internet governance less contentious and more >>productive > >I understand this argument. Vittorio was making the same point. >There is something to be said for it, as a guide to _personal_ conduct. >But translated into institutionalized rules, it is a recipe for >systematic suppression of diversity and dissent. If you are prevented by >law from saying something that offends anyone, then your expression is >seriously restricted. Global policy making processes for resource >assignment are not the greatest way to enforce "decency and respect for >sensitivities." Of course that does not mean I advocate going out of my >way to offend people, just because it is legal to do it. And yes, there >are jerks who will do that. But I think the problems posed by a few >insensitive jerks is much smaller than putting into place a global >machinery that encourages organized groups to object to and challenge >the non-violent expressions of others. Insensitive jerks have a way of magnifying the destructive power of their insensitivity. Small wars have been started by insensitive jerks. Closer to home, Brett Fawcett reports that the GAC has just closed its public discussion forum because of obscenities posted to it by some insensitive jerks. We have huge decency and sensitivity deficits in many walks of life, including in the Internet community, and we are paying for it. Let's not adopt policies which threaten to increase these deficits. > >Anyway, I think we are finally getting to the core of the disagreement. >The .xxx rejection was not fundamentally about its so-called lack of >community support, or about concerns that it would lead ICANN into >contractual content regulation. It was about this. According to the Board members who commented, assuming that they are telling the truth that's not correct. They argued that the content, and the label, did not influence their decision. (If I were on the Board, I would have thought differently.) I think that the community support issue was a real one, but to be fair it did not appear to be the subject of much study by anyone, just claims in both directions. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Fri Apr 6 10:46:15 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 16:46:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <4C197C5D-7D46-43E1-A852-76D03504C94A@psg.com> References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> <4C197C5D-7D46-43E1-A852-76D03504C94A@psg.com> Message-ID: <4AF307EE-49FD-4E19-AB1E-2F0166093013@ras.eu.org> Le 6 avr. 07 à 14:20, Avri Doria a écrit : > BTW: my position is based not on the USan so called right to free > speech, but on the UDHR which a lot of the countries that complain > about the imperialism of freedom of expression have signed: > > Article 19. > > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; > this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference > and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any > media and regardless of frontiers. But, Avri, a Declaration should be considered as a whole, and there are other articles in UDHR, like, e.g.: "Article 29 (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." which is more than enough to support other positions. There's only one way out from this endless discussion: ICANN shouldn't be expected to adhere to these principles (in any case, it's not bound by them - only governments are). Yes, the .xxx case is a blatant case of content regulation (whatever stength the meaning of a domain name is granted w.r.t. to full pages of text). But it's only the latest at this step. What about the supremacy of trademark protection over any other criteria? Isn't that content regulation too? Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Apr 7 05:31:58 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:31:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Contribution to IGF consultation (was Re: Where...) In-Reply-To: <4616F894.2040403@Malcolm.id.au> References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> <1038953b0704060626m1e5c1782m14ece2e666d6de6@mail.gmail.com> <4616F894.2040403@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <4617650E.6050402@bertola.eu> Jeremy Malcolm ha scritto: >> So what are we going to prepare for the IGF Consultation? > > Hear hear on xxx. But on the IGF Consultation, really, what is there to > say? I'd subscribe a diplomatical rephrasing of what Jeremy said - actually, given the present state of affairs, it seems to me that that is the only additional thing that we could say at an IGF consultation, apart from what we already said in February. If the subject of the consultation is "agenda and program for Rio", everyone already addressed that in February, so - as we discussed here with Jeanette a couple of weeks ago - one would expect something new to comment upon. Otherwise, I'm tempted to make a two-line contribution saying that yes, whatever we said in February, we really meant it. Or resubmit the February contribution altogether. However, if I'm not wrong, there will be a paper by the Secretariat (did I get it well?) so when that comes out, if it contains anything new, then we might have something new to say. Seen from the outside, the entire IGF process seems stuck while waiting for someone in New York to reappoint the Chairman, Secretariat and AG. I don't know whether any useful message about the composition and internal workings of the AG was taken at the February consultation - more or less everyone was asking for more transparency and clear guidelines on how the AG is formed, what it does, and how it operates. Was there any discussion about that in the AG, or is it just waiting to be reappointed? -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Apr 7 06:26:08 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 19:26:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <4616F894.2040403@Malcolm.id.au> References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> <1038953b0704060626m1e5c1782m14ece2e666d6de6@mail.gmail.com> <4616F894.2040403@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: >Adam Peake wrote: >>>Personally and very frankly, I don't feel like including .xxx to gTLD >>>is such a big deal, and by the same token, denying .xxx is also not >>>the most important policy issue for us. >> >>Agree 100%. One of the tragedies of xxx is the amount of time >>wasted. Shame it continues to distract when the next IGF >>consultation is about 6 weeks away. Perhaps we can keep up our >>successful run on non-contributions and leave comments to a few >>misguided souls who want to hand the whole process back over to >>governments? (Bureau anyone?) >...snip... >>Anyway, xxx's irrelevant. >> >>So what are we going to prepare for the IGF Consultation? > >Hear hear on xxx. But on the IGF Consultation, really, what is >there to say? I take is that the Advisory Group is continuing to >serve in an acting capacity pending its reappointment (or otherwise >- though who am I kidding) by the UN Secretary-General. So why, >despite having promised during the February consultations to improve >its transparency, have we heard nothing more from it since then? Is >it really just because nothing has been happening? > Pretty much, yes. At the advisory group meeting on Feb 12, day before the open consultation, members were advised their mandate was complete and were asked to continue as volunteers until such time as the UN Secretary-General decided on the group's future. So the Advisory Group is in limbo waiting for a decision from the SG. So very little has happened since, there have been some informal discussions (no extensive debate on the AG list) and news of the Rio meeting place and facilities. Jeanette, Robin and I have mentioned some. As you know, the February meeting was for taking stock, trying to understand what we'd learned and could be improved for Rio. The May consultation is intended to discuss substance. >We (along with many others) have already *given* our views of what >changes should be made for Rio. I don't see any point in >reiterating our views again into the void. Comments mainly on procedures, and those comment have (I believe) been listened to (See Nitin's summing up of the open consultation.) But the purpose of the next meeting is substance: ideas on themes for sessions, how to link the main sessions and workshops. etc. > You ask why the IGC has a poor record of getting submissions >written on time? Maybe that's one reason why. What we need before >the May consultations is for a report to be made by the Advisory >Group and the host nation to say what use has been made of those >existing submissions, before we bother writing more. > >This is exactly the same problem that existed in Athens. Time and >time again, people would make the same points; in written >submissions, at the consultations, in plenary sessions, in the >follow-up process. Time and again their views would sink into the >depths, never to resurface. A number of really useful proposals >simply got lost in this way. Does anyone remember the Swiss >Internet User Group's proposal for Internet Quality Labels? No? No, not particularly. We've heard many good ideas. Perhaps Norbert will propose a workshop? Or tell us about the idea on the list, see if it gains more support. I'd suggest approaching W3C. There might even be overlap (weak most likely) with some of the dynamic coalitions. But these and other ideas for issues to discuss in Rio are what the caucus should be working on now. > What about Geneva Net Dialogue's offer to help out with the IGF Web >site? Anyone? Not heard of this. But is obviously a matter for the secretariat. >The big problem here is not a lack of consultation, it is in what >happens to that consultation. It will be followed by a two day meeting of the advisory group where I expect the agenda will be mapped out, call for workshop proposals (speakers, papers on emerging issues etc) be decided. Taking into account what was recommended at the consultation the say before. Same pattern as last year. >Currently, it vanishes into the ether, unacknowledged and >unimplemented. No wonder people feel unempowered and become >apathetic. Frankly, the May consultations might as well be >cancelled unless there is anything new that anyone has to say. And >why would they have anything new to say, without having had any >feedback on the last consultations from the Secretariat, Advisory >Group or host nation? The February meeting was about taking stock. The closest anyone has to an outcome document is Nitin's summing up Nothing can be acted on until we hear from the Secretary General. IGF website says "The purpose of these consultations is to address the agenda and the programme of the Rio de Janeiro meeting." As others have mentioned, there was a general sense from the stocktaking that Athens went well. The main themes met with no strong opposition, and quite bit of support. Some suggested that the advisory group did OK, main fear was the it might in future insert itself too much in the design of the program. Some mentioned the number of workshops was about right, and appreciated that all proposed workshops were able to take place, this being important to the open and inclusive nature of the IGFF. But at the same time others thought the workshops needed to be better integrated into the overall agenda. Some said that there was too much going on at once, impossible for small delegations to follow. There seems to be tension here. The advisory group either keeps its hand off as much as possible, or tries to more closely control the agenda. Ideas on how to resolve this would be good. I strongly favor being as open and inclusive as possible. I think we should follow the same process as last year with an open call for workshops. And a call for themes missing to date. It may be necessary to ask people to work together if they propose workshops on similar themes (some of this was done last year but not much) to try and make the agenda tighter. I think we will see Access become the main theme of the Rio meeting. Some of the sub-themes we might consider under Access were described in the summary paper produced by the secretariat after Athens. Would it make sense to try and build the Access session around these sub-themes, to invite proposals for workshops on these sub-themes. Using workshops to focus in on detail might be a way to deepen knowledge gained from the main session. I think something similar could be done for Openness and Security themes (particularly drawing on the experience of dynamic coalitions.) I mentioned before that the emerging issues session will likely be done again. Question is how to improve it. There has been a suggestion (informal so far) to put out a call for papers on emerging issues. Ideas for what emerging issues might be would be very helpful, caucus should start thinking about this. A "framework convention" might be a good emerging issue theme. We also need to think about the format of the sessions. They needn't be three hours, the interpreters will be more flexible (they could have been in Athens, just no one thought to ask early enough.) Breaking into 2 90 minute sessions could be an option. I don't know if they day can be re-arranged into different length blocks (e.g. a mix 2 hours, 90 minute, 1 hour blocks?) Sessions in Athens all followed the same journalist led format. Worked OK in parts, but is it the right approach for all sessions in Rio? What other formats can offer the same degree of interaction with the audience? What key issues have been missed from IGF -- obvious one seems to be critical Internet resources. Others? What should we push? The "Plaza" area in Rio should be a much better space for small meetings and "encounters" Idea behind the plaza was a free space area where people with issues they wanted to share could have a table and a few chairs (not an exhibition space, that may be separate.) Could be space for anyone, from a group organizing a workshop and wanted to chat with people before/after. An area for a dynamic coalition, for the ICC and BASIS, a new Amnesty petition, etc. etc. There might be a couple of small presentation areas with a few seats, lectern and projector (imagine GigaNet giving a series of 15 minute talks during the day, followed by the RIRs describing how addresses are allocated and answering questions, IGP talking about policy issues of DNSSEC... etc) Do we like this idea, can we improve it? Dynamic coalitions should be given prominence, how can we do that? There should be more space in Rio - more and more flexible. All I can think of for now... Thanks, Adam >-- >Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com >Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor >host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Apr 7 06:31:19 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 19:31:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] xxx would work how? (Fwd: Antigen Notification: Antigen found a message matching a filter) Message-ID: The email I sent last night about xxx was caught in by the Egyptian national regulatory authority's mail filters. Adam (P.S. according the a little survey on the regulator's website, over 90% of respondents think new prices for ADSL services are inconvenient. And there's an article "ADSL line-sharing is illegal" I wonder if the two could be related?) >Return-Path: >Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp >Received: from mail pickup service by ntra-exfe-01.TRA.GOV.EG with >Microsoft SMTPSVC; > Fri, 6 Apr 2007 19:09:53 +0200 >From: Antigen_NTRA-EXFE-01 >To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp >Subject: Antigen Notification: Antigen found a message matching a filter >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Message-ID: >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2007 17:09:53.0729 (UTC) >FILETIME=[64DD0310:01C7786E] >Date: 6 Apr 2007 19:09:53 +0200 > >Microsoft Antigen for Exchange found a message matching a filter. >The message is currently Purged. >Message: "Re_ _governance_ Where are we going_" >Filter name: "KEYWORD= spam: porn;spam: xxx " >Sent from: "Adam Peake " >Folder: "SMTP Messages\Inbound" >Location: "tra/First Administrative Group/NTRA-EXFE-01" ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Apr 7 06:51:44 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 19:51:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] Contribution to IGF consultation (was Re: Where...) In-Reply-To: <4617650E.6050402@bertola.eu> References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> <1038953b0704060626m1e5c1782m14ece2e666d6de6@mail.gmail.com> <4616F894.2040403@Malcolm.id.au> <4617650E.6050402@bertola.eu> Message-ID: At 11:31 AM +0200 4/7/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Jeremy Malcolm ha scritto: >>>So what are we going to prepare for the IGF Consultation? >> >>Hear hear on xxx. But on the IGF Consultation, really, what is there to say? > >I'd subscribe a diplomatical rephrasing of what Jeremy said - >actually, given the present state of affairs, it seems to me that >that is the only additional thing that we could say at an IGF >consultation, apart from what we already said in February. If the >subject of the consultation is "agenda and program for Rio", >everyone already addressed that in February, Think the point of the May consultation is to elaborate on what we heard in February. "The purpose of these consultations is to address the agenda and the programme of the Rio de Janeiro meeting." This was not the purpose, obviously, of the February meeting, and the IGC statement (produced in few days as a "consensus call") does not go into particular detail. It would be good to discuss the statement, flesh out detail. We have six weeks, so can we use the time? I'll send the February statement separately. >so - as we discussed here with Jeanette a couple of weeks ago - one >would expect something new to comment upon. Otherwise, I'm tempted >to make a two-line contribution saying that yes, whatever we said in >February, we really meant it. Or resubmit the February contribution >altogether. > >However, if I'm not wrong, there will be a paper by the Secretariat >(did I get it well?) so when that comes out, if it contains anything >new, then we might have something new to say. > >Seen from the outside, the entire IGF process seems stuck while >waiting for someone in New York to reappoint the Chairman, >Secretariat and AG. I don't know whether any useful message about >the composition and internal workings of the AG was taken at the >February consultation - more or less everyone was asking for more >transparency and clear guidelines on how the AG is formed, what it >does, and how it operates. Was there any discussion about that in >the AG, or is it just waiting to be reappointed? It is waiting to be re-appointed, it ceased to formally exist after the meeting the day before the consultation. Members were asked to continue as volunteers. I believe all documents from the consultation (statements, transcripts etc) were sent to the SG's office. It wasn't for the advisory group to inform him of what we thought the advisory group's future should be. As we are not getting any clear directions from the secretariat/chair etc (they aren't getting any from New York) it's not easy to pass on rumor to the caucus. But preparing a statement on themes and structure of the Rio meeting is pretty obvious. Being clear about what the caucus thinks the limits of the advisory group should be would be helpful. Thinking particularly about emerging issues and making proposals regarding any issues that have been overlooked to date would be good. We've done much of this over the years, just seem to have got out of the habit recently. The February statement's probably a good starting point. Adam >-- >vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >--------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Apr 7 06:52:49 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 19:52:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] caucus statement, IGF stocktaking 13 February Message-ID: >>VITTORIO BERTOLA: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Speaking as a coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus as the main coordination framework for civil society participation in Internet governance discussions at the WSIS and then at the IGF, would like to provide feedback and opinions on the subjects of this meeting. The first IGF meeting in Athens was, without doubt, a great success. It was interesting and well organized, and many important matters well discussed. Specifically, we express our satisfaction for the widespread embracing of the multistakeholder principle in the structuring of panels and workshops and in the definition of themes. We would then like to provide some practical suggestions for an even better meeting in Rio. We think that the plenary sessions, as designed in Athens, were interesting, especially for the general public, but that adequate attention should be put to all the issues pertaining to one main theme rather than focusing on just a few. This could be obtained by shortening the plenary sessions, which should be kept as a special focus event on certain hot issues, designed in a journalistic style. At the same time, separate, more traditional plenary sessions, though always in a fully multistakeholder style, could host the general summarization of the discussions, including those from the workshops. Workshops were interesting, though some effort should be made to better integrate them with the overall themes and flow of discussions of the IGF. Specifically, it should be ensured that all workshops meet the multistakeholder criteria and that at least half of their duration is allocated to open floor discussion rather than to panel presentations to prevent some workshops from becoming just a showcase for the organizers or a lobbying event for a single group of stakeholders. Clear guidelines should be given to workshop moderators to this effect. Also, the Advisory Group, after collecting all workshop proposals, should considering fostering the organization of workshops on issues not addressed anywhere or requesting organizers to merge the workshops if too similar. Finally, workshop results should be collected and presented with more evidence as outputs of the IGF meeting, for example, in a final acts book. Alternative formats for workshops should be suggested and considered by workshop organizers. For example, one room could be laid out in table groups to allow workshops held there to foster intensive deliberation on the issues under discussion rather than encouraging the passive receipt of information. Again, one room could be laid out with computer terminals, allowing participants to directly engage with remote participants in the use of collaborative development of online tools and resources. While commending the efforts done, we see the need to further develop effective online tools for information, participation, and discussion, not only to facilitate the participation of those who cannot afford to travel to IGF meetings, but also to enable those who do attend in person to continue their work in between meetings. From a practical standpoint, it would be important to ensure that sufficient time is allocated for lunch break and that adequate quick food options are offered to delegates. Also, it should be kept in mind that many participants, especially from developing countries and civil society, are on a tight budget. Adequate accommodation and meal options should be provided. Finally, we think that the IGF should put special attention in seeking stable, greater sources of funds that could be adequate to support its mandate. About the Advisory Group. While supporting the concept, we note that its composition, including the proportionate representation of stakeholder groups and the crosscutting technical and academic communities, was not openly and transparently discussed prior to its appointment. Nor there is any clear transparency or clear norm on its terms, mandate, and working principles. We think that clear terms and rules should be established for the Advisory Group between now and Rio, through an open process involving all the participants in the IGF as a shared foundation for our common work. We further consider that if these rules and quarters for representation from each stakeholder group were openly established, it would be possible for the Secretary-General to delegate the actual process of selection of Advisory Group members to the stakeholder groups themselves. Moreover, we express our dissatisfaction for the limited representation of civil society in the first instance of the Advisory Group, which amounted to about five members out of about 40. We think that the significant participation of civil society and individual users, as proved by the WGIG, is key to making Internet governance events a success both in practical and political terms. Thus, we would like to see such participation expanded to at least one-fourth of the group, if not one-third, and to the same levels of the private-sector and of the Internet technical community. We confirm our support to the civil society members of the incumbent group and stand ready to provide suggestions for additional members with direct experience from diverse civil society groups. We also reiterate the need for the IGF to be considered as a process rather than as an event. We support the concept of dynamic coalitions and their activities. However, there needs to be a way to bless their work and give some recognition, even if not binding, to their products. A transparent, multistakeholder, and democratic process should be commenced to develop criteria for the recognition of dynamic coalitions by the IGF whereby the output of coalitions that satisfy those criteria could be formally received for discussion at a plenary session of the following IGF meeting. The IGF was created to help solving global problems that could not be addressed anywhere else. Simple discussion is not enough and would betray what was agreed in Tunis and is clearly stated in the mandate of the IGF itself. We stand ready to provide more detailed procedural suggestions on how this could work in progress or to participate in any multistakeholder work in process to define it. We think that these and future consultations before Rio should examine in detail the various parts of the IGF mandate as defined in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, and specifically, how to deal with those that were not addressed in Athens. For example, Comments F and I required the IGF to discuss the good principles of Internet governance as agreed in Tunis and how to fully implement them inside all existing governance processes, including how to facilitate participation by disadvantaged stakeholders such as developing countries, civil society, and individual users. We expect this to be an additional theme for Rio. About the themes for Rio, we are generally satisfied with the areas of work as defined for Athens, but note that some of them are much bigger than others, and thus many issues falling into them fail to get adequate attention. We would like to propose to break the openness group of items in two, one about human rights and freedom of expression and the other one about intellectual property rights and access to knowledge. We raise the attention on the importance of access not just in terms of physical connections for developing countries, but also in terms of accessibility of technologies to the disabled and to other disadvantaged groups. This could also become another group of issues, per se. As noted above, we also feel the need for a meta governance theme. We are aware of the complex discussion on whether the narrow Internet governance themes, such as the oversight of the Internet addressing and naming system, should be part of the agenda in Rio. Inside civil society, there are different points of view about this matter. However, we all agree in the deep dissatisfaction for the lack of transparency and inclusion in the so-called enhanced cooperation process, which, as agreed in Tunis, should discuss these matters in a multistakeholder fashion. We ask that prompt communication is given to all stakeholders about the status and nature of this process and that independently from the venue chosen to host it, steps are taken to ensure the full inclusion of all stakeholders in this process. We would like to close our statement by thanking Mr. Desai, Mr. Kummer, and all the members of the Advisory Group, as well as the Greek hosts, for their hard work in favor of this process. We fully support Mr. Desai as the chair of the IGF Advisory Group and recognize his expertise and professionalism as a major factor in the Advisory Group's successful completion of its tasks. We look forward to another fruitful and successful meeting in Rio. Thank you. END ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sat Apr 7 09:26:30 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 09:26:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: References: <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> <1038953b0704060626m1e5c1782m14ece2e666d6de6@mail.gmail.com> <4616F894.2040403@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410704070626l3e38bb3ex8fa0ead58ea93dd5@mail.gmail.com> Greetings and a comment on-thread:: In many contexts and activities the idea of " for everyone" comes up, and the question of whether "we" really mean it. Here, ICT4all seems at issue. A terse conversation directly on this issue might be apt. Very best wishes, LDMF. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D. For I.D. here: -Coordination of Singular Organizations on Disability (IDC Steering). Persons With Pain International. National Disability Party, International Disability Caucus. -*Respectful Interfaces* - Communications Coordination Committee For The United Nations; ECOSOC Representative. -WSIS/IGF Participant: Geneca, Tunis, Athens, Internet. alternate email: linda at 2007ismy50thyearincomputingandIamawomanwithdisabilities.com (Excerpt, most recent post:) On 4/7/07, Adam Peake wrote: > > >Adam Peake wrote: > >>>Personally and very frankly, I don't feel like including .xxx to gTLD > >>>is such a big deal, and by the same token, denying .xxx is also not > >>>the most important policy issue for us. > >> > >>Agree 100%. One of the tragedies of xxx is the amount of time > >>wasted. Shame it continues to distract when the next IGF > >>consultation is about 6 weeks away. Perhaps we can keep up our > >>successful run on non-contributions and leave comments to a few > >>misguided souls who want to hand the whole process back over to > >>governments? (Bureau anyone?) > >...snip... > >>Anyway, xxx's irrelevant. > >> > >>So what are we going to prepare for the IGF Consultation? (please see prior full posts). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From pouzin at well.com Sat Apr 7 09:33:27 2007 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 15:33:27 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Where are we going? Message-ID: <200704071333.l37DXRbr028830@muse.enst.fr> Dear all, There is no need to quote a specific posting, as all arguments have already been stated repeatedly, and with apparently strong rationale. AFAIK, in the US, the land of freedom of speech, not every character string is allowed on car plates. Partially for technical reasons, e.g. too long, but also for other non technical reasons. What are the criteria for rejecting some character strings, and how are decisions made ? Creating a new TLD necessarily requires some filtering, if only because it should not conflict with an existing one. There are already hundreds of non ICANN TLD's, among which EROTIC, EROTICA, FUCK, PORNO, SEX, X. Putting one more in the ICANN space would not be a scoop. Of course, we know that's not the issue. The issue is a matter of procedure: how is filtering organized ? So far, non ICANN TLD's result seemingly from gentleman agreement, unlikely a long term arrangement. ICANN TLD's result from obscure wranglings within a US controlled body, which claims to apply principles and procedures but doesn't. As long as ICANN remains what it is, that is a VATICANN, there can't be any procedure acceptable by the non US world. It is nonsense to put under the same authority the management of TLD labels, and root oversight. TLD labels are worldwide unique strings sets like phone numbers, radio stations, airline and airport tags, etc. Root issues pertain to operational systems, for which there is a multiplicity of solutions and management. TLD labels semantics are a component of their commercial, cultural, or whatever value. So be it. They could be handled as an instance of international standard. And why not within ISO ? The structure is open to all stakeholders. There are voting procedures, ample time for comments, and, while not necessarily perfect, ISO standards are rarely challenged by pressure groups.. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 7 12:37:04 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 12:37:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? Message-ID: >>> gurstein at gmail.com 4/6/2007 11:31:04 AM >>> >A simple (and probably naïve) question here... What is to stop a domain >name such as .xxx.tv (or .f**kfest.cat for that matter) being >established or would it matter? It's a good question, MG. And a very important one. Currently there is nothing to stop such names, because we basically adhere to the decentralized distribution of authority that was part of the original design of DNS. So the .CAT registry gets to decide whether someone can register f**kfest.cat, and the .TV registry gets to decide whether someone can register .xxx.tv. This delegation of authority is critical to the Internet's freedom. Now when ICANN and GAC decide that the top level can't publish ".xxx" because some people would be offended by it, they are setting a dangerous precedent. Because, as you imply, there is not a lot of difference between xxx.tv and tv.xxx. Indeed, many of my opponents in this debate have insisted that all is well because you can still publish xxx.tld even if ICANN won't approve "sld.xxx". But this argument proves too much. If there is no semantic, technical or behavioral difference between xxx.tld and sld.xxx, then the governments and regulators who don't like xxx anywhere will probably attempt to use ICANN's technical leverage to extend control to the second level. If you can't register TLDs that people object to, what's to stop ICANN From starting to assert authority over second or third-level names that offend? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Sat Apr 7 13:42:28 2007 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 13:42:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lee, I'd agree to the following: some future version of ICANN, with the increased involvement of the governmental stakeholders, i.e. the Future GAC, should do regulation of top level domain names using the semantic content of the names as one of the important criteria. However, I would not want ICANN, and certainly not the present version of ICANN, to be involved in content regulation beyond that. George At 11:28 PM -0400 4/6/07, Lee McKnight wrote: >George, > >So we agree, ICANN and the GAC do global content regulation, or >semantics label regulation if you prefer. > >And we also agree that ICANN/GAC needs more transparent and objective >procedures to follow while it goes about its regulatory business, >whether it justifies specificx decisions on technical or other >groiunds. > >Lee > >Prof. Lee W. McKnight >School of Information Studies >Syracuse University >+1-315-443-6891office >+1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>>> george.sadowsky at attglobal.net 4/6/2007 12:07 PM >>> >Back to the future (after many interventions that came while I was >asleep) . > >The .xxx debacle is a symptom of a real problem that will continue to >assert itself. Now forget about the details of .xxx and go back to >Karl's original question - what do we want in the future? > > >At 6:02 PM -0400 4/5/07, Milton Mueller wrote: >> >>> George Sadowsky 4/5/2007 3:08 >PM >>>>> >>>I think that what is missing in your argument is the recognition >>>that we live in a multicultural world and that the Internet is a >>>global phenomenon. >> >>No. It is precisely the multicultural, diverse nature of the world >that >>animates my desire to prevent ICANN from becoming a chokepoint. Such >a >>chokepoint, as Robin eloquently put it, becomes a way of "imposing >all >>intolerances cumulatively on everyone." >> >>Try to understand that, please. > > >I understand the reasoning, but I differ regarding the remedy. >Omitting the extreme positions, which Bertrand has aptly described, >in a multicultural environment there will be disputes over specific >sensitive labels, whether having to do with sex, religion, the king, >or whatever. I think that ultimately some organization is going to >inject itself into the label-semantics business (which is quite >different from the actual content business), and I would rather see >it be a revision of, say, the current GAC structure than the UN >General Assembly, or the ITU, or UNESCO, or some other body. The >danger is that the external body, once being given or taking a >mandate to get into judging top-level names, will be tempted to get >into judging content also. > >I think it is not realistic that the growth of the TLD name space can >avoid this. If I am right, let's plan for a transition that is >broadly and globallly acceptable, and that retains maximum freedom >and autonomy for the Internet's degrees of freedom and the rest of >ICANN's functionality, rather than risking their erosion by >stubbornly adhering to a principle with respect to top level label >semantics. > >> >> >>The TLD selection criteria being considered by ICANN will constantly >>pit one culture against another. It invites people to view TLD >creation >>as a conferral of global approval and legitimacy on one set of ideas >>rather than as coordination of unique strings, the meaning of which >>different nations and cultures can negotiate and regulate according >to >>their own norms. >> >>>A minimum of decency and respect for the >>>sensitivities of others would go a long way in making the >>>evolution of Internet governance less contentious and more >>>productive >> >>I understand this argument. Vittorio was making the same point. >>There is something to be said for it, as a guide to _personal_ >conduct. >>But translated into institutionalized rules, it is a recipe for >>systematic suppression of diversity and dissent. If you are prevented >by >>law from saying something that offends anyone, then your expression >is >>seriously restricted. Global policy making processes for resource >>assignment are not the greatest way to enforce "decency and respect >for >>sensitivities." Of course that does not mean I advocate going out of >my >>way to offend people, just because it is legal to do it. And yes, >there >>are jerks who will do that. But I think the problems posed by a few >>insensitive jerks is much smaller than putting into place a global >>machinery that encourages organized groups to object to and challenge >>the non-violent expressions of others. > >Insensitive jerks have a way of magnifying the destructive power of >their insensitivity. Small wars have been started by insensitive >jerks. Closer to home, Brett Fawcett reports that the GAC has just >closed its public discussion forum because of obscenities posted to >it by some insensitive jerks. We have huge decency and sensitivity >deficits in many walks of life, including in the Internet community, >and we are paying for it. Let's not adopt policies which threaten to >increase these deficits. > >> >>Anyway, I think we are finally getting to the core of the >disagreement. >>The .xxx rejection was not fundamentally about its so-called lack of >>community support, or about concerns that it would lead ICANN into >>contractual content regulation. It was about this. > >According to the Board members who commented, assuming that they are >telling the truth that's not correct. They argued that the content, >and the label, did not influence their decision. (If I were on the >Board, I would have thought differently.) I think that the community >support issue was a real one, but to be fair it did not appear to be >the subject of much study by anyone, just claims in both directions. > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Apr 7 15:17:49 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 12:17:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <058d01c77949$6edb7c80$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Okay, thanks Milton... But what about the second part of my question... "Would/could/should ICANN or whoever is the supreme authority here maintain jurisdiction over the naming patterns of the sub-tld's (or the organizations managing the existing tld's)... My understanding is that they are in turn self-regulated but what if that doesn't work for some reason or is it the case that any principles of governance in this area established by ICANN will automatically filter down/out to the other domain name governing bodies?" The implication of Bertrand's very insightful comments linking Domain names to physical processes of identification is I think a very significant one, especially in light of (for example) the burgeoning industry concerned with positioning sites so that they may be more highly ranked by Google. The implication I think here is that "in cyberspace (without a "name") nobody knows you (and whether or not you are a dog or a massage parlour or an opposition political party doesn't make much difference)..." Imagine a scenario where all of the domain names say under the country .tld are vetted from the perspective of a one party state which controls the tld--it would be a good way of (at least electronically) "disappearing" one's opposition. So these issues aren't simply matters of free speech or dare I say human rights, they seem to me to be quite fundamental issues of how, at least potentially, political power may be used (or misused) in an "Information Society". Hmmmm... Mike Gurstein Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. Executive Director Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training Ste. 2101-989 Nelson St. Vancouver, BC CANADA v6z 2s1 tel: +1-604-602-0624 http://www.communityinformatics.net -----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: April 7, 2007 9:37 AM To: gurstein at gmail.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Where are we going? >>> gurstein at gmail.com 4/6/2007 11:31:04 AM >>> >A simple (and probably naïve) question here... What is to stop a domain >name such as .xxx.tv (or .f**kfest.cat for that matter) being >established or would it matter? It's a good question, MG. And a very important one. Currently there is nothing to stop such names, because we basically adhere to the decentralized distribution of authority that was part of the original design of DNS. So the .CAT registry gets to decide whether someone can register f**kfest.cat, and the .TV registry gets to decide whether someone can register .xxx.tv. This delegation of authority is critical to the Internet's freedom. Now when ICANN and GAC decide that the top level can't publish ".xxx" because some people would be offended by it, they are setting a dangerous precedent. Because, as you imply, there is not a lot of difference between xxx.tv and tv.xxx. Indeed, many of my opponents in this debate have insisted that all is well because you can still publish xxx.tld even if ICANN won't approve "sld.xxx". But this argument proves too much. If there is no semantic, technical or behavioral difference between xxx.tld and sld.xxx, then the governments and regulators who don't like xxx anywhere will probably attempt to use ICANN's technical leverage to extend control to the second level. If you can't register TLDs that people object to, what's to stop ICANN From starting to assert authority over second or third-level names that offend? !DSPAM:2676,4617c8d274223004115098! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Apr 7 19:12:09 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 16:12:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Contribution to IGF consultation (was Re: Where...) In-Reply-To: <4617650E.6050402@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <212576.14425.qm@web58702.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Great point, Jeremy! and I subscribe to the non-diplomatic reiteration of what you said. Unless there's some feedback from the Secretariat and both its staff and nonstaff, our only contribution should be: why bother? what happened to the inputs to the previous so-called consultations? People have better things to do than talk, talk, and talk, to cover the void and for the self-satisfaction of some people that they are doing something, and of some other feeling they are part of something. Mawaki --- Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Jeremy Malcolm ha scritto: > >> So what are we going to prepare for the IGF Consultation? > > > > Hear hear on xxx. But on the IGF Consultation, really, what > is there to > > say? > > I'd subscribe a diplomatical rephrasing of what Jeremy said - > actually, > given the present state of affairs, it seems to me that that > is the only > additional thing that we could say at an IGF consultation, > apart from > what we already said in February. If the subject of the > consultation is > "agenda and program for Rio", everyone already addressed that > in > February, so - as we discussed here with Jeanette a couple of > weeks ago > - one would expect something new to comment upon. Otherwise, > I'm tempted > to make a two-line contribution saying that yes, whatever we > said in > February, we really meant it. Or resubmit the February > contribution > altogether. > > However, if I'm not wrong, there will be a paper by the > Secretariat (did > I get it well?) so when that comes out, if it contains > anything new, > then we might have something new to say. > > Seen from the outside, the entire IGF process seems stuck > while waiting > for someone in New York to reappoint the Chairman, Secretariat > and AG. I > don't know whether any useful message about the composition > and internal > workings of the AG was taken at the February consultation - > more or less > everyone was asking for more transparency and clear guidelines > on how > the AG is formed, what it does, and how it operates. Was there > any > discussion about that in the AG, or is it just waiting to be > reappointed? > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu > <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ > <-------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 karl at cavebear.com Sun Apr 8 03:25:59 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 00:25:59 -0700 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <058d01c77949$6edb7c80$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <058d01c77949$6edb7c80$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <46189907.4020908@cavebear.com> Michael Gurstein wrote: > But what about the second part of my question... > > "Would/could/should ICANN or whoever is the supreme authority here > maintain jurisdiction over the naming patterns of the sub-tld's (or the > organizations managing the existing tld's)... > So these issues aren't simply matters of free speech or dare I say human > rights, they seem to me to be quite fundamental issues of how, at least > potentially, political power may be used (or misused) in an "Information > Society". Even if we accept that these are fundamental issues regarding political power, is it appropriate for that to be a subject of internet governance at this time? The reason I ask is multifold: First, it is my own personal belief that the power of governance is something that ought to be used to supersede individual choice only when there is a clear and compelling reason to do so. And I do not perceive a clear and compelling reason in the situations in the domain name space. Second, institutions gain legitimacy by doing their job well over an extended period of time. And I do not see that as a community that we have evolved to the degree that we have a sufficiently consistent point of view on many of these matters to even hope that we could establish a governance body that would do a good job, much less do it over an extended period of time. Third, there are governance issues that are being left unaddressed. Among these are the responsibilities of root server operators, the technical obligations to be imposed on domain name server operators (mainly at the TLD level, but also perhaps at deeper levels), IP address and ASN assignment (which may perhaps be best left to the RIRs), mechanisms for end users to obtain end-to-end (cross-ISP) assurances (not guarantees) of service quality, etc etc. The cause of internet governance could do well in these areas - the debate is not so emotional, and the criteria for success are more clear, as they are in the very subjective areas in which ICANN has become mired. All of this leads me to suggest, again, that in these early days, that we constrain our efforts to engage on matters that have a clear linkage to technical matters. Only at some later date, once we have experience and have formed a more capable system of measuring competing values, ought we to venture to try to deal with larger issues. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Apr 8 10:56:37 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 10:56:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? Message-ID: Izumi: You said: "...a [new GTLD proposal] should be put in place only when there is a strong consensus by the community." Please conduct the following thought experiment. Substitute for the word "new gTLD proposal" any other internet business in your statement. Then you will understand why I am horrified by the attitude you are expressing. OK, let's do some substitution: "...a [new web site] should be put in place only when there is stong consensus by the community." or how about "...a [new ISP] should be put in place only when there is a strong consensus by the community." or maybe, "...a [new Internet-based application] should be permitted only when there is a strong consensus by the community." or maybe, "[Izumi should be allowed to send email to the IGC list] only when there is a strong consensus by the community." Do you understand what I am getting at? It seems to obvious to me that this attitude is wrong-headed. It seems to lack all appreciation of the concepts of freedom of entry, freedom to try new things, regardless of what others think. Freedom and innovation flourish precisely when people do not have to ask a "community" (which may consist of a bunch of business competitors or powerful people mainly concerned with maintaining the status quo) for permission to act. Of course, such freedom cannot involve harm to others, but you are not talking about "harm" you are talking about "support" or "consensus". >>> iza at anr.org 4/6/2007 12:22 PM >>> Hi Tom, I think my words below quoted were not as sufficient as should be. My original intent was, a new GTLD proposal should be put in place only when there is a strong consensus by the community, in this case ICANN constituencies. Yet as we all saw, that proposal could not gain the consensus, rather, majority of the Board said No. I think we should follow that decision, in this case as no consensus to put forward the proposal was reached. [Correct me if I am wrong] I think, your comment on Milton's recognized infinite regress may continue, unless we reach meta-consensus on the general framework of introducing the new TLDs, which I am not sure if could ever reach, but should try hard. For that, in the long run, I tend to agree with what Karl is suggesting - to have many TLDs as long as they do no harm technically. Until that be agreed by consensus, only limited number of TLDs be introduced, in which case some degree of cultural, social, value judgement might be inevitable, again, unless we reach a strong consensus not to do so, which is very unlikely. By "we" I mean not only supply side of DNS, but also individual users, non-commercial users, business users, and governments/GAC etc. Though I like ICANN to be as much a narrow technical coordination entity as possible, the reality it is surrounded by does not allow that, and we must see that reality composed of political, economical, social, cultural, ethical, if you like, and technical dimensions, all together. Just sticking in technical area only and live in hopes and dreams does not give us any solution I am afraid. Of course, I like to see much more innovations to come. Thanks, izumi 2007/4/7, Tom Vest : > > On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:26 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > I also think "bottom up consensus" in a community usually means that > > if there is very strong opposition/dissent from some > > communities/stakeholders remains, in good faith, then even that is a > > minority, we should respect that and not take decision based on simple > > majority even though the majority could not accept with the reasons > > given from the minority. > > Hi Izumi, > > Without commenting on this particular issue, your suggestion runs > afoul of the same kind of infinite regress that Milton recognized a > couple of days back. If one assumes that Milton is also speaking for > a "minority of stakeholders" who strongly disagree with the latest > decision, how do you reconcile the conflict? > > TV > > On Apr 5, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Milton Mueller wrote: > > >> Also are 'fundamental rights' divinely ordained ... Or are > >> they what societies (with active participation of Governments) > >> have accepted at particular points in time. > > > > This argument gets you into a dead end, an infinite regress. Who or > > what are the "societies" that establish rights? They are composed of > > people like you and me. And if I and others who agree strongly > > advocate > > for a free internet and free expression, then "society" may accept and > > institute that. Let's have that debate on the merits. We cannot sit > > poassively back and accept what "society" tells us is our rights. We > > must actively shape and define them, based on our knowledge and our > > conscience. That is the business we are in here, isn't it? > > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Apr 8 11:24:25 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 11:24:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] Distractions Message-ID: >>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 4/6/2007 1:08 PM >>> >Agree 100%. One of the tragedies of xxx is the amount of time >wasted. Shame it continues to distract when the next IGF >consultation is about 6 weeks away. Adam, I burst out laughing when I read this. Whatever position you take on .xxx, it is clear that the decision rationales, the process surrounding it, and the implications for future actions in Internet governance far outweigh anything that will happen at any IGF. Look at the breadth of the debate it has stimulated, ranging from the relationship between identifiers and content regulation to the role of cultural conflicts in internet governance to issues of process and participation. If you don't think this issue is important and interesting you'd better get out of the IG business. The important thing about .xxx or any new TLD proposal is that it is an area where the governance institution we are participating in actually holds power, actually makes decisions that affect what happens on the internet. IGF has no comparable authority. Most of what happens in these multistakeholder consultations is little more than window dressing that creates some kind of appearance of input and consultation while the real decisions are made somewhere else. Yes, I agree (as a professional educator) that there is value in these talkfests, there is some "soft power," but to say that we should blithely ignore the implications of a real decision to concentrate on talking at IGF is unpersuasive. The .xxx decision promises to set in place new global mechanisms for semantics-based censorship of what labels can be used, and indicates a new and lawless form of national state intervention in ICANN's affairs -- a role that is being accepted with alacrity by the same people (like Sadowsky) who, during WSIS, warned us of the horrors of a "UN Takeover of the Internet. Whos is "distracting" whom? And in that vein, I would respond to Jeremy's complaint about ignored iinput in IGF with some basic political-science. We have been through the same thing, and made all the same complaints as you, during the early stages of the ICANN process. A realist can only conclude that what matters in these processes is not primarily the quality of the ideas but the amount of power held by the advocates. If you are not, as one of my public interest advocacy friends in Washington is fond of saying, in a position to inflict (political) pain or confer benefits ($$$) on the decision makers, chances are you will be ignored. I'm not saying that's a good thing. I'm saying that's the way things are. And so, given those facts, it is unrealistic to expect anything more from these multistakeholder consultations than what you have got. >From a higher-level, longer term perspective, this means that people in civil society have got to stop promiting "multistakeholderism" as such. MS by itself is not all that meaningful unless it involves a formal realignment of righs and representation at the global level. If political actors have no formally defined powers and rights with respect to each other, and if there is no formally defined process for making decisions, why should you expect people engaged in high-stakes political and economic games to change their behavior in any substantial way? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From raul at lacnic.net Sun Apr 8 11:30:41 2007 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 12:30:41 -0300 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070408122810.01f15d60@lacnic.net> At 11:56 a.m. 08/04/2007, Milton Mueller wrote: >Izumi: >You said: > >"...a [new GTLD proposal] should be put in place >only when there is a strong consensus by the community." > >Please conduct the following thought experiment. Substitute for the >word "new gTLD proposal" any other internet business in your statement. >Then you will understand why I am horrified by the attitude you are >expressing. It is very consistent with your ultra liberal position. Nobody can say that you are not coherent. Raúl ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Apr 8 11:34:50 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 11:34:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? Message-ID: >>> Michael Gurstein 4/7/2007 3:17 PM >>> >But what about the second part of my question... >"Would/could/should ICANN or whoever is the supreme authority here >maintain jurisdiction over the naming patterns of the sub-tld's (or the >organizations managing the existing tld's)... My understanding is that Should it? No, absolutely not. Could it? Yes, it could. Would it? That depends on politics. >The implication I think here is that "in cyberspace >(without a "name") nobody knows you (and whether or not >you are a dog or a massage parlour or an opposition >political party doesn't make much difference)..." Exactly right. That is why the people who say that content regulation of labels is not content regulation are wrong. >Imagine a scenario where all of the domain names say under the country >.tld are vetted from the perspective of a one party state which controls >the tld--it would be a good way of (at least electronically) >"disappearing" one's opposition. These are the kind of scenarios that motivated many of us to get involved in domain name stuff back in 1996. >So these issues aren't simply matters of free speech or dare I say human >rights, they seem to me to be quite fundamental issues of how, at least >potentially, political power may be used (or misused) in an "Information >Society". ??? There is no disjunction between conceiving of them as "how political power may be used" and as issues of "free speech and human rights." The two dovetail perfectly. If you are concerned about political abuses of the control of Internet governance, then you must bring in human rights and free speech norms to moderate or restrict state and some kinds of private power over how this is done. >Hmmmm... Michael, I think we may have finally gotten you interested in internet 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sun Apr 8 11:42:33 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 08:42:33 -0700 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <46189907.4020908@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <000c01c779f4$87508250$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Karl, What hadn't occurred to me until this somewhat enlightening overall discussion is the degree to which "Internet Governance" could begin to slop over into "real world" governance issues and potentially in a very significant way particularly over time. That being said it doesn't' really matter what your (or anyone's) personal beliefs are, there are too many forces with too many significant and divergent interests at play to be able to easily walk away from the discussion particularly since so many of those interests may be less than benign from all of the various "rights" and other perspectives various folks here have used to anchor their IG arguments. -----Original Message----- From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] Sent: April 8, 2007 12:26 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Cc: 'Milton Mueller' Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we going? Michael Gurstein wrote: > But what about the second part of my question... > > "Would/could/should ICANN or whoever is the supreme authority here > maintain jurisdiction over the naming patterns of the sub-tld's (or > the organizations managing the existing tld's)... > So these issues aren't simply matters of free speech or dare I say > human rights, they seem to me to be quite fundamental issues of how, > at least potentially, political power may be used (or misused) in an > "Information Society". Even if we accept that these are fundamental issues regarding political power, is it appropriate for that to be a subject of internet governance at this time? The reason I ask is multifold: First, it is my own personal belief that the power of governance is something that ought to be used to supersede individual choice only when there is a clear and compelling reason to do so. And I do not perceive a clear and compelling reason in the situations in the domain name space. WHILE YOU MAY BELIEVE THAT "INDIVIDUAL CHOICE" (IN MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD THAT IS READ AS THE MONOPOLY POWER OF THE MARKET ECONOMY) NECESSARILY TRUMPS "THE POWER OF GOVERNANCE", TELL THAT ONE TO ANY OF THE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC FORCES AT LOOSE IN THE WORLD TODAY. Second, institutions gain legitimacy by doing their job well over an extended period of time. And I do not see that as a community that we have evolved to the degree that we have a sufficiently consistent point of view on many of these matters to even hope that we could establish a governance body that would do a good job, much less do it over an extended period of time. I DON'T THINK WE ARE HERE TALKING ABOUT INSTITUTIONS THAT WE MAY (OR MAY NOT) DEVELOP OR CONTROL, BUT RATHER INSTITUTIONS (MORE OR LESS BENIGN GOVERNMENTS) WHO, ONCE THEY SENSE THE POWER THAT LIES IN THE PROCESSES THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY DISCUSSING WILL BECOME EXTREMELY INTERESTED AND ACTIVE IN MANAGING WHATEVER IG INSTITUTIONS ARE THEN CURRENTLY IN PLACE. OUR JOB HERE, I THINK, BECOMES ONE OF ATTEMPTING TO ANTICIPATE AND FORESTALL SOME OF THAT BEHAVIOUR IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. RECOGNIZING ALL THE WHILE THAT THE REAL ACTION AROUND THIS IS LIKELY TO TAKE PLACE AT THE NATIONAL TLD MANAGEMENT LEVEL RATHER THAN AT THE (AT LEAST SUPERFICIALLY) MORE CIVILIZED GLOBAL LEVEL. Third, there are governance issues that are being left unaddressed. Among these are the responsibilities of root server operators, the technical obligations to be imposed on domain name server operators (mainly at the TLD level, but also perhaps at deeper levels), IP address and ASN assignment (which may perhaps be best left to the RIRs), mechanisms for end users to obtain end-to-end (cross-ISP) assurances (not guarantees) of service quality, etc etc. The cause of internet governance could do well in these areas - the debate is not so emotional, and the criteria for success are more clear, as they are in the very subjective areas in which ICANN has become mired. YES, BUT AREN'T THESE MORE OR LESS "TECHNICAL" ISSUES BEST LEFT TO STRICTLY TECHNICAL RESOLUTION... NO NEED FOR AN ELABORATE "MULTI-STAKEHOLDER" FORUM TO DEVELOP PROPOSALS AROUND THESE, I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT (AND HERE I'M ASSUMING THAT YOUR LAST SENTENCE IS LACKING A NEGATIVE SOMEWHERE... I.E. "THEY ARE --NOT-- IN THE VERY SUBJECTIVE AREAS..." All of this leads me to suggest, again, that in these early days, that we constrain our efforts to engage on matters that have a clear linkage to technical matters. Only at some later date, once we have experience and have formed a more capable system of measuring competing values, ought we to venture to try to deal with larger issues. I'M NOT SURE THAT THE OPTION YOU ARE PRESENTING IS STILL AVAILABLE... ONCE THE DJINN IS OUT OF THE BOTTLE IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO PUT IT BACK IN... MG --karl-- !DSPAM:2676,4618990e74229386117970! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Apr 8 12:51:11 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 09:51:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004b01c779fe$1d42f550$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Yes Milton, and my apologies for being such a slow learner ;-) MG -----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: April 8, 2007 8:35 AM To: Governance Subject: RE: [governance] Where are we going? These are the kind of scenarios that motivated many of us to get involved in domain name stuff back in 1996. Michael, I think we may have finally gotten you interested in internet 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 !DSPAM:2676,46190bfe74229479637342! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dina_hov at yahoo.com Sun Apr 8 15:53:27 2007 From: dina_hov at yahoo.com (dina) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 12:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Where are we going?about .xxx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <137094.20015.qm@web43138.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Milton Mueller wrote: Izumi: You said: "...a [new GTLD proposal] should be put in place only when there is a strong consensus by the community." Please conduct the following thought experiment. Substitute for the word "new gTLD proposal" any other internet business in your statement. Then you will understand why I am horrified by the attitude you are expressing. OK, let's do some substitution: "...a [new web site] should be put in place only when there is stong consensus by the community." or how about "...a [new ISP] should be put in place only when there is a strong consensus by the community." or maybe, "...a [new Internet-based application] should be permitted only when there is a strong consensus by the community." or maybe, "[Izumi should be allowed to send email to the IGC list] only when there is a strong consensus by the community." Do you understand what I am getting at? It seems to obvious to me that this attitude is wrong-headed. It seems to lack all appreciation of the concepts of freedom of entry, freedom to try new things, regardless of what others think. Freedom and innovation flourish precisely when people do not have to ask a "community" (which may consist of a bunch of business competitors or powerful people mainly concerned with maintaining the status quo) for permission to act. Of course, such freedom cannot involve harm to others, but you are not talking about "harm" you are talking about "support" or "consensus". >>> iza at anr.org 4/6/2007 12:22 PM >>> Hi Tom, I think my words below quoted were not as sufficient as should be. My original intent was, a new GTLD proposal should be put in place only when there is a strong consensus by the community, in this case ICANN constituencies. Yet as we all saw, that proposal could not gain the consensus, rather, majority of the Board said No. I think we should follow that decision, in this case as no consensus to put forward the proposal was reached. [Correct me if I am wrong] I think, your comment on Milton's recognized infinite regress may continue, unless we reach meta-consensus on the general framework of introducing the new TLDs, which I am not sure if could ever reach, but should try hard. For that, in the long run, I tend to agree with what Karl is suggesting - to have many TLDs as long as they do no harm technically. Until that be agreed by consensus, only limited number of TLDs be introduced, in which case some degree of cultural, social, value judgement might be inevitable, again, unless we reach a strong consensus not to do so, which is very unlikely. By "we" I mean not only supply side of DNS, but also individual users, non-commercial users, business users, and governments/GAC etc. Though I like ICANN to be as much a narrow technical coordination entity as possible, the reality it is surrounded by does not allow that, and we must see that reality composed of political, economical, social, cultural, ethical, if you like, and technical dimensions, all together. Just sticking in technical area only and live in hopes and dreams does not give us any solution I am afraid. Of course, I like to see much more innovations to come. Thanks, izumi 2007/4/7, Tom Vest : > > On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:26 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > I also think "bottom up consensus" in a community usually means that > > if there is very strong opposition/dissent from some > > communities/stakeholders remains, in good faith, then even that is a > > minority, we should respect that and not take decision based on simple > > majority even though the majority could not accept with the reasons > > given from the minority. > > Hi Izumi, > > Without commenting on this particular issue, your suggestion runs > afoul of the same kind of infinite regress that Milton recognized a > couple of days back. If one assumes that Milton is also speaking for > a "minority of stakeholders" who strongly disagree with the latest > decision, how do you reconcile the conflict? > > TV > > On Apr 5, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Milton Mueller wrote: > > >> Also are 'fundamental rights' divinely ordained ... Or are > >> they what societies (with active participation of Governments) > >> have accepted at particular points in time. > > > > This argument gets you into a dead end, an infinite regress. Who or > > what are the "societies" that establish rights? They are composed of > > people like you and me. And if I and others who agree strongly > > advocate > > for a free internet and free expression, then "society" may accept and > > institute that. Let's have that debate on the merits. We cannot sit > > poassively back and accept what "society" tells us is our rights. We > > must actively shape and define them, based on our knowledge and our > > conscience. That is the business we are in here, isn't it? > > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org --------------------------------- Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From robin at ipjustice.org Sun Apr 8 19:33:48 2007 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:33:48 -0700 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070408122810.01f15d60@lacnic.net> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070408122810.01f15d60@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <46197BDC.8020608@ipjustice.org> I don't understand what is meant below by "ultra liberal" but it seems to imply "extreme". But the more "radical" view, in my opinion, is that one community should be able to prevent the lawful speech of another community. That is the position which blatantly diverts from centuries of freedom of expression jurisprudence, most notably Art. 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (and national protections like the US Constitution). Why should legal standards for freedom of expression be violated in the ICANN context? Robin Raul Echeberria wrote: > At 11:56 a.m. 08/04/2007, Milton Mueller wrote: > >> Izumi: >> You said: >> >> "...a [new GTLD proposal] should be put in place >> only when there is a strong consensus by the community." >> >> Please conduct the following thought experiment. Substitute for the >> word "new gTLD proposal" any other internet business in your statement. >> Then you will understand why I am horrified by the attitude you are >> expressing. > > > > It is very consistent with your ultra liberal position. > Nobody can say that you are not coherent. > > > Raúl > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 raul at lacnic.net Sun Apr 8 20:16:12 2007 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:16:12 -0300 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <46197BDC.8020608@ipjustice.org> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070408122810.01f15d60@lacnic.net> <46197BDC.8020608@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070408210319.02060038@lacnic.net> Robin: I was commenting Milton's email. He doesn't accept any kind of "intervention" in an economic activity. It is what he says. His positions is very liberal, and so, he is analaysing everything from this perspective. At least in Latinamerica, it is very uncommon that organizatios of civil socieyt hold this kind of ultra (or extreme) liberal positions. What this debate shows is that there is not a common view in civil society regarding this point. It is difficult to criticize the individuals that voted in ICANN Board (note that I said individuals, because we are talking about the positions of the Directors who voted against or in favor, and not about ICANN as an institution) when civil society is not able to have a common view. In my perspective, this debate is not about freedom of expression, as many other colleagues have already pointed out. It is about freedom in the Internet market, as Milton said in the email that I commented, and, I guess, this is not an issue that civil society organizations in developing countries are very worried about. May be I am wrong, but this is my perception. IMHO this is a very US (or most developed and liberal countries) centric view. Yes, the difference between north and south (to be very generic) are also seen sometimes in civil society positions. Raúl At 08:33 p.m. 08/04/2007, Robin Gross wrote: >I don't understand what is meant below by "ultra >liberal" but it seems to imply "extreme". > >But the more "radical" view, in my opinion, is >that one community should be able to prevent the >lawful speech of another community. That is the >position which blatantly diverts from centuries >of freedom of expression jurisprudence, most >notably Art. 19 of the UN Universal Declaration >of Human Rights (and national protections like the US Constitution). >Why should legal standards for freedom of >expression be violated in the ICANN context? > >Robin > > >Raul Echeberria wrote: > >>At 11:56 a.m. 08/04/2007, Milton Mueller wrote: >> >>>Izumi: >>>You said: >>> >>>"...a [new GTLD proposal] should be put in place >>>only when there is a strong consensus by the community." >>> >>>Please conduct the following thought experiment. Substitute for the >>>word "new gTLD proposal" any other internet business in your statement. >>>Then you will understand why I am horrified by the attitude you are >>>expressing. >> >> >> >>It is very consistent with your ultra liberal position. >>Nobody can say that you are not coherent. >> >> >>Raúl >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/751 - >Release Date: 07/04/2007 10:57 p.m. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Sun Apr 8 21:48:04 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 21:48:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070408122810.01f15d60@lacnic.net> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070408122810.01f15d60@lacnic.net> Message-ID: But why, in this case, is that position (whether "ultra-liberal" or as I would say, rather conservative) a bad one? Isn't decentralized decision making (subsidiarity) a Good Thing in this (and most) cases? On Sun, 8 Apr 2007, Raul Echeberria wrote: > At 11:56 a.m. 08/04/2007, Milton Mueller wrote: >> Izumi: >> You said: >> >> "...a [new GTLD proposal] should be put in place >> only when there is a strong consensus by the community." >> >> Please conduct the following thought experiment. Substitute for the >> word "new gTLD proposal" any other internet business in your statement. >> Then you will understand why I am horrified by the attitude you are >> expressing. > > > It is very consistent with your ultra liberal position. > Nobody can say that you are not coherent. > > > Raúl > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<--____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sun Apr 8 22:12:07 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 19:12:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Where are we going? Message-ID: <20070409021207.26382.qmail@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> This is an absurd proposition Milton. There are plenty of examples of where you can use your proposition Milton, and plenty when it's ludicrous. Both online and offline. I would like to see some research on whether new gTLD's only end up confusing internet users, or do they have no effect on their attitudes towards and confidence in using the internet. We can scream black and blue about the merits of something such as new gTLDs, but we are an infinitesimal portion of the internet using community. cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: Milton Mueller To: iza at anr.org; Tom Vest Cc: Governance Sent: Monday, 9 April, 2007 12:56:37 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we going? Izumi: You said: "...a [new GTLD proposal] should be put in place only when there is a strong consensus by the community." Please conduct the following thought experiment. Substitute for the word "new gTLD proposal" any other internet business in your statement. Then you will understand why I am horrified by the attitude you are expressing. OK, let's do some substitution: "...a [new web site] should be put in place only when there is stong consensus by the community." or how about "...a [new ISP] should be put in place only when there is a strong consensus by the community." or maybe, "...a [new Internet-based application] should be permitted only when there is a strong consensus by the community." or maybe, "[Izumi should be allowed to send email to the IGC list] only when there is a strong consensus by the community." Do you understand what I am getting at? It seems to obvious to me that this attitude is wrong-headed. It seems to lack all appreciation of the concepts of freedom of entry, freedom to try new things, regardless of what others think. Freedom and innovation flourish precisely when people do not have to ask a "community" (which may consist of a bunch of business competitors or powerful people mainly concerned with maintaining the status quo) for permission to act. Of course, such freedom cannot involve harm to others, but you are not talking about "harm" you are talking about "support" or "consensus". >>> iza at anr.org 4/6/2007 12:22 PM >>> Hi Tom, I think my words below quoted were not as sufficient as should be. My original intent was, a new GTLD proposal should be put in place only when there is a strong consensus by the community, in this case ICANN constituencies. Yet as we all saw, that proposal could not gain the consensus, rather, majority of the Board said No. I think we should follow that decision, in this case as no consensus to put forward the proposal was reached. [Correct me if I am wrong] I think, your comment on Milton's recognized infinite regress may continue, unless we reach meta-consensus on the general framework of introducing the new TLDs, which I am not sure if could ever reach, but should try hard. For that, in the long run, I tend to agree with what Karl is suggesting - to have many TLDs as long as they do no harm technically. Until that be agreed by consensus, only limited number of TLDs be introduced, in which case some degree of cultural, social, value judgement might be inevitable, again, unless we reach a strong consensus not to do so, which is very unlikely. By "we" I mean not only supply side of DNS, but also individual users, non-commercial users, business users, and governments/GAC etc. Though I like ICANN to be as much a narrow technical coordination entity as possible, the reality it is surrounded by does not allow that, and we must see that reality composed of political, economical, social, cultural, ethical, if you like, and technical dimensions, all together. Just sticking in technical area only and live in hopes and dreams does not give us any solution I am afraid. Of course, I like to see much more innovations to come. Thanks, izumi 2007/4/7, Tom Vest : > > On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:26 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > I also think "bottom up consensus" in a community usually means that > > if there is very strong opposition/dissent from some > > communities/stakeholders remains, in good faith, then even that is a > > minority, we should respect that and not take decision based on simple > > majority even though the majority could not accept with the reasons > > given from the minority. > > Hi Izumi, > > Without commenting on this particular issue, your suggestion runs > afoul of the same kind of infinite regress that Milton recognized a > couple of days back. If one assumes that Milton is also speaking for > a "minority of stakeholders" who strongly disagree with the latest > decision, how do you reconcile the conflict? > > TV > > On Apr 5, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Milton Mueller wrote: > > >> Also are 'fundamental rights' divinely ordained ... Or are > >> they what societies (with active participation of Governments) > >> have accepted at particular points in time. > > > > This argument gets you into a dead end, an infinite regress. Who or > > what are the "societies" that establish rights? They are composed of > > people like you and me. And if I and others who agree strongly > > advocate > > for a free internet and free expression, then "society" may accept and > > institute that. Let's have that debate on the merits. We cannot sit > > poassively back and accept what "society" tells us is our rights. We > > must actively shape and define them, based on our knowledge and our > > conscience. That is the business we are in here, isn't it? > > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Apr 8 22:16:09 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 19:16:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] In the wake of RegisterFly, is ICANN taking flight? Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From vb at bertola.eu Mon Apr 9 03:30:13 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 09:30:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070408122810.01f15d60@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <4619EB85.5070804@bertola.eu> Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law ha scritto: > But why, in this case, is that position (whether "ultra-liberal" or as I > would say, rather conservative) a bad one? Isn't decentralized decision > making (subsidiarity) a Good Thing in this (and most) cases? It's difficult to talk about structural principles, because you can turn them around however you like to support your position - for example, one could say that subsidiarity is better achieved by not adding a label at the central level, so that each country can decide whether to add it - and, if desired, push or force content into it - at its own decentralized level. I'm not sure that there is any way to make this any different than a sum of individual judgements by a set of people from diverse social and political backgrounds, at least until we peacefully convince everyone to agree on a certain approach. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Apr 9 03:48:07 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 13:18:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Message-ID: <20070409074803.24050E0475@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi I have been trying to take some lessons from the very interesting .xxx debate on this list for the advocacy work that IGC could/needs to do.. This is in keeping with the dual nature of IGC's mandate - being a discussion (and ideas development) space as well as doing advocacy work. And in the process I will also add some of my views on the subject. So, both Milton and Adam are right, in parts. .xxx discussion has been very useful and is important, and that we also need to think about what IGC wants to do about it. And a forum presenting itself for us to do something is the IGF consultations.. I have combined the threads on .xxx discussion and on going forward vis a vis IGC at IGF, and changed the subject line. It also makes for a very long email for which I apologize. .xxx issue is seen as the proxy for the broader issue of global IG public policy. There have been two main positions in this discussion (though the discussion in fact has been very nuanced and rich, and this two way typology is merely a convenient way to try to move towards some actionable items). ICANN shouldn't do content management since it is public policy issue. But then who should ??? One side can be represented by Robin/ Milton's views that .xxx is a public policy issue and ICANN should not have got into public policy arena, and should have stuck to its purely technical mandate. If we were to accept this, the major issue confronting us is - who does the public policy in this arena. To quote Milton.. >ICANN's control of the root, we believe, should not be used to exert policy leverage over things not directly related to >the coordination of unique identifiers. There are other, more decentralized mechanisms for dealing with the policy >problems. I would like know which ones are these. Milton, are you veering around to the point that there is no need for any global IG public policy processes/ structures. or, assuming you are counting in WIPO, WTO etc, that there is no need of some specifically IG/ IS ones? Milton has also spoken about the Framework Convention as being the way out. However, if that's the real way forward as seen by Milton (and IGP) it is intriguing why we hear so little about it from them. It comes in Milton's argumentations, for logical consistency, but if the real solution lies in an FC why doesn't Milton's considerable writing and advocacy energy get focused on it? The fact that an FC looks like a long way off (if ever possible) cannot deter us because civil society (CS) is still the right space/ actor to start developing the ground. And there are significant advantages in being the first mover. My this line of discussion with Milton/ IGP goes back to prepcom 2/3 of Tunis phase when I has just about started to know the IG world. IGP produced a paper on how ICANN shouldn't do public policy, and promised to write another paper on who should do it then. I argued that the two are connected issues, so please hurry with your views on who should? As far as I know that second paper was never written. I know this is the difficult part, but it is important and inescapable. You cant speak about one thing without speaking about the other. So lets work on that .. It is a better way of taking public policy work away from ICANN, than saying first ICANN should abstain and then we will think of where the responsibility falls. I can never understand this logic of working for a public policy vacuum. The only reason for doing so can be that the default political/ policy situation works for some. And this is that the crux of the problem. And the real division is between those for whom the present IG political system is working and those for whom it isn't. The visible division of opinions as described here on the policy role of ICANN is a red herring. Note that for many proponents on either side the present system is essentially fine, and they aren't proposing specific alternatives. For those who think that the present system is BASICALLY wrong aren't even positioned as one clear side of the debate. Karl has suggested that we can wait for some future period of maturity and consensus, and till then keep political issues off from our agenda. Politics doesn't cease because one orders it to - every social structure is as completely political as another - the difference is only in the distribution of power within the structure . So, this stance that ICANN shouldn't do public policy is not meaningful without some clarity about, and clear evidence of devotion of energy for moving towards, what may be legitimate public policy structures. I think IGC should be strongly pushing for a 'legitimate public policy space' for IG in a single-minded devotion to the cause. It can be done through persistent efforts at seeking accountability regarding the enhanced cooperation proposal, and it could be about beginning a CS sponsored set of activities for developing internationally applicable public policy principles for IG and proposing structural innovations for it. Here, I am not specifically pushing the FC agenda though something like that looks to me the way to go. Content management is political and ICANN-GAC system is fine in doing it. But is it representative and legitimate . The second stream that came out of the .xxx debate is of those who accept that ICANN work involves socio-political considerations and that it is important for ICANN to be sensitive to these. The proponents of this position accept that ICANN does public policy - independently, or through its uneasy relationship with GAC. This group seems to be comfortable with ICANN - GAC doing the required public policy, and, as I understand, look forward to an evolution of this system as more IG policy issues come up. My problem with this stance is that I see ICANN as very unrepresentative of the vast majority of the world, and therefore not a legitimate body for this role. There is no connect between this big majority and ICANN structures. No development sector CS constituencies are represented and private sector and big corporations are over represented, making for an exact inversion of how public bodies need to be shaped for our objectives of a more just, equal and free world. And in my view these distortions are structural and cannot be corrected by incremental changes. And now as the government sector gets better and better accommodated by ICANN, we may be moving towards an alliance of the rich, corporates and governments doing mutual accommodations and governing the most important infrastructure of the emerging information society in their interests. For me it is a scary scenario. I quote a recent email by Mawaki. >Meanwhile, the transition has unfortunately been on and on... >too long, untill now all the governments are realizing what power they can exert over the central infrastructure of the >Net ... In a short while, they will all love ICANN and oppose any institutional change;.... The CS from the South (and most non-tech background progressive groups from the North) do NOT see ICANN as a friendly space at all. They feel relatively more comfortable at the IGF, and will be comfortable with an international FC kind of process. For this reason, as starting point, we need to be able to discuss ICANN at IGF. Our plans for IGF I am not in favor of just repeating our February statement at the May IGF consultations. That time one person could veto the proposal that we demand ICANN be discussed at the IGF. I don't see how we can move forward with such a situation. If IGC cant ask ICANN to be discussed at IGF, then we have more faith in ICANN than the IGF. I think this is a kind a basic position on which I will rather go for a caucus voting and clarify for once and for all. We cant do any advocacy at all if we remain shackled with these kinds of things. If we cant discuss ICANN at IGF I myself don't see much point in going there. I have a feeling that with ICANN and IGF being seen as 'our' spaces as against those where governments dominate, we are becoming too much of insiders in these institutions, and do not much look like a CS group anymore, which always have a strong and boiling advocacy issue or two, for which they may be ready to be aggressive and make protests etc.. So, I propose that we identify some clear advocacy agendas and plan our strategies around them. Otherwise we aren't making much impact, and aren't representing the wider CS issues and interests that we promised to do in our charter. In brief, I think we should be pushing for three themes strongly for Rio - (1) Asking insistently about what' s on with global IG public policy processes and structures - speaking about the enhanced cooperation process, and in case there is sufficient internal consensus in CS, try to build towards an FC kind of process. (2) Call for a forum within IGF to discuss ICANN - to have ICANN interface with and be accountable to the many constituencies (which by far makes the majority of the world's population) which cant access its present structures. (3) Develop and discuss what constitutes a 'development agenda in IG'. A really through discussion will help us go beyond the tokenistic listing of 'access' as the main agenda of Rio. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Apr 9 06:29:51 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:29:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Is ICANN "engaged in commerce" ? Message-ID: <954259bd0704090329q2aadf261leaf15fc633678144@mail.gmail.com> On 4/9/07, in the middle of a relatively long post related to the RegisterFly debacle, *yehudakatz at mailinator.com* wrote: > > Like it or not, ICANN is engaged in commerce, not charity work, although > it is a California nonprofit corporation. This justifies going back to the basic texts. Many non-English speaking actors, particularly outside the United States, tend to interpret the term "Corporation" as an equivalent of "Company", implicitly connecting ICANN with the notion of market and commercial activity. This misunderstanding is aggravated by the repeated use of the term "private" when refering to the legal status of the organization (for instance in the President's Strategic Committee Report). And the fact that ICANN is actively coordinating a market compounds the feeling that it is "engaged in commerce". It is therefore useful to quote extensively Paragraph 3 of ICANN's Articles of Incorporation: *ICANN "is a nonprofit public benefit corporation […] organized under the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law for charitable and public purposes. [It] is organized, and will be operated, exclusively for charitable, educational and scientific purposes […]".* This unequivocally underscores the public interest nature and purpose of ICANN. ICANN is not "engaged in commerce" but is a structure set up to serve the global public interest. Too many people seem to forget it. Best Bertrand On 4/9/07, yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > > Judging from this mail-list response, no members have had experience > first-hand with RegisterFly, which means there is a lack of sufficient > numbers to form a 'CLASS' by this body (IGC). What was of interest in Mr. > Hanson's article, was the statement which suggests that ICANN was moving > toward an 'Independent' International Model: such as the Red Cross and The > International Olympic Community, to take refuge by Flight (flight from legal > prosecution). I wonder under which Court of International Law could a > similar Suit be brought by Plaintiffs who domicile outside of the US > Jurisdiction? - Article Re: In the wake of RegisterFly, is ICANN taking > flight? > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/05/icann_registerfly_litigation Only > the paranoid survive By Burke Hansen in San Francisco In the aftermath of > the ICANN meeting in Lisbon, the RegisterFly disaster continues to inspire > both litigation and paranoia. Those connecting the dots are convinced that > an ICANN report debated at the Lisbon meetings exploring the possibility of > changing ICANN to an international organization along the lines of the > International Red Cross is an attempt by ICANN to slither out of this whole > mess. A plaintiff in North Carolina has started a class action against > RegisterFly, Enom, and ICANN over her ruined business; ICANN is suing > RegisterFly to force it to turn over the authcodes to enable a bulk transfer > of domains; and RegisterFly is demanding arbitration as provided for in its > Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Other plaintiffs wait in the wings. > A change of character for ICANN would provide a gloss of independence from > the smothering bosom of the American Department of Commerce (DOC), as well > as potential protection from American litigation. It would also comport with > ICANN's stated goal of becoming a truly international organization > reflective of the international reach of the internet itself. Of course, it > begs the question: just what does ICANN have in common with the Red Cross? > And why would ICANN need a structure that virtually eliminates > accountability when more accountability is what the ICANN stakeholders keep > demanding? ICANN has made great strides in providing improved access and > clarity to its website recently, and it would be unfortunate if ICANN has > adopted a one step forward, two steps back approach to its problems. ICANN > currently is a nonprofit corporation based in Marina Del Ray, California. > Say what you will about the litigious nature of American society, but > American-style litigation keeps us all on our toes, including ICANN. Why > would ICANN need Red Cross-style international legal protections when it's > not out saving refugees and inoculating babies like the Red Cross? The > international organization that ICANN does have something in common with is > one famous for its opaqueness and arrogant lack of accountability, the > International Olympic Committee (IOC). ICANN's not saving the world. Like it > or not, ICANN is engaged in commerce, not charity work, although it is a > California nonprofit corporation. The IOC, too, is engaged in commerce, > which is marketing the Olympics and extorting stadium facilities out of > local communities. It would be unfortunate if ICANN were to take advantage > of the RegisterFly mess as an excuse to lock itself away from public opinion > the way the IOC has. Of course, ICANN is already named in the RegisterFly > class action, and no midstream change in corporate structure will get them > out of that lawsuit. It would, however, make it more difficult for similar > lawsuits to proceed in the future. A move to Switzerland, say, would be even > more frustrating. Considering the fact that ICANN did not drop the hammer on > RegisterFly until after the plaintiff's attorneys dropped the hammer on > ICANN, the ICANN community might think twice about letting ICANN off the > hook.(r) Burke Hansen, Attorney at large, heads a San Francisco law office. -- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From raul at lacnic.net Mon Apr 9 06:37:43 2007 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:37:43 -0300 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070408122810.01f15d60@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070409073425.03c36d88@lacnic.net> What i say is that this issue is less important than it seems. If we are talking about freedom of expression, so, it is very important, but if we are only talking about market regulation, so, the imporance of this issue is different. Raúl At 10:48 p.m. 08/04/2007, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >But why, in this case, is that position (whether >"ultra-liberal" or as I would say, rather >conservative) a bad one? Isn't decentralized >decision making (subsidiarity) a Good Thing in this (and most) cases? > >On Sun, 8 Apr 2007, Raul Echeberria wrote: > >>At 11:56 a.m. 08/04/2007, Milton Mueller wrote: >>>Izumi: >>>You said: >>>"...a [new GTLD proposal] should be put in place >>>only when there is a strong consensus by the community." >>>Please conduct the following thought experiment. Substitute for the >>>word "new gTLD proposal" any other internet business in your statement. >>>Then you will understand why I am horrified by the attitude you are >>>expressing. >> >> >>It is very consistent with your ultra liberal position. >>Nobody can say that you are not coherent. >> >> >>Raúl >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >-- >http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net >A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm >U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA >+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm > -->It's warm here.<-- > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/751 - >Release Date: 07/04/2007 10:57 p.m. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Apr 9 07:55:28 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 08:55:28 -0300 Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2A6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2A6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <461A29B0.2050006@rits.org.br> Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > [...] > Who is right? Is it consumer confusion or is it consumer choice? ALAC > is planning to organize a workshop on that issue in San Juan to > figure out the arguments of pro and con. But the more interesting > issues is who decides on .berlin? If ICANN follows the .xxx procedure > it will ask the GAC. GAC members will ask the German government but > the German government has an internal problem to harmonize different > approaches on the federal and the local level. If it is seen as a > "cultural affair", then according to the German constiution, the > federal government has no competences. Does it mean, that for such a > decision ICANN has to consult with the local authorities directly? > And how other governments will see this? Some may be happy to have > next to the ccTLD also some big (or small) cities with a TLD for > local marketing, tourism, local economy promotion, local language > support (like .cat) etc. Others will fear that this will become very > counterproductive, undermining national monopolies etc. Curiosity: did ICANN through GAC consult with Spain's government on deciding on .cat? --c.a. -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Apr 9 08:44:36 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 05:44:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: In the wake of RegisterFly, is ICANN taking flight? In-Reply-To: 954259bd0704090329q2aadf261leaf15fc633678144@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: Bertrand, Just to clairify, the statements were from an artical, and are not my words. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/05/icann_registerfly_litigation I think the Author [Burke Hansen] a US citizen, realizes that ICANN was incorporated as " a nonprofit public benefit corporation ... " and His point is in regards to ICANN working under the status of an International Organization (Body), and using that status as an indemnifying shield, from legal culpability. The comparison He made was with the International Red Cross and International Olympic Committee (IOC) re: "... Why would ICANN need Red Cross-style international legal protections when it's not out saving refugees and inoculating babies like the Red Cross? The international organization that ICANN does have something in common with is one famous for its opaqueness and arrogant lack of accountability, the International Olympic Committee (IOC). ICANN's not saving the world. Like it or not, ICANN is engaged in commerce, not charity work, although it is a California nonprofit corporation. The IOC, too, is engaged in commerce, which is marketing the Olympics and extorting stadium facilities out of local communities. It would be unfortunate if ICANN were to take advantage of the RegisterFly mess as an excuse to lock itself away from public opinion the way the IOC has. ..." Being a US Non-Profit Organization, does not create an 'International Body', of which sanctioning of its "International" status ironically could be done by the U.N. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Apr 9 09:01:03 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 10:01:03 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: In the wake of RegisterFly, is ICANN taking flight? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <461A390F.1060707@rits.org.br> Whatever the case, ICANN could be compared to a non-profit commodity exchange organization (a commodities' "bourse"?), TLDs being the commodities, regarding many of its activities -- at least the most visible ones. There are of course many other cases of non-profit organizations carrying out moderation/coordination activities mostly for businesses. ITU, WIPO are other cases. frt rgds --c.a. yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > Bertrand, > > Just to clairify, the statements were from an artical, and are not my words. > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/05/icann_registerfly_litigation > > > I think the Author [Burke Hansen] a US citizen, realizes that ICANN was > incorporated as " a nonprofit public benefit corporation ... " and > > His point is in regards to ICANN working under the status of an International > Organization (Body), and using that status as an indemnifying shield, from > legal culpability. > > > The comparison He made was with the International Red Cross and International > Olympic Committee (IOC) > > re: > > "... Why would ICANN need Red Cross-style international legal protections when > it's not out saving refugees and inoculating babies like the Red Cross? The > international organization that ICANN does have something in common with is one > famous for its opaqueness and arrogant lack of accountability, the > International Olympic Committee (IOC). ICANN's not saving the world. Like it or > not, ICANN is engaged in commerce, not charity work, although it is a > California nonprofit corporation. The IOC, too, is engaged in commerce, which > is marketing the Olympics and extorting stadium facilities out of local > communities. It would be unfortunate if ICANN were to take advantage of the > RegisterFly mess as an excuse to lock itself away from public opinion the way > the IOC has. ..." > > > Being a US Non-Profit Organization, does not create an 'International Body', of > which sanctioning of its "International" status ironically could be done by the > U.N. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Mon Apr 9 09:36:09 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 09:36:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070409073425.03c36d88@lacnic.net> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070408122810.01f15d60@lacnic.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20070409073425.03c36d88@lacnic.net> Message-ID: I understand why you would say that. But here's why I'm much less certain about the lack of importance of mere regulation of business models than you are: I believe that it is very important to enforce (create) the idea that ICANN's job is purely technical. Once we accept that it *can* regulate business models we've in a sense lost our virginity and anything -- including content -- might come next. This is not fanciful. Consider the extraordinary push by the copyright interests here in the USA. Just this week they are pushing a bill in California to basically let them break into any computer that they think has been used to breach a copyright. Imagine what they might try to get up to in the DNS. I'd rather not even have that debate. So the "mere" regulation of business models is in fact -- in my view -- a Big Deal for the precedent it sets. On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Raul Echeberria wrote: > > What i say is that this issue is less important than it seems. If we are > talking about freedom of expression, so, it is very important, but if we are > only talking about market regulation, so, the imporance of this issue is > different. > > Raúl > > > At 10:48 p.m. 08/04/2007, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >> But why, in this case, is that position (whether "ultra-liberal" or as I >> would say, rather conservative) a bad one? Isn't decentralized decision >> making (subsidiarity) a Good Thing in this (and most) cases? >> >> On Sun, 8 Apr 2007, Raul Echeberria wrote: >> >>> At 11:56 a.m. 08/04/2007, Milton Mueller wrote: >>>> Izumi: >>>> You said: >>>> "...a [new GTLD proposal] should be put in place >>>> only when there is a strong consensus by the community." >>>> Please conduct the following thought experiment. Substitute for the >>>> word "new gTLD proposal" any other internet business in your statement. >>>> Then you will understand why I am horrified by the attitude you are >>>> expressing. >>> >>> >>> It is very consistent with your ultra liberal position. >>> Nobody can say that you are not coherent. >>> >>> >>> Raúl >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> -- >> http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net >> A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm >> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA >> +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm >> -->It's warm here.<-- >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/751 - Release Date: 07/04/2007 >> 10:57 p.m. > > -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<--____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Apr 9 09:51:42 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 15:51:42 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Where are we going? References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070408122810.01f15d60@lacnic.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20070409073425.03c36d88@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2C4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> My conclusion from the debate so far is that there is a missing link in the mechanism of involved institutions and organisations. We all agree that ICANN should not go beyond its narrow defined technical mandate. A lot of us agree also that it should not be the GAC (alone) to make the final decision. Other IG organisations (potential partners in the process of enhanced cooperation) are even worse positioned to make such a decision. One conclusion could be to create a new multistakeholder body for cases like this which gets for very narrow defined cases a final decision making mandate. This could be a joint GAC/ICANN Working Group or something new. Any ideas? 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 Mon Apr 9 10:00:37 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 10:00:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? Message-ID: >>> raul at lacnic.net 4/9/2007 6:37 AM >>> >What i say is that this issue is less important >than it seems. If we are talking about freedom of >expression, so, it is very important, but if we >are only talking about market regulation, so, the >imporance of this issue is different. We are talking about both, Raul. You cannot have free expression without an ability to freely utilize the means of media production. People who discuss free software or net neutrality, to shift the context somewhat, are talking about both commercial and noncommercial activity that is fostered by the open, neutral access to the resource in question. Governments who want to regulate and restrict expression inevitably do so via economic regulation as well as direct censorship, e.g. by limitng the number of ISPs in a market or by refusing to make radio spectrum resources available for civilian and commercial use. Your attempt to drive a wedge between the two is not clearly thought out. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Mon Apr 9 10:01:27 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:01:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: AW: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2C4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070408122810.01f15d60@lacnic.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20070409073425.03c36d88@lacnic.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2C4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Why should this be institutionalized at all, especially at the international level? Once we agree there is little if any technical constraint, why assume we need a political one? I certainly don't accept that as a matter of faith, nor in fact do I see why it would be legitimate to create it. And to the extent it would work through/with existing structures, they're most certainly not bottom-up and hence not self-legitimating. On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > My conclusion from the debate so far is that there is a missing link in > the mechanism of involved institutions and organisations. We all agree > that ICANN should not go beyond its narrow defined technical mandate. A > lot of us agree also that it should not be the GAC (alone) to make the > final decision. Other IG organisations (potential partners in the > process of enhanced cooperation) are even worse positioned to make such > a decision. One conclusion could be to create a new multistakeholder > body for cases like this which gets for very narrow defined cases a > final decision making mandate. This could be a joint GAC/ICANN Working > Group or something new. Any ideas? > > Wolfgang > > > -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<--____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Apr 9 10:08:41 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 11:08:41 -0300 Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <461A29B0.2050006@rits.org.br> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2A6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <461A29B0.2050006@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <461A48E9.5070404@rits.org.br> Got a response: ICANN did consult the government of Spain on it -- anyway, obvious procedure. frt rgds --c.a. Carlos Afonso wrote: > Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: >> > [...] >> Who is right? Is it consumer confusion or is it consumer choice? ALAC >> is planning to organize a workshop on that issue in San Juan to >> figure out the arguments of pro and con. But the more interesting >> issues is who decides on .berlin? If ICANN follows the .xxx procedure >> it will ask the GAC. GAC members will ask the German government but >> the German government has an internal problem to harmonize different >> approaches on the federal and the local level. If it is seen as a >> "cultural affair", then according to the German constiution, the >> federal government has no competences. Does it mean, that for such a >> decision ICANN has to consult with the local authorities directly? >> And how other governments will see this? Some may be happy to have >> next to the ccTLD also some big (or small) cities with a TLD for >> local marketing, tourism, local economy promotion, local language >> support (like .cat) etc. Others will fear that this will become very >> counterproductive, undermining national monopolies etc. > > Curiosity: did ICANN through GAC consult with Spain's government on > deciding on .cat? > > --c.a. > -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor *************************************************************** Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br *************************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Apr 9 10:15:22 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 16:15:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: In the wake of RegisterFly, is ICANN taking flight? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <954259bd0704090715o19a22fc5w29623ca512696e48@mail.gmail.com> Point well taken, Yehuda, As you mention, I was indeed mistaken by the spacing and attributed the words to you. So my reminder is rather directed a M. Hanson (or Hansen). :-) On substance, a very concrete element : the debate he refers to about the legal status of ICANN - and in particular the recent mention in the President's Strategic Report of the possible future evolution of its legal status has nothing to do with the RegisterFly debacle. It very much predates it and is on a completely different level. The discussion is part of the delicate issue of the future institutional architecture of Internet Governance that occupied so much of the time of the WSIS. ICANN was incorporated as a non-profit California corporation in large part by lack of any other truly international structure available, apart from intergovernmental treaty organizations. Remember this was 1998. The discussion today is about inventing the right type of framework for truly multi-stakeholder governance mechanisms, as Wolfgang and I have consistently argued. Examining existing models (such as the Red Cross or other Fertilizer association) is only food for thought and not a direct comparison in terms of functionalities. Nobody can claim he/she has the ultimate solution. And we all have a joint responsibility to invent it. As Saint Exupery said : "You cannot predict the future, but you can enable it". The most difficult activity in the coming months and years will be to separate the right questions from conspiracy theories; and to do so without appearing to look down upon people who are coming into the discussion without the ten-year background information on the debates that already took place. in particular, could everybody accept that it is possible to point ICANN's shortcomings and try to remedy them, and at the same time recognize that people working in it and its board members in particular are also trying to do good and are not just mischevious machiavelian traitors to the cause of the global Internet Community ? I see the present debate heating up with a mixture of attraction and fear : attraction because such discussions are long overdue and it is worth having them : the underlying issues are essential; but fear also because common sense can be easily overcome by righteous passions and mutual respect is rapidly lost in the process. There is an important criteria to appreciate people's comments : do they help everybody understand the issues or somebody's position better ? do they introduce principles that unify or principles that divide ? do they help shape a better system, that will be more just and more efficient for everybody ? or will they generate more anger and opposition ? The latter is easier. But let's give credit to those who try more constructive approaches. This does not mean there should be no debate, quite on the contrary, but just that it should pit ideas against ideas rather than people against people. Unless these people are renouncing their very humanity and, carried away by the seduction of their own arguments, become mere instruments of the ideas they believe in. Looking forward to substantive and constructive contributions on the real question : what is the future institutional architecture of Internet Governance ? and where should it be discussed ? Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle On a personnal basis and not as an official French position. Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") On 4/9/07, yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > > Bertrand, > > Just to clairify, the statements were from an artical, and are not my > words. > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/05/icann_registerfly_litigation > > > I think the Author [Burke Hansen] a US citizen, realizes that ICANN was > incorporated as " a nonprofit public benefit corporation ... " and > > His point is in regards to ICANN working under the status of an > International > Organization (Body), and using that status as an indemnifying shield, from > legal culpability. > > > The comparison He made was with the International Red Cross and > International > Olympic Committee (IOC) > > re: > > "... Why would ICANN need Red Cross-style international legal protections > when > it's not out saving refugees and inoculating babies like the Red Cross? > The > international organization that ICANN does have something in common with > is one > famous for its opaqueness and arrogant lack of accountability, the > International Olympic Committee (IOC). ICANN's not saving the world. Like > it or > not, ICANN is engaged in commerce, not charity work, although it is a > California nonprofit corporation. The IOC, too, is engaged in commerce, > which > is marketing the Olympics and extorting stadium facilities out of local > communities. It would be unfortunate if ICANN were to take advantage of > the > RegisterFly mess as an excuse to lock itself away from public opinion the > way > the IOC has. ..." > > > Being a US Non-Profit Organization, does not create an 'International > Body', of > which sanctioning of its "International" status ironically could be done > by the > U.N. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Mon Apr 9 10:23:35 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 22:23:35 +0800 Subject: AW: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2C4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070408122810.01f15d60@lacnic.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20070409073425.03c36d88@lacnic.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2C4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <461A4C67.4070603@Malcolm.id.au> Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > My conclusion from the debate so far is that there is a missing link in the mechanism of involved institutions and organisations. We all agree that ICANN should not go beyond its narrow defined technical mandate. A lot of us agree also that it should not be the GAC (alone) to make the final decision. Other IG organisations (potential partners in the process of enhanced cooperation) are even worse positioned to make such a decision. One conclusion could be to create a new multistakeholder body for cases like this which gets for very narrow defined cases a final decision making mandate. This could be a joint GAC/ICANN Working Group or something new. Any ideas? The missing link is the institutionalisation of the process towards enhanced cooperation. Perhaps the IGF could evolve into a forum for that process. Yes I know that the IGF and enhanced cooperation are not the same thing now, but we don't have *anything* to show for enhanced cooperation now. There is therefore no reason why, when the IGF is reviewed following its fifth meeting, these two WSIS outcomes could not be reintegrated. The IGF would need to be restructured of course (it does anyway), perhaps with the Bureau idea being revisited, but with much more attention being paid to its structure and processes than was shown in convening the Advisory Group. These questions are amongst those that the IGF itself should consider (though no, I don't think that's likely to be allowed to happen). -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Mon Apr 9 10:31:41 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:31:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <20070409074803.24050E0475@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070409074803.24050E0475@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <00e701c77ab3$cc502e90$64f08bb0$@com> HI Parminder I agree that ICANN hasn’t had space in the past for CS groups from other parts of the world, but the model for participation is now being implemented, and it would be cool if people checked out the RALOs that are now forming. Quite a few groups from the Caribbean have joined in within the last few months, and we are now seeing how it works out. Let’s see if they work as a space for CS within ICANN. If not – there’s a review upcoming and space for change. I think that it’s important to participate in all the spaces, not leave out one or the other because it isn’t a friendly space – it’s to join and force the space to be more friendly and make the other groups listen to our concerns. Jacqueline From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 3:48 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Hi I have been trying to take some lessons from the very interesting .xxx debate on this list for the advocacy work that IGC could/needs to do…. This is in keeping with the dual nature of IGC’s mandate – being a discussion (and ideas development) space as well as doing advocacy work. And in the process I will also add some of my views on the subject. So, both Milton and Adam are right, in parts. .xxx discussion has been very useful and is important, and that we also need to think about what IGC wants to do about it. And a forum presenting itself for us to do something is the IGF consultations…. I have combined the threads on .xxx discussion and on going forward vis a vis IGC at IGF, and changed the subject line. It also makes for a very long email for which I apologize. .xxx issue is seen as the proxy for the broader issue of global IG public policy. There have been two main positions in this discussion (though the discussion in fact has been very nuanced and rich, and this two way typology is merely a convenient way to try to move towards some actionable items). ICANN shouldn’t do content management since it is public policy issue. But then who should ??? One side can be represented by Robin/ Milton’s views that .xxx is a public policy issue and ICANN should not have got into public policy arena, and should have stuck to its purely technical mandate. If we were to accept this, the major issue confronting us is – who does the public policy in this arena. To quote Milton…. >ICANN's control of the root, we believe, should not be used to exert policy leverage over things not directly related to >the coordination of unique identifiers. There are other, more decentralized mechanisms for dealing with the policy >problems. I would like know which ones are these. Milton, are you veering around to the point that there is no need for any global IG public policy processes/ structures… or, assuming you are counting in WIPO, WTO etc, that there is no need of some specifically IG/ IS ones? Milton has also spoken about the Framework Convention as being the way out. However, if that’s the real way forward as seen by Milton (and IGP) it is intriguing why we hear so little about it from them. It comes in Milton’s argumentations, for logical consistency, but if the real solution lies in an FC why doesn’t Milton’s considerable writing and advocacy energy get focused on it? The fact that an FC looks like a long way off (if ever possible) cannot deter us because civil society (CS) is still the right space/ actor to start developing the ground. And there are significant advantages in being the first mover. My this line of discussion with Milton/ IGP goes back to prepcom 2/3 of Tunis phase when I has just about started to know the IG world. IGP produced a paper on how ICANN shouldn’t do public policy, and promised to write another paper on who should do it then. I argued that the two are connected issues, so please hurry with your views on who should? As far as I know that second paper was never written. I know this is the difficult part, but it is important and inescapable. You cant speak about one thing without speaking about the other. So lets work on that …. It is a better way of taking public policy work away from ICANN, than saying first ICANN should abstain and then we will think of where the responsibility falls. I can never understand this logic of working for a public policy vacuum. The only reason for doing so can be that the default political/ policy situation works for some. And this is that the crux of the problem. And the real division is between those for whom the present IG political system is working and those for whom it isn’t. The visible division of opinions as described here on the policy role of ICANN is a red herring. Note that for many proponents on either side the present system is essentially fine, and they aren’t proposing specific alternatives. For those who think that the present system is BASICALLY wrong aren’t even positioned as one clear side of the debate. Karl has suggested that we can wait for some future period of maturity and consensus, and till then keep political issues off from our agenda. Politics doesn’t cease because one orders it to – every social structure is as completely political as another – the difference is only in the distribution of power within the structure … So, this stance that ICANN shouldn’t do public policy is not meaningful without some clarity about, and clear evidence of devotion of energy for moving towards, what may be legitimate public policy structures. I think IGC should be strongly pushing for a ‘legitimate public policy space’ for IG in a single-minded devotion to the cause. It can be done through persistent efforts at seeking accountability regarding the enhanced cooperation proposal, and it could be about beginning a CS sponsored set of activities for developing internationally applicable public policy principles for IG and proposing structural innovations for it. Here, I am not specifically pushing the FC agenda though something like that looks to me the way to go. Content management is political and ICANN-GAC system is fine in doing it. But is it representative and legitimate … The second stream that came out of the .xxx debate is of those who accept that ICANN work involves socio-political considerations and that it is important for ICANN to be sensitive to these. The proponents of this position accept that ICANN does public policy – independently, or through its uneasy relationship with GAC. This group seems to be comfortable with ICANN – GAC doing the required public policy, and, as I understand, look forward to an evolution of this system as more IG policy issues come up. My problem with this stance is that I see ICANN as very unrepresentative of the vast majority of the world, and therefore not a legitimate body for this role. There is no connect between this big majority and ICANN structures. No development sector CS constituencies are represented and private sector and big corporations are over represented, making for an exact inversion of how public bodies need to be shaped for our objectives of a more just, equal and free world. And in my view these distortions are structural and cannot be corrected by incremental changes. And now as the government sector gets better and better accommodated by ICANN, we may be moving towards an alliance of the rich, corporates and governments doing mutual accommodations and governing the most important infrastructure of the emerging information society in their interests. For me it is a scary scenario. I quote a recent email by Mawaki. >Meanwhile, the transition has unfortunately been on and on... >too long, untill now all the governments are realizing what power they can exert over the central infrastructure of the >Net ….. In a short while, they will all love ICANN and oppose any institutional change;…... The CS from the South (and most non-tech background progressive groups from the North) do NOT see ICANN as a friendly space at all. They feel relatively more comfortable at the IGF, and will be comfortable with an international FC kind of process. For this reason, as starting point, we need to be able to discuss ICANN at IGF. Our plans for IGF I am not in favor of just repeating our February statement at the May IGF consultations. That time one person could veto the proposal that we demand ICANN be discussed at the IGF. I don’t see how we can move forward with such a situation. If IGC cant ask ICANN to be discussed at IGF, then we have more faith in ICANN than the IGF. I think this is a kind a basic position on which I will rather go for a caucus voting and clarify for once and for all. We cant do any advocacy at all if we remain shackled with these kinds of things. If we cant discuss ICANN at IGF I myself don’t see much point in going there. I have a feeling that with ICANN and IGF being seen as ‘our’ spaces as against those where governments dominate, we are becoming too much of insiders in these institutions, and do not much look like a CS group anymore, which always have a strong and boiling advocacy issue or two, for which they may be ready to be aggressive and make protests etc…. So, I propose that we identify some clear advocacy agendas and plan our strategies around them. Otherwise we aren’t making much impact, and aren’t representing the wider CS issues and interests that we promised to do in our charter. In brief, I think we should be pushing for three themes strongly for Rio – (1) Asking insistently about what’ s on with global IG public policy processes and structures – speaking about the enhanced cooperation process, and in case there is sufficient internal consensus in CS, try to build towards an FC kind of process. (2) Call for a forum within IGF to discuss ICANN – to have ICANN interface with and be accountable to the many constituencies (which by far makes the majority of the world’s population) which cant access its present structures. (3) Develop and discuss what constitutes a ‘development agenda in IG’. A really through discussion will help us go beyond the tokenistic listing of ‘access’ as the main agenda of Rio. Parminder -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/752 - Release Date: 4/8/2007 8:34 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/752 - Release Date: 4/8/2007 8:34 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Mon Apr 9 11:52:31 2007 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 11:52:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <46197BDC.8020608@ipjustice.org> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070408122810.01f15d60@lacnic.net> <46197BDC.8020608@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: As has already been ably put here: >In the physical world, cultural spaces and the corresponding communities are separated by some physical distance >.. >the Internet is a common space and it does not provide similar boundaries or a continuum for progressively moving from one cultural space to another. However. While one challenge is to understand and deal with differences, there are some underlying continuities. Surely these continuities are the essential context. Specifically. Well prior to the Internet, separate cultures have found themselves increasingly brought into confrontation with each other. Transportation technology, and then communications technology, catalyzed the junction. Worlds that would otherwise have stayed separate much longer have instead collided. The results are often not pretty, and certainly there are clashes. Only last week for example in Indonesia, a person associated with Playboy magazine was finally acquitted in a court case, a case that circled around non-Internet media in conflict with local values. This is only a recent illustration where non-Internet media facilitate, to bring cultures face to face with no straightforward means to commensurate or to conciliate between them. While the Internet may be a next step in that acceleration of confrontation, the problem has been with us for a very long time in fact. Most all our societies show it, certainly in the US where culture clash is almost the order of the day, but in many societies. The backlash that is common against immigrant populations has some of this as an element; regional conflicts, internal to a national setting, may be some of the most vicious. Where does this occur? In the case of the Internet, the most recent venue, the event is not in a place (as we mean that conventionally) - the Internet is rather a place in the mind. And of course it is just the latest in a very long list of places in the mind - novels, movies, oral histories, chautauqua meetings, vaudeville, itinerant troupes ... Though some of these examples involve physical places and gatherings, the essential event is a shared experience in the mind. And while the Internet has further accelerated the confrontation among differing cultural codes of conduct, in this very long history, there are also - at least faint - divides still available on the Internet. We only go to a page if we click, at least if we maintain popup control. So our problem is as old as mankind. What is one particularly potent element in the place in the mind? Symbols. These symbols have often been the spur for the most heinous neighbor-killing-a-neighbor, civil wars between intra-national cultures that go on for as long as decades. Decisions that many take to regard symbols will - perforce - be deemed policy, beyond the technical. There will be technical questions that distinguish the new Internet medium. Policy, regarding age-old questions, will also it seems be unavoidable. As some here are noting. To quote Bertrand - again - "[This debate] deserves better than just talking past one another." To quote him further, and more recently, "do [comments here] help everybody understand the issues or somebody's position better ? do they introduce principles that unify or principles that divide ? do they help shape a better system, that will be more just and more efficient for everybody ? " Parminder has pointed out that this discussion is one, important, proxy in the larger discussion of governance. Hopefully the discussion can learn the more useful contours. David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From llynch at civil-tongue.net Mon Apr 9 12:11:41 2007 From: llynch at civil-tongue.net (Lucy Lynch) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 09:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <46197BDC.8020608@ipjustice.org> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070408122810.01f15d60@lacnic.net> <46197BDC.8020608@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <20070409082140.O80672@hiroshima.bogus.com> On Sun, 8 Apr 2007, Robin Gross wrote: > I don't understand what is meant below by "ultra liberal" but it seems to > imply "extreme". > But the more "radical" view, in my opinion, is that one community should be > able to prevent the lawful speech of another community. That is the position ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I continue to be confused by this statement/position. I see nothing in the current ruling that prevents owners of triple xxx content from registering domain names (in multiple g/ccTLds) and from putting up their content. It seems to me (following up on Adam's point about the DNS as a business rather that a technical solution) that what's being denied here is a content specific label which is both a two edged sword (marketing vs filtering) and a major business opportunity. Different thing. One of the primary uses of the DNS was/is to provide simple mapping of Internet numbers to names for mere humans. The more you kruft up every layer of naming, the more likely humans become to use a google/yahoo/ [name your favorite engine here] search rather than a DNS based URL. Routing around the DNS makes name registration less interesting (in the long run) as a way to reach end users. See: http://www.circleid.com/posts/google_top_10_search_terms_trademarks/ and http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/zeitgeist.html I'm in favor of a really simple tree and the underlying model for the original tree has already been set (see RFCs 1034/1035) based on a mix of geography and early history. It is to late to undo some of the early model which turned out to be US centric (.edu/.mil/.gov etc) but not to late to stop making those same kinds of mistakes. I also think that .travel, .mobi, .museum, etc. are just plain silly. Freighting the DNS with additional functionality/overhead to support specific business models is a bad idea, what ever the business. There are lots of technical issues which are much more interesting. IDN springs to mind in the context of communities and speech. - Lucy > which blatantly diverts from centuries of freedom of expression > jurisprudence, most notably Art. 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human > Rights (and national protections like the US Constitution). > Why should legal standards for freedom of expression be violated in the ICANN > context? > > Robin > > > Raul Echeberria wrote: > >> At 11:56 a.m. 08/04/2007, Milton Mueller wrote: >> >>> Izumi: >>> You said: >>> >>> "...a [new GTLD proposal] should be put in place >>> only when there is a strong consensus by the community." >>> >>> Please conduct the following thought experiment. Substitute for the >>> word "new gTLD proposal" any other internet business in your statement. >>> Then you will understand why I am horrified by the attitude you are >>> expressing. >> >> >> >> It is very consistent with your ultra liberal position. >> Nobody can say that you are not coherent. >> >> >> Ra�l >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 karl at cavebear.com Mon Apr 9 12:52:01 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 09:52:01 -0700 Subject: [governance] Is ICANN "engaged in commerce" ? In-Reply-To: <954259bd0704090329q2aadf261leaf15fc633678144@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0704090329q2aadf261leaf15fc633678144@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <461A6F31.1010205@cavebear.com> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > This unequivocally underscores the public interest nature and purpose of > ICANN. ICANN is not "engaged in commerce" but is a structure set up to > serve the global public interest. Too many people seem to forget it. Despite ICANN's statement to the contrary, ICANN is most certainly engaged in commerce of the worst sort, and to my mind, a most improper, sort. ICANN can say many things. Words are cheap. But what ICANN does belies and supersedes what it says. ICANN stands astride the marketplace of domain names. ICANN engages in social, economic, and economic planning, largely on behalf of two incumbent groups - the intellectual property aggregation (as opposed to the intellectual property creation) industry and the DNS registry industry. There is very little "public interest" or "public benefit" in that process. What is commerce? It is the ebb and flow of goods and services, vendors and consumers, innovators and builders. ICANN not only swims in the waters of commerce; ICANN intends to affect, and does effect, the streams of commerce. What are those trademarks that ICANN tries so hard to protect but the marks used to identify and distinguish the goods and services flowing in the channels of commerce? And what are the registry fees except the prices that are paid by one group in commerce to another group engaged in commerce? Indeed, virtually everything ICANN does is in commerce. ICANN does not so much engage in commerce as it attempts to regulate it. Indeed, it is fair to describe ICANN as a combination of incumbent economic interests that seeks to restrain the trade in domain name products and services. Which is sad because ICANN has left undone exactly those things it was created to do. ICANN was created to deal with some very limited technical issues. ICANN has not handled even one of those issues. Consequently the same risks of internet instability that ICANN was intended to cure remain. Internet users and internet providers, people and businesses, are at risk of internet instability because ICANN has abandoned its post. The internet community needed ICANN to be a fireman to protect against DNS fires. Instead, ICANN has abandoned the firehouse and moved uptown. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From raul at lacnic.net Mon Apr 9 13:10:05 2007 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 14:10:05 -0300 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070409111126.0406d9c8@lacnic.net> At 11:00 a.m. 09/04/2007, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>> raul at lacnic.net 4/9/2007 6:37 AM >>> > >What i say is that this issue is less important > >than it seems. If we are talking about freedom of > >expression, so, it is very important, but if we > >are only talking about market regulation, so, the > >imporance of this issue is different. > >We are talking about both, Raul. You cannot have free expression >without an ability to freely utilize the means of media production. >People who discuss free software or net neutrality, to shift the context >somewhat, are talking about both commercial and noncommercial activity >that is fostered by the open, neutral access to the resource in >question. Nobody express him/herself trhough a domain name. If you want to access an adult conten website, you can do it (of course, with the limitations that everybody know, what is a real censorship problem). The existence of .xxx will not chnge anything in relation with your abiltiy to do it. If you want to create or host an adult content website you can do it (of course, if it is legal in your country). The existence of .xxx will not change anything in relation with your abitlity to do it. So, there is not a problem about freedom of expression. While you think that my view "is not clearly thought out" , I still think that nobody has demonstrated that freedom of expression os affected by this decision about .xxx. We are talking about a different thing. So, let's focus correctly this discussion. Personally, I think that there are some process in place for creating new TLDs. I understand thay you don't like those process, and I respect your view, but while those process are in place, what we can question is if the process are correctly used. The specific case of .xxx is much more complicated and less important of what you try to show. Is not an issue between governments and the rest of the community, is not only a matter of lobbysm. There are a lot of people and organizations (not governmental) that think that this domain is not appropriated. So, the lack of a strong community support (as Carlos already has said) is obvious. IMHO we are wasting time discussing this issue. ICANN Board has taken a decision that has significant support through different stakeholders in the Internet community. Clearly it is not either the best or the worst thing that ICANN has done. I am sure that there are other cases in which it is much more important to be meticulous regarding principles. Raúl >Governments who want to regulate and restrict expression inevitably do >so via economic regulation as well as direct censorship, e.g. by limitng >the number of ISPs in a market or by refusing to make radio spectrum >resources available for civilian and commercial use. Your attempt to >drive a wedge between the two is not clearly thought out. > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/751 - >Release Date: 07/04/2007 10:57 p.m. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Apr 9 13:49:08 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:49:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Is ICANN "engaged in commerce" ? In-Reply-To: <461A6F31.1010205@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <29744.17492.qm@web58709.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Certianly, certainly! But what would you say to those who argue that ICANN had no choice getting into those non-technical issues for at least a somehow practical reason: avoid lawsuits and the bankruptcy that might ensue? Mawaki --- Karl Auerbach wrote: > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > > This unequivocally underscores the public interest nature > and purpose of > > ICANN. ICANN is not "engaged in commerce" but is a structure > set up to > > serve the global public interest. Too many people seem to > forget it. > > Despite ICANN's statement to the contrary, ICANN is most > certainly > engaged in commerce of the worst sort, and to my mind, a most > improper, > sort. > > ICANN can say many things. Words are cheap. But what ICANN > does belies > and supersedes what it says. > > ICANN stands astride the marketplace of domain names. ICANN > engages in > social, economic, and economic planning, largely on behalf of > two > incumbent groups - the intellectual property aggregation (as > opposed to > the intellectual property creation) industry and the DNS > registry > industry. There is very little "public interest" or "public > benefit" in > that process. > > What is commerce? It is the ebb and flow of goods and > services, vendors > and consumers, innovators and builders. ICANN not only swims > in the > waters of commerce; ICANN intends to affect, and does effect, > the > streams of commerce. What are those trademarks that ICANN > tries so hard > to protect but the marks used to identify and distinguish the > goods and > services flowing in the channels of commerce? And what are > the registry > fees except the prices that are paid by one group in commerce > to another > group engaged in commerce? > > Indeed, virtually everything ICANN does is in commerce. ICANN > does not > so much engage in commerce as it attempts to regulate it. > Indeed, it is > fair to describe ICANN as a combination of incumbent economic > interests > that seeks to restrain the trade in domain name products and > services. > > Which is sad because ICANN has left undone exactly those > things it was > created to do. > > ICANN was created to deal with some very limited technical > issues. > ICANN has not handled even one of those issues. Consequently > the same > risks of internet instability that ICANN was intended to cure > remain. > Internet users and internet providers, people and businesses, > are at > risk of internet instability because ICANN has abandoned its > post. > > The internet community needed ICANN to be a fireman to protect > against > DNS fires. Instead, ICANN has abandoned the firehouse and > moved uptown. > > --karl-- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 karl at cavebear.com Mon Apr 9 13:59:24 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 10:59:24 -0700 Subject: [governance] Is ICANN "engaged in commerce" ? In-Reply-To: <29744.17492.qm@web58709.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <29744.17492.qm@web58709.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <461A7EFC.1000407@cavebear.com> Mawaki Chango wrote: > Certianly, certainly! But what would you say to those who argue > that ICANN had no choice getting into those non-technical issues > for at least a somehow practical reason: avoid lawsuits and the > bankruptcy that might ensue? Avoid what lawsuits? Trademark ones? To that I answer thusly: There is an existing and appropriate system of laws and mechanisms though which a trademark owner who feels that its rights have been violated can go forward and seek to vindicate those rights. We do not need to invent an alternative system just for the internet. What bankruptcy? Of registrars/registries? Are we doing governance or consumer protection? The process that ICANN has established is based on a very strange logic that requires that ICANN transform DNS businesses into permanent institutions that can never be allowed to fail. That, in the words of internet engineers, does not scale. My own answer is to adopt a limited system, one in which consumers of domain name products are empowered to make their own choices on the basis of yearly statements published by DNS vendors that attest that the vendor has, and uses, business asset protection practices that are adequate to assure that a successor in interest can pick up the pieces and resurrect the DNS records in case human or natural events cause the DNS provider to wobble. We really do not need big, heavy bodies of internet governance to do this. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Apr 9 14:04:13 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 11:04:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Is ICANN "engaged in commerce" ? In-Reply-To: <461A7EFC.1000407@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070409180413.33834.qmail@web58704.mail.re1.yahoo.com> In your model, which seems free of any policy authority or political (or not) oversight, who will authorize changes in the DNS root? Mawaki --- Karl Auerbach wrote: > Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Certianly, certainly! But what would you say to those who > argue > > that ICANN had no choice getting into those non-technical > issues > > for at least a somehow practical reason: avoid lawsuits and > the > > bankruptcy that might ensue? > > Avoid what lawsuits? Trademark ones? To that I answer > thusly: There is > an existing and appropriate system of laws and mechanisms > though which a > trademark owner who feels that its rights have been violated > can go > forward and seek to vindicate those rights. > > We do not need to invent an alternative system just for the > internet. > > What bankruptcy? Of registrars/registries? Are we doing > governance or > consumer protection? > > The process that ICANN has established is based on a very > strange logic > that requires that ICANN transform DNS businesses into > permanent > institutions that can never be allowed to fail. That, in the > words of > internet engineers, does not scale. > > My own answer is to adopt a limited system, one in which > consumers of > domain name products are empowered to make their own choices > on the > basis of yearly statements published by DNS vendors that > attest that the > vendor has, and uses, business asset protection practices that > are > adequate to assure that a successor in interest can pick up > the pieces > and resurrect the DNS records in case human or natural events > cause the > DNS provider to wobble. > > We really do not need big, heavy bodies of internet governance > to do this. > > --karl-- > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 9 14:10:38 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 14:10:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? Message-ID: >>> raul at lacnic.net 4/9/2007 1:10:05 PM >>> >Nobody express him/herself trhough a domain name. That is manifestly false. And if it were true, then there would be no need to censor or restrict the labels used in the TLD, right? >I still think that nobody has demonstrated >that freedom of expression os >affected by this decision about .xxx. I would suggest that you have not been reading most of what is written here. (In other words, I can be as stubborn as you ;-) Besides, we are not simply discussing .xxx, we are discussing the policy implications of restricting strings that are controversial or offensive or troublesome to some members of the global community. On relationship between expression and domain names see this: http://www.out-law.com/page-3313 >So, the lack of a strong community >support (as Carlos already has said) is obvious. And as I have argued several times, if expression or ideas or businesses (no important distinction here) must get "community support" before they can be expressed or tried out, you don't have a free internet anymore. This issue goes well beyond .xxx >IMHO we are wasting time discussing this issue. You are welcome to stop discussing it. I think it's important and will continue expressing my concern about the implications. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Mon Apr 9 14:44:59 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 14:44:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070409111126.0406d9c8@lacnic.net> References: <7.0.1.0.1.20070409111126.0406d9c8@lacnic.net> Message-ID: people do express themeselves through domain names, although it's rare. The most common are 'critic' sites, of which the most famous was Guinnessbeerreallyreallysucks.com . Amazingly, they LOST a UDRP case on the theory that someone might be confused with the real beer company. On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Raul Echeberria wrote: > At 11:00 a.m. 09/04/2007, Milton Mueller wrote: >> >>> raul at lacnic.net 4/9/2007 6:37 AM >>> >> >What i say is that this issue is less important >> >than it seems. If we are talking about freedom of >> >expression, so, it is very important, but if we >> >are only talking about market regulation, so, the >> >imporance of this issue is different. >> >> We are talking about both, Raul. You cannot have free expression >> without an ability to freely utilize the means of media production. >> People who discuss free software or net neutrality, to shift the context >> somewhat, are talking about both commercial and noncommercial activity >> that is fostered by the open, neutral access to the resource in >> question. > > Nobody express him/herself trhough a domain name. > If you want to access an adult conten website, you can do it (of course, with > the limitations that everybody know, what is a real censorship problem). The > existence of .xxx will not chnge anything in relation with your abiltiy to do > it. > If you want to create or host an adult content website you can do it (of > course, if it is legal in your country). The existence of .xxx will not > change anything in relation with your abitlity to do it. > > So, there is not a problem about freedom of expression. While you think that > my view "is not clearly thought out" , I still think that nobody has > demonstrated that freedom of expression os affected by this decision about > .xxx. > > We are talking about a different thing. So, let's focus correctly this > discussion. > > Personally, I think that there are some process in place for creating new > TLDs. I understand thay you don't like those process, and I respect your > view, but while those process are in place, what we can question is if the > process are correctly used. > > The specific case of .xxx is much more complicated and less important of what > you try to show. Is not an issue between governments and the rest of the > community, is not only a matter of lobbysm. There are a lot of people and > organizations (not governmental) that think that this domain is not > appropriated. So, the lack of a strong community support (as Carlos already > has said) is obvious. > > IMHO we are wasting time discussing this issue. ICANN Board has taken a > decision that has significant support through different stakeholders in the > Internet community. Clearly it is not either the best or the worst thing that > ICANN has done. I am sure that there are other cases in which it is much more > important to be meticulous regarding principles. > > Raúl > > > > > > > >> Governments who want to regulate and restrict expression inevitably do >> so via economic regulation as well as direct censorship, e.g. by limitng >> the number of ISPs in a market or by refusing to make radio spectrum >> resources available for civilian and commercial use. Your attempt to >> drive a wedge between the two is not clearly thought out. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/751 - Release Date: 07/04/2007 >> 10:57 p.m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<--____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Mon Apr 9 14:46:01 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 14:46:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Is ICANN "engaged in commerce" ? In-Reply-To: <29744.17492.qm@web58709.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <29744.17492.qm@web58709.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: strongly disagree - there would have been fewer costs and far fewer suits if they had set up simple and neutral rules. It's keeping the lid on the artificial scarcity that has consumed resources and caused people to sue them. On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Certianly, certainly! But what would you say to those who argue > that ICANN had no choice getting into those non-technical issues > for at least a somehow practical reason: avoid lawsuits and the > bankruptcy that might ensue? > > Mawaki > > > --- Karl Auerbach wrote: > >> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> >>> This unequivocally underscores the public interest nature >> and purpose of >>> ICANN. ICANN is not "engaged in commerce" but is a structure >> set up to >>> serve the global public interest. Too many people seem to >> forget it. >> >> Despite ICANN's statement to the contrary, ICANN is most >> certainly >> engaged in commerce of the worst sort, and to my mind, a most >> improper, >> sort. >> >> ICANN can say many things. Words are cheap. But what ICANN >> does belies >> and supersedes what it says. >> >> ICANN stands astride the marketplace of domain names. ICANN >> engages in >> social, economic, and economic planning, largely on behalf of >> two >> incumbent groups - the intellectual property aggregation (as >> opposed to >> the intellectual property creation) industry and the DNS >> registry >> industry. There is very little "public interest" or "public >> benefit" in >> that process. >> >> What is commerce? It is the ebb and flow of goods and >> services, vendors >> and consumers, innovators and builders. ICANN not only swims >> in the >> waters of commerce; ICANN intends to affect, and does effect, >> the >> streams of commerce. What are those trademarks that ICANN >> tries so hard >> to protect but the marks used to identify and distinguish the >> goods and >> services flowing in the channels of commerce? And what are >> the registry >> fees except the prices that are paid by one group in commerce >> to another >> group engaged in commerce? >> >> Indeed, virtually everything ICANN does is in commerce. ICANN >> does not >> so much engage in commerce as it attempts to regulate it. >> Indeed, it is >> fair to describe ICANN as a combination of incumbent economic >> interests >> that seeks to restrain the trade in domain name products and >> services. >> >> Which is sad because ICANN has left undone exactly those >> things it was >> created to do. >> >> ICANN was created to deal with some very limited technical >> issues. >> ICANN has not handled even one of those issues. Consequently >> the same >> risks of internet instability that ICANN was intended to cure >> remain. >> Internet users and internet providers, people and businesses, >> are at >> risk of internet instability because ICANN has abandoned its >> post. >> >> The internet community needed ICANN to be a fireman to protect >> against >> DNS fires. Instead, ICANN has abandoned the firehouse and >> moved uptown. >> >> --karl-- >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, 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 > -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From raul at lacnic.net Mon Apr 9 15:07:21 2007 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:07:21 -0300 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070409151717.04429658@lacnic.net> At 03:10 p.m. 09/04/2007, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>> raul at lacnic.net 4/9/2007 1:10:05 PM >>> > >Nobody express him/herself trhough a domain name. > >That is manifestly false. Sorry, I forgot that you are the only owner of the true. > And if it were true, then there would be no >need to censor or restrict the labels used in the TLD, right? I don't see your point and the relation of this question with my positions. > >I still think that nobody has demonstrated > >that freedom of expression os > >affected by this decision about .xxx. > >I would suggest that you have not been reading most of what is written >here. (In other words, I can be as stubborn as you ;-) >Besides, we are not simply discussing .xxx, we are discussing the >policy implications of restricting strings that are controversial or >offensive or troublesome to some members of the global community. I have already expressed my view. There is no need for repeting it, in spite of your offensive style. >On relationship between expression and domain names see this: >http://www.out-law.com/page-3313 Thank you. It doesn't change my mind. The domain name is only an instrument. The important is the content, even in this case that you mention. Of course, as in any other case, there are some instruments that are better than others. > >So, the lack of a strong community > >support (as Carlos already has said) is obvious. > >And as I have argued several times, if expression or ideas or >businesses (no important distinction here) must get "community support" >before they can be expressed Nobody question the ability of persons of expressing their ideas, or showing the contents they want, even pronography, or doing business with those contents. >or tried out, you don't have a free >internet anymore. This issue goes well beyond .xxx > > >IMHO we are wasting time discussing this issue. > >You are welcome to stop discussing it. I think it's important and will >continue expressing my concern about the implications. > Milton, don't be arrogant. You can not indirectly invite me to stop participating in this discussion. I can do it, and I will do it when I want. And of course, you have all the right (that anybody question) to continue expresssing your concerns, ideas or whatever. Raúl ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From shailam at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 15:15:48 2007 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:15:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Lets REGROUP : Where are we going? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <214802.41092.qm@web54313.mail.yahoo.com> Hi All Since we all have strong views on this and have responded heatedly from our respective positions, may I suggest that we regroup and establish some clear issues and concepts and then proceed to outline our position as Civil Society and as Private Sector. My suggestion is that that one or two amongst us who REALLY understand the issues surrounding use of.xxx and the issues of Consumer protection and ICANN 's role and objectives, outline these clearly for all of us.We can the proceed to create some consensus. Shaila Rao Mistry President Jayco MMI Moderator, Next Gen IFUW conventional wisdom ?..... takes you some of the way... challenge assumptions !!....... GO all the way ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From shailam at yahoo.com Mon Apr 9 15:25:28 2007 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:25:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] [governance} Lets Regroup...Where are we going? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <127280.44004.qm@web54313.mail.yahoo.com> Hi All Since we all have strong views on this and have responded heatedly from our respective positions, may I suggest that we regroup and establish some clear issues and concepts and then proceed to outline our position as Civil Society and as Private Sector. My suggestion is that that one or two amongst us who REALLY understand the issues surrounding use of xxx and the issues of Consumer protection and ICANN 's role and objectives, outline these clearly for all of us.We can the proceed to create some consensus. Shaila Rao Mistry President Jayco MMI Moderator, Next Gen IFUW conventional wisdom ?..... takes you some of the way... challenge assumptions !!....... GO all the way ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From LFaubert at conceptum.ca Mon Apr 9 15:27:13 2007 From: LFaubert at conceptum.ca (Luc Faubert) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 15:27:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D2C4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Good question Wolfgang. I think the Internet and its users would benefit from a framework enabling global policy to be determined. Lots of people have intuited this solution in the last years. I've discussed the idea of such a framework with some of you at WSIS events and in Athens more recently, as well as on ISOC's public policy list. Here is an outline of one variation on the concept (with thanks to those who have provided suggestions in the last months): The Internet Policy Task Force (IPTF -- or whatever it's called), a global Internet policy building mechanism Context Activity in the Internet governance field has dramatically increased with the growing importance of the Internet for humans, along with WSIS events and their offspring, the Internet Governance Forum. These events have made it clear to many that solutions to Internet-related challenges have to span state boundaries for them to be effective. No national policy or laws alone can hope to solve problems faced by Internet users relating to spam, cyberlaw or privacy for example. Furthermore, no existing institution seems likely to have the capacity to eventually become an accepted clearinghouse for Internet-related policy. I propose the creation of an Internet Policy Task Force as a solution to this challenge. The Internet Policy Task Force The IPTF could be defined as a set of processes and tools which, given they are eventually recognized as worthwhile by the international community interested in Internet governance-related policy, could emerge as the de facto mechanism used by groups of people seeking to collaborate in order to draft concrete policy texts. The IPTF would be loosely based on the IETF's structure and processes, adapted to suit the needs of the policy-building process. Participation in working groups tackling discreet policies would be open to all, as are IETF's working groups. Output of the IPTF would be non-binding, although it could eventually exert some authority on countries and institutions due to the legitimacy and wide acceptance of its policy-building processes. Challenges - building a process and tools that are elegant, simple, scalable and that work well, - building support and momentum for the concept, - finding good leaders, - engaging participation by all stakeholders including governments, - dealing with multilinguism, - have small successes early on, - breaking the policy issues down in manageable chunks, - working online with many participants. Next steps Step 1. Bring together a working group of people interested in defining the IPTF's processes and tools in order to build a proof of concept. Step 2. Test the proof of concept in the next months, possibly within one of the dynamic coalitions that came out of the Athens IGF. Step 3. If the test is successful, propose the IPTF mechanism at the Rio IGF in November 2007. - Luc Faubert ISOC Québec _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca > -----Original Message----- > From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: 9 avril 2007 09:52 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Froomkin - U.Miami > School of Law; Raul Echeberria > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: AW: [governance] Where are we going? > > My conclusion from the debate so far is that there is a > missing link in the mechanism of involved institutions and > organisations. We all agree that ICANN should not go beyond > its narrow defined technical mandate. A lot of us agree also > that it should not be the GAC (alone) to make the final > decision. Other IG organisations (potential partners in the > process of enhanced cooperation) are even worse positioned to > make such a decision. One conclusion could be to create a new > multistakeholder body for cases like this which gets for very > narrow defined cases a final decision making mandate. This > could be a joint GAC/ICANN Working Group or something new. Any ideas? > > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Apr 9 15:41:14 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:41:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Is ICANN "engaged in commerce" ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <159015.67832.qm@web58710.mail.re1.yahoo.com> I see. As you probably may have understood, that is not exactly my own argument. More than once I've worried that the debates within the GNSO Council make the ICANN policy body look like a confederation (or whatever) of "trade union" delegates, each one arguing mainly for their sectoral interests. Individual participants sometimes (or maybe often) have little knowledge at a global scale, e.g. legal- and policy-wise, of what they are asking for, with analytical scope reduced to corporate particular interests. I guess that is in line with the "invisible hand" worldview whereby the general interest is merely the collection of the particular ones. After all, as far as I can tell, that view is widely dominant (or strong) in the US domestic policy venues and debates. And now I wonder, is it that surprising to see this happen with ICANN (where public policy authority is even more elusive, if anything)? Mawaki --- "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote: > strongly disagree - there would have been fewer costs and far > fewer suits > if they had set up simple and neutral rules. It's keeping the > lid on the > artificial scarcity that has consumed resources and caused > people to sue > them. > > On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > Certianly, certainly! But what would you say to those who > argue > > that ICANN had no choice getting into those non-technical > issues > > for at least a somehow practical reason: avoid lawsuits and > the > > bankruptcy that might ensue? > > > > Mawaki > > > > > > --- Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > >> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > >> > >>> This unequivocally underscores the public interest nature > >> and purpose of > >>> ICANN. ICANN is not "engaged in commerce" but is a > structure > >> set up to > >>> serve the global public interest. Too many people seem to > >> forget it. > >> > >> Despite ICANN's statement to the contrary, ICANN is most > >> certainly > >> engaged in commerce of the worst sort, and to my mind, a > most > >> improper, > >> sort. > >> > >> ICANN can say many things. Words are cheap. But what > ICANN > >> does belies > >> and supersedes what it says. > >> > >> ICANN stands astride the marketplace of domain names. > ICANN > >> engages in > >> social, economic, and economic planning, largely on behalf > of > >> two > >> incumbent groups - the intellectual property aggregation > (as > >> opposed to > >> the intellectual property creation) industry and the DNS > >> registry > >> industry. There is very little "public interest" or > "public > >> benefit" in > >> that process. > >> > >> What is commerce? It is the ebb and flow of goods and > >> services, vendors > >> and consumers, innovators and builders. ICANN not only > swims > >> in the > >> waters of commerce; ICANN intends to affect, and does > effect, > >> the > >> streams of commerce. What are those trademarks that ICANN > >> tries so hard > >> to protect but the marks used to identify and distinguish > the > >> goods and > >> services flowing in the channels of commerce? And what are > >> the registry > >> fees except the prices that are paid by one group in > commerce > >> to another > >> group engaged in commerce? > >> > >> Indeed, virtually everything ICANN does is in commerce. > ICANN > >> does not > >> so much engage in commerce as it attempts to regulate it. > >> Indeed, it is > >> fair to describe ICANN as a combination of incumbent > economic > >> interests > >> that seeks to restrain the trade in domain name products > and > >> services. > >> > >> Which is sad because ICANN has left undone exactly those > >> things it was > >> created to do. > >> > >> ICANN was created to deal with some very limited technical > >> issues. > >> ICANN has not handled even one of those issues. > Consequently > >> the same > >> risks of internet instability that ICANN was intended to > cure > >> remain. > >> Internet users and internet providers, people and > businesses, > >> are at > >> risk of internet instability because ICANN has abandoned > its > >> post. > >> > >> The internet community needed ICANN to be a fireman to > protect > >> against > >> DNS fires. Instead, ICANN has abandoned the firehouse and > >> moved uptown. > >> > >> --karl-- > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, 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 > > > > -- > http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: > http://www.discourse.net > A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | > froomkin at law.tm > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL > 33124 USA > +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | > http://www.law.tm > -->It's warm here.<-- > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Apr 9 15:50:23 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 15:50:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] [governance} Lets Regroup...Where are we going? Message-ID: Shailam, I have 10 minutes, here's my instant historical summary: 1) ICANN has striven since founding to focus on technical issues, and since founding has bumped into techno-policy issues that touch on rights of businesses (and individuals) of various sorts, and various parts of national governments and also other civil society actors a) Forget details of .xxx, or any other case, by now most on this list admit that ICANN is an industry regulator, perhaps too captured by the first special interests at the table (say, trademark holders) a)1 - never mind the man (or woman) behind the curtain from the US dept of commerce - or do mind, but they're not ready to go away just yet ( some theorize never) b) .XXX just made it obvious that status quo fiction of ICANN just doing technical things is just not plausible 2) some say ICANN must return to its original state which never really existed, IMHO, when all it did was technical coordination 3) Others say the animal evolves but stays as a techno-regulator primarily, with GAC/governmental and other civil society input (and really, wasn't it also silly that IGF I had to whisper about ICANN as He Who Shall Not Be Named?) 4) A second entity IGF, has just been created, while on wobbly feet some say it must evolve into a different animal, others say wait until is has talked for 5 years as per the original plan 5) A third instituion or mechanism - some calling it a framework convention, others a policy task force, others a refitted ICANN with extensions - is now also up for debate. 6) As per Karl Auerback's historical reminder, it is still early in this story, so let's do keep that in mind, and recognize all in all that things are progressing...well at least I think so! My time's up, but that's the story in my nutshell. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> shailam at yahoo.com 4/9/2007 3:25 PM >>> Hi All Since we all have strong views on this and have responded heatedly from our respective positions, may I suggest that we regroup and establish some clear issues and concepts and then proceed to outline our position as Civil Society and as Private Sector. My suggestion is that that one or two amongst us who REALLY understand the issues surrounding use of xxx and the issues of Consumer protection and ICANN 's role and objectives, outline these clearly for all of us.We can the proceed to create some consensus. Shaila Rao Mistry President Jayco MMI Moderator, Next Gen IFUW conventional wisdom ?..... takes you some of the way... challenge assumptions !!....... GO all the way ! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Apr 9 16:07:36 2007 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 16:07:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Lets Regroup...Where are we going? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We should all be appreciative for Lee's effort. But the last time I looked, we had elected coordinators who would make calls for such things. Indeed, Parminder, as one coordinator, has taken steps in just that direction. It would be nice if the caucus, which has worked so hard to find some coherence for its activities, was able to proceed in that direction. David At 3:50 PM -0400 4/9/07, Lee McKnight wrote: >Shailam, > >I have 10 minutes, here's my instant historical summary: > >1) ICANN has striven since founding to focus on technical issues, and since founding has bumped into techno-policy issues that touch on rights of businesses (and individuals) of various sorts, and various parts of national governments and also other civil society actors a) Forget details of .xxx, or any other case, by now most on this list admit that ICANN is an industry regulator, perhaps too captured by the first special interests at the table (say, trademark holders) >a)1 - never mind the man (or woman) behind the curtain from the US dept of commerce - or do mind, but they're not ready to go away just yet ( some theorize never) >b) .XXX just made it obvious that status quo fiction of ICANN just doing technical things is just not plausible > >2) some say ICANN must return to its original state which never really existed, IMHO, when all it did was technical coordination > >3) Others say the animal evolves but stays as a techno-regulator primarily, with GAC/governmental and other civil society input (and really, wasn't it also silly that IGF I had to whisper about ICANN as He Who Shall Not Be Named?) > >4) A second entity IGF, has just been created, while on wobbly feet some say it must evolve into a different animal, others say wait until is has talked for 5 years as per the original plan > >5) A third instituion or mechanism - some calling it a framework convention, others a policy task force, others a refitted ICANN with extensions - is now also up for debate. > >6) As per Karl Auerback's historical reminder, it is still early in this story, so let's do keep that in mind, and recognize all in all that things are progressing...well at least I think so! > >My time's up, but that's the story in my nutshell. > >Lee > > > >Prof. Lee W. McKnight >School of Information Studies >Syracuse University >+1-315-443-6891office >+1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>>> shailam at yahoo.com 4/9/2007 3:25 PM >>> >Hi All > > Since we all have strong views on this and have responded heatedly >from our respective positions, may I suggest that we regroup and >establish some clear issues and concepts and then proceed to outline our >position as Civil Society and as Private Sector. > > My suggestion is that that one or two amongst us who REALLY >understand the issues surrounding use of xxx and the issues of >Consumer protection and ICANN 's role and objectives, outline these >clearly for all of us.We can the proceed to create some consensus. > > Shaila Rao Mistry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Apr 9 16:28:30 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 06:28:30 +1000 Subject: [governance] [governance} Lets Regroup...Where are wegoing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <020901c77ae5$a82ed750$0fc0ed0a@IAN> And my ten minutes - I wrote this back in 2004. Nothing has changed much. Technical only coordination has been a myth for a long time as the summary shows - and the mechanism we have in ICANN is reactive rather than a sensible structure for internet governance. " The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) exists in its current form largely because the US Government wanted it to be so. Its structure is an evolving reactive mechanism. Anyone analysing its current structure without regard for the history of how it came to be would have to regard ICANN as * eccentric in structure * illogical in scope, and * incomplete in terms of Internet governance. The initial proposal for a body to administer the domain name system suggested establishment under Swiss law. However at the beginning of October 1998 the US Government's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) responded to this proposal by announcing the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN). It would operate under an agreement with the NTIA with oversight by the US congress. The new body was asked to ensure competition in delivery of domain name services. Thus ICANN became a corporation under US law, with a contract to operate from the US government, despite concerns of many stakeholders. ICANN claims its mission to be technical co-ordination. (ICANN website). However, because of the eccentricities and incomplete nature of Internet governance structures, ICANN has consistently worked in areas that cannot be regarded as technical co-ordination. For instance, in 1999 it succeeded in establishing a Uniform Dispute Resolutions Policy (UDRP) for the top level domains; hardly a technical co-ordination task, but certainly a useful one for development of the new media. Similarly eccentric is the role of ICANN in creating a competitive environment in DNS, part of its contract with US Department of Commerce. This would normally be seen as a regulatory body's responsibilities, not a technical co-ordination task. Public policy matters where ICANN is active include intellectual property issues and security. Public policy matters where ICANN is not active include spam and consumer protection. Once again, the logic of involvement and non-involvement is not easy to follow. Perhaps partially as a result of this mission confusion, ICANN does not handle public policy well or effectively. An example of this was its recent attempts to gain widespread public input in to the WHOIS database and privacy issues." (end quote from 2004) Which leads us to where are we going. If we are interested in Internet governance, we need to look well beyond ICANN and its current brief. The options seem to be 1. a complete rebuild and extension of scope of the current body under US surveillance or 2. something new with a structure more suitable to the Internet's needs. I don't usually engage in ICANN debates because I think the latter - a new body structured to needs - is the way forward. We need to move beyond a preoccupation with registries and registrars if our purpose is evolution of a suitable internet governance structure. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] Sent: 10 April 2007 05:50 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; shailam at yahoo.com Subject: Re: [governance] [governance} Lets Regroup...Where are wegoing? Shailam, I have 10 minutes, here's my instant historical summary: 1) ICANN has striven since founding to focus on technical issues, and since founding has bumped into techno-policy issues that touch on rights of businesses (and individuals) of various sorts, and various parts of national governments and also other civil society actors a) Forget details of .xxx, or any other case, by now most on this list admit that ICANN is an industry regulator, perhaps too captured by the first special interests at the table (say, trademark holders) a)1 - never mind the man (or woman) behind the curtain from the US dept of commerce - or do mind, but they're not ready to go away just yet ( some theorize never) b) .XXX just made it obvious that status quo fiction of ICANN just doing technical things is just not plausible 2) some say ICANN must return to its original state which never really existed, IMHO, when all it did was technical coordination 3) Others say the animal evolves but stays as a techno-regulator primarily, with GAC/governmental and other civil society input (and really, wasn't it also silly that IGF I had to whisper about ICANN as He Who Shall Not Be Named?) 4) A second entity IGF, has just been created, while on wobbly feet some say it must evolve into a different animal, others say wait until is has talked for 5 years as per the original plan 5) A third instituion or mechanism - some calling it a framework convention, others a policy task force, others a refitted ICANN with extensions - is now also up for debate. 6) As per Karl Auerback's historical reminder, it is still early in this story, so let's do keep that in mind, and recognize all in all that things are progressing...well at least I think so! My time's up, but that's the story in my nutshell. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> shailam at yahoo.com 4/9/2007 3:25 PM >>> Hi All Since we all have strong views on this and have responded heatedly from our respective positions, may I suggest that we regroup and establish some clear issues and concepts and then proceed to outline our position as Civil Society and as Private Sector. My suggestion is that that one or two amongst us who REALLY understand the issues surrounding use of xxx and the issues of Consumer protection and ICANN 's role and objectives, outline these clearly for all of us.We can the proceed to create some consensus. Shaila Rao Mistry President Jayco MMI Moderator, Next Gen IFUW conventional wisdom ?..... takes you some of the way... challenge assumptions !!....... GO all the way ! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.25/745 - Release Date: 03/04/2007 12:48 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.25/745 - Release Date: 03/04/2007 12:48 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Mon Apr 9 17:12:13 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 14:12:13 -0700 Subject: [governance] Is ICANN "engaged in commerce" ? In-Reply-To: <20070409180413.33834.qmail@web58704.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <20070409180413.33834.qmail@web58704.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <461AAC2D.5010806@cavebear.com> Mawaki Chango wrote: > In your model, which seems free of any policy authority or > political (or not) oversight, who will authorize changes in the > DNS root? Good question, and one that has been asked many times over the last decade. Here is the answer I have been giving, with minor variations, since 1997: First of all, neutral criteria should (or rather must) be used to determine who can apply. In order to avoid engaging in social or economic engineering (or rather, in order to leave that to established legislative bodies), the only question that should be asked is whether the applicant will abide by widely accepted and used written internet technical standards. If the answer is "yes" then we go onto the next step; if not, the applicant is sent away. Personally I feel that the applicant should be applying for a "slot" rather than a "name". A "slot" is a right to have a name of the applicant's choosing put into the root (as long as that name is not already in use and that the name does not violate IDN and other technical limitations on the characters that can be used in a name. No attempt should be made to inquire into the semantics of the name or the intended use either via HTTP or any other protocol.) Given that we want to avoid human procedural errors, the rate at which new TLDs are added should be something that can be handled by one person (assisted by program scripts) working on a normal full-time basis. I estimate that the average time to add a new TLD ought to be less than 5 minutes. That's roughly 100 TLDs each day. But for now let's say that the number is one per your, or 8 per day, 200 days per year, or about 1600 TLDs per year. After a year or two that rate could be increased substantially. There will certainly be more applicants than that rate can provide. So we need an allocation mechanism. It has long been urged that the most appropriate mechanism is an auction for the bulk of the slots and a lottery for some rather smaller remainder. The lotter is there to allow some names to go out for the price of a lottery application - a few dollars - rather than the auction price, which will tend, particularly at first, to be bid up rather high. (And yes, many lottery winners will simply turn around and sell their slot. And yes, many well heeled interests will buy lots of lotter applications. But our goal should be a usable system, not a perfect one.) This is a clerical, non-discretionary system. It could be contracted out to be performed by companies that do asset management - Accounting companies come to mind as the kind of company to whom this kind of clerical job could be assigned. And since the job is mainly clerical, oversight to ensure that it is being performed properly is not hard and indeed, because it could be done in the public eye, direct public oversight is quite possible. By-the-way, I try to avoid the phrase "the DNS root". The reason that I do that is because there can be, and are, multiple DNS roots. Whether one is "authoritative" or not is in the eye of the beholder; DNS authority arises fro m use by users, not by imposition by some super-authority. In that sense, DNS authority is a fugitive asset, it can flow to another place if pushed or pulled by users. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Mon Apr 9 22:07:14 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 19:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AW: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <461A4C67.4070603@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <192805.24211.qm@web58707.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Why are you so worried with what does the IGF allow today or tomorrow, about enhanced cooperation? Isn't free speech guaranteed at the Forum? :-) I don't think IGC need to wait for the officials to change their mind before we get ready. More often that less, official appointees are too sensitive to the "regulation by raising the eyebrow" to use the image someone threw out in the earlier debate. They may even be trying to behave according to what they assume would please the power that be - or at least won't upset it, - creating an environment conducive to self-censoring. So if EC is not on the official agenda, but free speech is enforced, I don't see why IGC wouldn't organize a discussion/workshop in order to develop a serious, consensual to the extent possible (within IGC) and compelling document that *cannot not* be taken into account when the officials are ready to talk about EC (and the future of the IG institutionalization.) Mawaki --- Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > > My conclusion from the debate so far is that there is a > missing link in the mechanism of involved institutions and > organisations. We all agree that ICANN should not go beyond > its narrow defined technical mandate. A lot of us agree also > that it should not be the GAC (alone) to make the final > decision. Other IG organisations (potential partners in the > process of enhanced cooperation) are even worse positioned to > make such a decision. One conclusion could be to create a new > multistakeholder body for cases like this which gets for very > narrow defined cases a final decision making mandate. This > could be a joint GAC/ICANN Working Group or something new. Any > ideas? > > The missing link is the institutionalisation of the process > towards > enhanced cooperation. Perhaps the IGF could evolve into a > forum for > that process. Yes I know that the IGF and enhanced > cooperation are not > the same thing now, but we don't have *anything* to show for > enhanced > cooperation now. There is therefore no reason why, when the > IGF is > reviewed following its fifth meeting, these two WSIS outcomes > could not > be reintegrated. The IGF would need to be restructured of > course (it > does anyway), perhaps with the Bureau idea being revisited, > but with > much more attention being paid to its structure and processes > than was > shown in convening the Advisory Group. These questions are > amongst > those that the IGF itself should consider (though no, I don't > think > that's likely to be allowed to happen). > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print > $3}' > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Apr 10 01:37:13 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:07:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: In the wake of RegisterFly, is ICANN taking flight? In-Reply-To: <954259bd0704090715o19a22fc5w29623ca512696e48@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070410053715.AE7D0E0606@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi Bertrand, >There is an important criteria to appreciate people's comments : do they help everybody understand the issues or somebody's position better ? do they introduce >principles that unify or principles that divide ? do they help shape a better system, that will be more just and more efficient for everybody ? or will they generate >more anger and opposition ? Yours is a very constructive approach, and we should constantly remind us of these virtues and ideals. I think it can help a lot if each of us does reflect on these issues while participating in this debate. With your permission, I will add a few riders to this though. There are always some important differences in adherences to values of what may be construed as civility between the insiders and outsiders to a dominating system. Many may call the Seattle WTO protests as uncivil, but to many they represent a watershed in subaltern globalization and thus are almost sacred. So we need to see the issues in terms of what may be called as weighted neutrality. >Looking forward to substantive and constructive contributions on the real question : what is the future institutional architecture of Internet Governance ? and >where should it be discussed ? These are just the main questions we should be focusing on. But it is important to understand the socio-political context in which these questions become so important. What is called the information society is deeply impacting almost all social structures, and in times of such far-reaching alignments it is natural that social power struggles intensify. It is a natural phenomenon, and we need not self-delude ourselves about it. And Internet is the key infrastructure of the information society (IS), and thus its governance and polices have important implication in these power struggles. That’s why IG is important to all of us. While these power struggles are going on at multiple levels in the society (from, within the household to airline ticketing industry) but it is easier to understand them through some generalizations At the very basic level it is a power struggle between ordinary individuals and institutions that have amassed illegitimate power, and seek to use IS opportunities to self-aggrandize. The state and the market are two important such institutions. Civil society’s (CS) struggle is to ensure that this doesn’t happen, and we are actually able to use IS opportunities to shift the balance in favor of the ordinary individual. All our discussions on censorship lie in this realm of state versus individual power struggle in the IS. Incidentally, there is less discussion on these forums on the market (market, not as Adam’s ideal, but the market institutions as they exist) versus individual power equations. Both these sets of struggles are important, but for different placed people in differently placed societies one may look more important than the other To make matters worse, in the struggles against governments markets often look like a good ally, and in struggle against markets (as they exist) governments look like a good ally. All this complicates issues very much, and make for a very political terrain. And then there is another important power struggle among different groups of people, and different societies (countries, if you will) who are differently placed and are using the IS context for collective aggrand©izement (how much ever individuals within societies may refuse to acknowledge their complicity in this, they remain its beneficiaries and therefore in some ways accomplices). I can describe many ways in which this is being done, but I wont because I think it is widely debated and understood. The nature, governance and policies of IG implicate this struggle as much as the others. So when we address the essential questions you speak about we need to identify the context in which different people and different societies are placed vis a vis it. Such identification is important as what you call as “substantive and constructive contributions on the real question’. Whether my present inputs meets the criteria of “do they introduce principles that unify or principles that divide ?” I am not so sure. It depends on how we see it. If it intensifies our adherence to our sectional interests, that it fails your criteria. But if it helps to raise our consciousness, and discourse, towards commonly accepted principles of fair play, justice (social, economic and all) and equity, then it does. Best Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 7:45 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; yehudakatz at mailinator.com Subject: Re: [governance] Re: In the wake of RegisterFly, is ICANN taking flight? Point well taken, Yehuda, As you mention, I was indeed mistaken by the spacing and attributed the words to you. So my reminder is rather directed a M. Hanson (or Hansen). :-) On substance, a very concrete element : the debate he refers to about the legal status of ICANN - and in particular the recent mention in the President's Strategic Report of the possible future evolution of its legal status has nothing to do with the RegisterFly debacle. It very much predates it and is on a completely different level. The discussion is part of the delicate issue of the future institutional architecture of Internet Governance that occupied so much of the time of the WSIS. ICANN was incorporated as a non-profit California corporation in large part by lack of any other truly international structure available, apart from intergovernmental treaty organizations. Remember this was 1998. The discussion today is about inventing the right type of framework for truly multi-stakeholder governance mechanisms, as Wolfgang and I have consistently argued. Examining existing models (such as the Red Cross or other Fertilizer association) is only food for thought and not a direct comparison in terms of functionalities. Nobody can claim he/she has the ultimate solution. And we all have a joint responsibility to invent it. As Saint Exupery said : "You cannot predict the future, but you can enable it". The most difficult activity in the coming months and years will be to separate the right questions from conspiracy theories; and to do so without appearing to look down upon people who are coming into the discussion without the ten-year background information on the debates that already took place. in particular, could everybody accept that it is possible to point ICANN's shortcomings and try to remedy them, and at the same time recognize that people working in it and its board members in particular are also trying to do good and are not just mischevious machiavelian traitors to the cause of the global Internet Community ? I see the present debate heating up with a mixture of attraction and fear : attraction because such discussions are long overdue and it is worth having them : the underlying issues are essential; but fear also because common sense can be easily overcome by righteous passions and mutual respect is rapidly lost in the process. There is an important criteria to appreciate people's comments : do they help everybody understand the issues or somebody's position better ? do they introduce principles that unify or principles that divide ? do they help shape a better system, that will be more just and more efficient for everybody ? or will they generate more anger and opposition ? The latter is easier. But let's give credit to those who try more constructive approaches. This does not mean there should be no debate, quite on the contrary, but just that it should pit ideas against ideas rather than people against people. Unless these people are renouncing their very humanity and, carried away by the seduction of their own arguments, become mere instruments of the ideas they believe in. Looking forward to substantive and constructive contributions on the real question : what is the future institutional architecture of Internet Governance ? and where should it be discussed ? Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle On a personnal basis and not as an official French position. Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") On 4/9/07, yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: Bertrand, Just to clairify, the statements were from an artical, and are not my words. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/05/icann_registerfly_litigation I think the Author [Burke Hansen] a US citizen, realizes that ICANN was incorporated as " a nonprofit public benefit corporation ... " and His point is in regards to ICANN working under the status of an International Organization (Body), and using that status as an indemnifying shield, from legal culpability. The comparison He made was with the International Red Cross and International Olympic Committee (IOC) re: "... Why would ICANN need Red Cross-style international legal protections when it's not out saving refugees and inoculating babies like the Red Cross? The international organization that ICANN does have something in common with is one famous for its opaqueness and arrogant lack of accountability, the International Olympic Committee (IOC). ICANN's not saving the world. Like it or not, ICANN is engaged in commerce, not charity work, although it is a California nonprofit corporation. The IOC, too, is engaged in commerce, which is marketing the Olympics and extorting stadium facilities out of local communities. It would be unfortunate if ICANN were to take advantage of the RegisterFly mess as an excuse to lock itself away from public opinion the way the IOC has. ..." Being a US Non-Profit Organization, does not create an 'International Body', of which sanctioning of its "International" status ironically could be done by the U.N. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Tue Apr 10 03:41:02 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 03:41:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is ICANN "engaged in commerce" ? In-Reply-To: <461A7EFC.1000407@cavebear.com> References: <29744.17492.qm@web58709.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <461A7EFC.1000407@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <01d201c77b43$9950c0a0$cbf241e0$@com> Hi Karl I agree with you here - Seems to me that the business side is getting tied up with the oversight/governance/regulation. Why can't registrars and registries fail as businesses? The problem as I see it is with the inability to access and transfer the data from the failed business in a timely fashion. Making the transaction a bit simpler or clearer might also help the consumer of DNS products - give them a clear document to read before they click on the CC submit button to lease a domain name that explains their rights and the limitations. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 1:59 PM To: Mawaki Chango Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Is ICANN "engaged in commerce" ? Mawaki Chango wrote: > Certianly, certainly! But what would you say to those who argue > that ICANN had no choice getting into those non-technical issues > for at least a somehow practical reason: avoid lawsuits and the > bankruptcy that might ensue? Avoid what lawsuits? Trademark ones? To that I answer thusly: There is an existing and appropriate system of laws and mechanisms though which a trademark owner who feels that its rights have been violated can go forward and seek to vindicate those rights. We do not need to invent an alternative system just for the internet. What bankruptcy? Of registrars/registries? Are we doing governance or consumer protection? The process that ICANN has established is based on a very strange logic that requires that ICANN transform DNS businesses into permanent institutions that can never be allowed to fail. That, in the words of internet engineers, does not scale. My own answer is to adopt a limited system, one in which consumers of domain name products are empowered to make their own choices on the basis of yearly statements published by DNS vendors that attest that the vendor has, and uses, business asset protection practices that are adequate to assure that a successor in interest can pick up the pieces and resurrect the DNS records in case human or natural events cause the DNS provider to wobble. We really do not need big, heavy bodies of internet governance to do this. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/752 - Release Date: 4/8/2007 8:34 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/752 - Release Date: 4/8/2007 8:34 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Apr 10 08:14:04 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:14:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <20070409074803.24050E0475@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070409074803.24050E0475@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <461B7F8C.1030709@bertola.eu> Parminder ha scritto: > (2) Call for a forum within IGF to discuss ICANN – to have ICANN > interface with and be accountable to the many constituencies (which by > far makes the majority of the world’s population) which cant access its > present structures. Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies that can't access its present structures"? There are at least a couple of places where civil society groups can become involved in ICANN. I think that it might be more productive to actually involve more CS folks in ICANN, than just try to discuss ICANN at the IGF (even if you succeeded in winning the resistence to that, what would happen after the discussion? I really don't see feasible any political scenario in which ICANN would take directions from the IGF.). At the last ICANN meeting, between known faces scattered in corridors, there were talks of a fixed civil society meeting on the last day of every ICANN meeting - that might be a good point to start, for example. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Apr 10 08:45:58 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 05:45:58 -0700 Subject: [governance] Susan Crawford"s ICANN statement on the .xxx Message-ID: <00af01c77b6e$64dfb530$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> While this has been referred to, I don't know if the actual text has been circulated on this list where it is most certainly pertinent. MG -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Lowenhaupt [mailto:toml at communisphere.com] Sent: April 9, 2007 11:24 AM To: Michael Gurstein Subject: on governance Not sure if you saw this. But it's ICANN board members Susan Crawford's dissenting speech on the .xxx vote. I'm told that she got a 1 minute standing ovation. Tom >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: I must dissent from this resolution, which is not only weak but unprincipled. I'm troubled by the path the board has followed on this issue since I joined the board in December of 2005. I'd like to make two points. First, ICANN only creates problems for itself when it acts in an ad hoc fashion in response to political pressures. Second, ICANN should take itself seriously, as a private governanced institution with a limited mandate and should resist efforts by governments to veto what it does. I'd like to talk about the role of the board. This decision whether to admit a particular non-confusing legal string into the root is put before the ICANN board because, first, we purport to speak on behalf of the global Internet community. And second, the U.S. Department of Commerce defers to the judgments of that community when deciding what to tell its contractor to add to the authoritative root zone file. As a board, we cannot speak as elected representatives of the global Internet community because we have not allowed elections for board members. This application does not present any difficult technical questions, and even if it did, we do not, as a group, claim to have special technical expertise. So this is not a technical stability and security question. It seems to me that the only plausible basis on which the board can answer the question in the negative -- so could say a group of people may not operate and use a lawful string of letters as a top-level domain -- is to say that the people affected by this decision have a broadly-shared agreement that the admission of this string to the root would amount to unjustifiable wrongdoing. Otherwise, in the absence of technical considerations, the board has no basis for rejecting this application. Let me explain. The most fundamental value of the global Internet community is that people who propose to use the Internet protocols and infrastructures for otherwise lawful purposes, without threatening the operational stability or security of the Internet, should be presumed to be entitled to do so. In a nutshell, everything not prohibited is permitted. This understanding, this value, has led directly to the striking success of the Internet around the world. ICANN's role in gTLD policy development is to seek to assess and articulate the broadly-shared values of the Internet community. We have very limited authority. And we can only speak on behalf of that community. I am personally not aware that any global consensus against the creation of a triple X domain exists. In the absence of such a prohibition, and given our mandate to create TLD competition, we have no authority to block the addition of this TLD to the root. It is very clear that we do not have a global shared set of values about content on-line, save for the global norm against child pornography. But the global Internet community clearly does share the core value that no centralized authority should set itself up as the arbiter of what people may do together on line, absent a demonstration that most of those affected by the proposed activity agree that it should be banned. I'd like to speak about the process of this application. More than three years ago, before I joined the board, ICANN began a process for new sponsored top-level domains. As I've said on many occasions, I think the idea of sponsorship is an empty one. All generic TLDs should be considered sponsored, in that they should be able to create policies for themselves that are not dictated by ICANN. The only exceptions to this freedom for every TLD should be, of course, the very few global consensus policies that are created through the ICANN forum. This freedom is shared by the country code TLDs. Notwithstanding my personal views on the vacuity of the sponsorship idea, the fact is that ICANN evaluated the strength of the sponsorship of triple X, the relationship between the applicant and the community behind the TLD, and, in my personal view, concluded that this criteria had been met as of June 2005. ICANN then went on to negotiate specific contractual terms with the applicant. Since then, real and AstroTurf comments -- that's an Americanism meaning filed comments claiming to be grass-roots opposition that have actually been generated by organized campaigns -- have come into ICANN that reflect opposition to this application. I do not find these recent comments sufficient to warrant revisiting the question of the sponsorship strength of this TLD, which I personally believe to be closed. No applicant for any sponsored TLD could ever demonstrate unanimous, cheering approval for its application. We have no metric against which to measure this opposition. We have no idea how significant it is. We should not be in the business of judging the level of market or community support for a new TLD before the fact. We will only get in the way of useful innovation if we take the view that every new TLD must prove itself to us before it can be added to the root. It seems to me that what is meant by sponsorship -- a notion that I hope we abandon in the next round -- is to show that there is enough interest in a particular TLD that it will be viable. We also have the idea that registrants should participate in and be bound by the creation of policies for a particular string. Both of these requirements have been met by this applicant. There is clearly enough interest, including more than 70,000 preregistrations from a thousand or more unique registrants who are members of the adult industry, and the applicant has undertaken to us that it will require adherence to its self-regulatory policies by all of its registrants. To the extent some of my colleagues on the board believe that ICANN should be in the business of deciding whether a particular TLD makes a valuable contribution to the namespace, I differ with them. I do not think ICANN is capable of making such a determination. Indeed, this argument is very much like those made by the pre-divestiture AT&T in America, when it claimed that no foreign attachments to its network -- like answering machines -- should be allowed. In part, because AT&T asserted at the time that there was no public demand for them. The rise of the Internet was arguably made possible by allowing many foreign attachments to the Internet called modems. We established a process for sTLDs some time ago. We have taken this applicant through this process. We now appear to be changing the process. We should not act in this fashion. I would like to spend a couple of moments talking about the politics of this situation. Many of my fellow board members are undoubtedly uncomfortable with the subject of adult entertainment material. Discomfort with this application may have been sparked anew by first the letter from individual GAC members Janis Karklins and Sharil Tarmizi, to which Ambassador Karklins has told us the GAC exceeded as a whole by its silence, and, second, the letter from the Australian government. But the entire point of ICANN'S creation was to avoid the operation of chokepoint content control over the domain name system by individual or collective governments. The idea was that the U.S. would serve as a good steward for other governmental concerns by staying in the background and overseeing ICANN's activities, but not engaging in content-related control. Australia's letter and concerns expressed in the past by Brazil and other countries about triple X are explicitly content based and, thus, inappropriate in my view. If after creation of a triple X TLD certain governments of the world want to ensure that their citizens do not see triple X content, it is within their prerogative as sovereigns to instruct Internet access providers physically located within their territory to block such content. Also, if certain governments want to ensure that all adult content providers with a physical presence in their country register exclusively within triple X, that is their prerogative as well. I note as a side point that such a requirement in the U.S. would violate the first amendment to our Constitution. But this content-related censorship should not be ICANN's concern and ICANN should not allow itself to be used as a private lever for government chokepoint content control. >>VINT CERF: Susan -- >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: I am almost done. >>VINT CERF: No, no, no. I was asking you to slow down. The scribes are not able to keep up with you. I think you want this to be on the record. >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: I do, and I will give it to them also in typed form. ICANN should not allow itself to be used as a private lever for government chokepoint content control by making up reasons to avoid the creation of such a TLD in the first place. To the extent there are public policy concerns with this TLD, they can be dealt with through local laws. Registration in or visitation of domains in this TLD is purely voluntary. If ICANN were to base its decisions on the views of the Australian or U.S. or Brazilian government, ICANN would have compromised away its very reason for existence as a private non-governmental governance institution. So in conclusion, I continue to be dissatisfied with elements of the proposed triple X contract, including but not limited to the rapid take-down provision of Appendix S, which is manifestly designed to placate trademark owners and ignores the many of the due process concerns that have been expressed about the existing UDRP. I am confident that if I had a staff or enough time, I could find many things to carp about in this draft contract. I'm equally certain if I complained about these terms, my concerns would be used to justify derailing this application for political reasons. I plan, therefore, as my colleague Peter Dengate Thrush has said, to turn my attention to the new gTLD process that was promised for January 2007, a promise that has not been kept, in hopes that we will some day have a standard contract and objective process that can help ICANN avoid engaging in unjustifiable ad hoc actions. We should be examining generic TLD applicants on the basis of their technical and financial strength. We should avoid dealing with content concerns to the maximum extent possible. We should be opening up new TLDs. I hope we will find a way to achieve such a sound process in short order. Thank you. [ applause ] >>VINT CERF: Since we are in a voting phase, Susan, you also need to cast your vote. >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: I began my statement, Mr. Chairman, by casting my vote. >>VINT CERF: Which was no? Okay, thank you. !DSPAM:2676,461a847774226583287887! -------------- 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 Tue Apr 10 09:55:02 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:55:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] Is ICANN "engaged in commerce" ? In-Reply-To: <954259bd0704090329q2aadf261leaf15fc633678144@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0704090329q2aadf261leaf15fc633678144@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear all, ICCAN from its manifesto as expressed by Bertrand appears to be a public utility. Now that it is evident as Karl said that ICCAN is moving towards commercial. What ar the pending impacts on IG? What effect to ntwork neutrality et al? Best regards Aaron On 4/9/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > On 4/9/07, in the middle of a relatively long post related to the > RegisterFly debacle, yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > > Like it or not, ICANN is engaged in commerce, not charity work, although > it is a California nonprofit corporation. > > This justifies going back to the basic texts. > > Many non-English speaking actors, particularly outside the United States, > tend to interpret the term "Corporation" as an equivalent of "Company", > implicitly connecting ICANN with the notion of market and commercial > activity. This misunderstanding is aggravated by the repeated use of the > term "private" when refering to the legal status of the organization (for > instance in the President's Strategic Committee Report). And the fact that > ICANN is actively coordinating a market compounds the feeling that it is > "engaged in commerce". > > > > It is therefore useful to quote extensively Paragraph 3 of ICANN's Articles > of Incorporation: > > > > ICANN "is a nonprofit public benefit corporation […] organized under the > California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law for charitable and > public purposes. [It] is organized, and will be operated, exclusively for > charitable, educational and scientific purposes […]". > > > This unequivocally underscores the public interest nature and purpose of > ICANN. ICANN is not "engaged in commerce" but is a structure set up to serve > the global public interest. Too many people seem to forget it. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > > > On 4/9/07, yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > > Judging from this mail-list response, no members have had experience > first-hand with RegisterFly, which means there is a lack of sufficient > numbers to form a 'CLASS' by this body (IGC). What was of interest in Mr. > Hanson's article, was the statement which suggests that ICANN was moving > toward an 'Independent' International Model: such as the Red Cross and The > International Olympic Community, to take refuge by Flight (flight from legal > prosecution). I wonder under which Court of International Law could a > similar Suit be brought by Plaintiffs who domicile outside of the US > Jurisdiction? - Article Re: In the wake of RegisterFly, is ICANN taking > flight? > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/05/icann_registerfly_litigation > Only the paranoid survive By Burke Hansen in San Francisco In the aftermath > of the ICANN meeting in Lisbon, the RegisterFly disaster continues to > inspire both litigation and paranoia. Those connecting the dots are > convinced that an ICANN report debated at the Lisbon meetings exploring the > possibility of changing ICANN to an international organization along the > lines of the International Red Cross is an attempt by ICANN to slither out > of this whole mess. A plaintiff in North Carolina has started a class action > against RegisterFly, Enom, and ICANN over her ruined business; ICANN is > suing RegisterFly to force it to turn over the authcodes to enable a bulk > transfer of domains; and RegisterFly is demanding arbitration as provided > for in its Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Other plaintiffs wait in > the wings. A change of character for ICANN would provide a gloss of > independence from the smothering bosom of the American Department of > Commerce (DOC), as well as potential protection from American litigation. It > would also comport with ICANN's stated goal of becoming a truly > international organization reflective of the international reach of the > internet itself. Of course, it begs the question: just what does ICANN have > in common with the Red Cross? And why would ICANN need a structure that > virtually eliminates accountability when more accountability is what the > ICANN stakeholders keep demanding? ICANN has made great strides in providing > improved access and clarity to its website recently, and it would be > unfortunate if ICANN has adopted a one step forward, two steps back approach > to its problems. ICANN currently is a nonprofit corporation based in Marina > Del Ray, California. Say what you will about the litigious nature of > American society, but American-style litigation keeps us all on our toes, > including ICANN. Why would ICANN need Red Cross-style international legal > protections when it's not out saving refugees and inoculating babies like > the Red Cross? The international organization that ICANN does have something > in common with is one famous for its opaqueness and arrogant lack of > accountability, the International Olympic Committee (IOC). ICANN's not > saving the world. Like it or not, ICANN is engaged in commerce, not charity > work, although it is a California nonprofit corporation. The IOC, too, is > engaged in commerce, which is marketing the Olympics and extorting stadium > facilities out of local communities. It would be unfortunate if ICANN were > to take advantage of the RegisterFly mess as an excuse to lock itself away > from public opinion the way the IOC has. Of course, ICANN is already named > in the RegisterFly class action, and no midstream change in corporate > structure will get them out of that lawsuit. It would, however, make it more > difficult for similar lawsuits to proceed in the future. A move to > Switzerland, say, would be even more frustrating. Considering the fact that > ICANN did not drop the hammer on RegisterFly until after the plaintiff's > attorneys dropped the hammer on ICANN, the ICANN community might think twice > about letting ICANN off the hook.(r) Burke Hansen, Attorney at large, heads a > San Francisco law office. -- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon 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 michael_leibrandt at web.de Tue Apr 10 10:12:20 2007 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:12:20 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names Message-ID: <1531601261@web.de> Please note the huge difference regarding the public policy issues between a code like .cat which is just a placeholder for a geographic name and a code like .berlin which is 100% identical to a well known geographical name. Actually, for building a virtual community around a specific geographical location you only need to choose option one - the sponsored placeholder - which, at least from my point of view, doesn't raise any serious concerns and can therefore be introduced without permission from the relevant public authority. I'm not aware of any substantial .cat discussions in the GAC. Michael, Berlin _______________________________________________________________ SMS schreiben mit WEB.DE FreeMail - einfach, schnell und kostenguenstig. Jetzt gleich testen! http://f.web.de/?mc=021192 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From correia.rui at gmail.com Tue Apr 10 10:59:03 2007 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:59:03 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: <1531601261@web.de> References: <1531601261@web.de> Message-ID: We are talking about Berlin - one city in one country, belonging to one people and there is only one Berlin (barring a few homonymously named places around the new world). So what will happen when we get to place names like Victoria? Just about every English-speaking country has one or more, and it is not uncommon in non-English speaking countries. Then, what about geographical feature shared by two or more countries? the Great Lakes as a group or each individual lake (Canada/ USA); the Pyreness (France/ Spain), the Alps, rivers that cross a number of countries, Danube, Volga, deserts that span large areas, such as the Kalahari. ... And than, just to throw a spanner in, what will became of 'trademarks' such as amazon? Rui On 10/04/07, Michael Leibrandt < michael_leibrandt at web.de> wrote: > > Please note the huge difference regarding the public policy issues between > a code like .cat which is just a placeholder for a geographic name and a > code like .berlin which is 100% identical to a well known geographical name. > Actually, for building a virtual community around a specific geographical > location you only need to choose option one - the sponsored placeholder - > which, at least from my point of view, doesn't raise any serious concerns > and can therefore be introduced without permission from the relevant public > authority. I'm not aware of any substantial .cat discussions in the GAC. > > Michael, Berlin > _______________________________________________________________ > SMS schreiben mit WEB.DE FreeMail - einfach, schnell und > kostenguenstig. Jetzt gleich testen! http://f.web.de/?mc=021192 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Cell (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ca at rits.org.br Tue Apr 10 10:58:09 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:58:09 -0300 Subject: [governance] Susan Crawford"s ICANN statement on the .xxx In-Reply-To: <00af01c77b6e$64dfb530$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <00af01c77b6e$64dfb530$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <461BA601.503@rits.org.br> Michael and all, the all text transcripts of all public forums are available in the ICANN site (including the Crawford speech). There was applause (not standing ovation really, and lasted much less than one minute) for different reasons -- a few were in favor on approving .xxx, others applauded because of the incisive comments regarding the current TLD decision-making process -- although still others, even agreeing with the comments, considered highly inappropriate to deliver them during the voting process. []s fraternos --c.a. Michael Gurstein wrote: > While this has been referred to, I don't know if the actual text has > been circulated on this list where it is most certainly pertinent. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Lowenhaupt [mailto:toml at communisphere.com] > Sent: April 9, 2007 11:24 AM > To: Michael Gurstein > Subject: on governance > > > Not sure if you saw this. But it's ICANN board members Susan Crawford's > dissenting speech on the .xxx vote. I'm told that she got a 1 minute > standing ovation. > > Tom > >>> SUSAN CRAWFORD: I must dissent from this resolution, which is not only > weak but unprincipled. I'm troubled by the path the board has followed > on this issue since I joined the board in December of 2005. I'd like to > make two points. > > First, ICANN only creates problems for itself when it acts in an ad hoc > fashion in response to political pressures. Second, ICANN should take > itself seriously, as a private governanced institution with a limited > mandate and should resist efforts by governments to veto what it does. > > I'd like to talk about the role of the board. > > This decision whether to admit a particular non-confusing legal string > into the root is put before the ICANN board because, first, we purport > to speak on behalf of the global Internet community. And second, the > U.S. Department of Commerce defers to the judgments of that community > when deciding what to tell its contractor to add to the authoritative > root zone file. > > As a board, we cannot speak as elected representatives of the global > Internet community because we have not allowed elections for board > members. This application does not present any difficult technical > questions, and even if it did, we do not, as a group, claim to have > special technical expertise. > > So this is not a technical stability and security question. > It seems to me that the only plausible basis on which the board can > answer the question in the negative -- so could say a group of people > may not operate and use a lawful string of letters as a top-level domain > -- is to say that the people affected by this decision have a > broadly-shared agreement that the admission of this string to the root > would amount to unjustifiable wrongdoing. > Otherwise, in the absence of technical considerations, the board has no > basis for rejecting this application. > Let me explain. > The most fundamental value of the global Internet community is that > people who propose to use the Internet protocols and infrastructures for > otherwise lawful purposes, without threatening the operational stability > or security of the Internet, should be presumed to be entitled to do so. > In a nutshell, everything not prohibited is permitted. > > This understanding, this value, has led directly to the striking success > of the Internet around the world. > > ICANN's role in gTLD policy development is to seek to assess and > articulate the broadly-shared values of the Internet community. We have > very limited authority. And we can only speak on behalf of that > community. I am personally not aware that any global consensus against > the creation of a triple X domain exists. > > In the absence of such a prohibition, and given our mandate to create > TLD competition, we have no authority to block the addition of this TLD > to the root. It is very clear that we do not have a global shared set of > values about content on-line, save for the global norm against child > pornography. But the global Internet community clearly does share the > core value that no centralized authority should set itself up as the > arbiter of what people may do together on line, absent a demonstration > that most of those affected by the proposed activity agree that it > should be banned. > > I'd like to speak about the process of this application. > > More than three years ago, before I joined the board, ICANN began a > process for new sponsored top-level domains. As I've said on many > occasions, I think the idea of sponsorship is an empty one. All generic > TLDs should be considered sponsored, in that they should be able to > create policies for themselves that are not dictated by ICANN. The only > exceptions to this freedom for every TLD should be, of course, the very > few global consensus policies that are created through the ICANN forum. > This freedom is shared by the country code TLDs. > > Notwithstanding my personal views on the vacuity of the sponsorship > idea, the fact is that ICANN evaluated the strength of the sponsorship > of triple X, the relationship between the applicant and the community > behind the TLD, and, in my personal view, concluded that this criteria > had been met as of June 2005. ICANN then went on to negotiate specific > contractual terms with the applicant. > > Since then, real and AstroTurf comments -- that's an Americanism meaning > filed comments claiming to be grass-roots opposition that have actually > been generated by organized campaigns -- have come into ICANN that > reflect opposition to this application. > I do not find these recent comments sufficient to warrant revisiting the > question of the sponsorship strength of this TLD, which I personally > believe to be closed. > > No applicant for any sponsored TLD could ever demonstrate unanimous, > cheering approval for its application. We have no metric against which > to measure this opposition. We have no idea how significant it is. We > should not be in the business of judging the level of market or > community support for a new TLD before the fact. We will only get in the > way of useful innovation if we take the view that every new TLD must > prove itself to us before it can be added to the root. > > It seems to me that what is meant by sponsorship -- a notion that I hope > we abandon in the next round -- is to show that there is enough interest > in a particular TLD that it will be viable. We also have the idea that > registrants should participate in and be bound by the creation of > policies for a particular string. Both of these requirements have been > met by this applicant. There is clearly enough interest, including more > than 70,000 preregistrations from a thousand or more unique registrants > who are members of the adult industry, and the applicant has undertaken > to us that it will require adherence to its self-regulatory policies by > all of its registrants. > > To the extent some of my colleagues on the board believe that ICANN > should be in the business of deciding whether a particular TLD makes a > valuable contribution to the namespace, I differ with them. I do not > think ICANN is capable of making such a determination. Indeed, this > argument is very much like those made by the pre-divestiture AT&T in > America, when it claimed that no foreign attachments to its network -- > like answering machines -- should be allowed. In part, because AT&T > asserted at the time that there was no public demand for them. > > The rise of the Internet was arguably made possible by allowing many > foreign attachments to the Internet called modems. We established a > process for sTLDs some time ago. We have taken this applicant through > this process. We now appear to be changing the process. We should not > act in this fashion. > > I would like to spend a couple of moments talking about the politics of > this situation. Many of my fellow board members are undoubtedly > uncomfortable with the subject of adult entertainment material. > Discomfort with this application may have been sparked anew by first the > letter from individual GAC members Janis Karklins and Sharil Tarmizi, to > which Ambassador Karklins has told us the GAC exceeded as a whole by its > silence, and, second, the letter from the Australian government. > > But the entire point of ICANN'S creation was to avoid the operation of > chokepoint content control over the domain name system by individual or > collective governments. The idea was that the U.S. would serve as a good > steward for other governmental concerns by staying in the background and > overseeing ICANN's activities, but not engaging in content-related > control. > Australia's letter and concerns expressed in the past by Brazil and > other countries about triple X are explicitly content based and, thus, > inappropriate in my view. > > If after creation of a triple X TLD certain governments of the world > want to ensure that their citizens do not see triple X content, it is > within their prerogative as sovereigns to instruct Internet access > providers physically located within their territory to block such > content. Also, if certain governments want to ensure that all adult > content providers with a physical presence in their country register > exclusively within triple X, that is their prerogative as well. > > I note as a side point that such a requirement in the U.S. would violate > the first amendment to our Constitution. > > But this content-related censorship should not be ICANN's concern and > ICANN should not allow itself to be used as a private lever for > government chokepoint content control. > >>> VINT CERF: Susan -- > >>> SUSAN CRAWFORD: I am almost done. > >>> VINT CERF: No, no, no. I was asking you to slow down. The scribes are > not able to keep up with you. I think you want this to be on the record. > >>> SUSAN CRAWFORD: I do, and I will give it to them also in typed form. > > ICANN should not allow itself to be used as a private lever for > government chokepoint content control by making up reasons to avoid the > creation of such a TLD in the first place. > > To the extent there are public policy concerns with this TLD, they can > be dealt with through local laws. > > Registration in or visitation of domains in this TLD is purely > voluntary. If ICANN were to base its decisions on the views of the > Australian or U.S. or Brazilian government, ICANN would have compromised > away its very reason for existence as a private non-governmental > governance institution. > > So in conclusion, I continue to be dissatisfied with elements of the > proposed triple X contract, including but not limited to the rapid > take-down provision of Appendix S, which is manifestly designed to > placate trademark owners and ignores the many of the due process > concerns that have been expressed about the existing UDRP. > > I am confident that if I had a staff or enough time, I could find many > things to carp about in this draft contract. I'm equally certain if I > complained about these terms, my concerns would be used to justify > derailing this application for political reasons. > > I plan, therefore, as my colleague Peter Dengate Thrush has said, to > turn my attention to the new gTLD process that was promised for January > 2007, a promise that has not been kept, in hopes that we will some day > have a standard contract and objective process that can help ICANN avoid > engaging in unjustifiable ad hoc actions. > > We should be examining generic TLD applicants on the basis of their > technical and financial strength. We should avoid dealing with content > concerns to the maximum extent possible. We should be opening up new > TLDs. I hope we will find a way to achieve such a sound process in short > order. Thank you. > [ applause ] > >>> VINT CERF: Since we are in a voting phase, Susan, you also need to > cast your vote. > >>> SUSAN CRAWFORD: I began my statement, Mr. Chairman, by casting my > vote. > >>> VINT CERF: Which was no? Okay, thank you. > > !DSPAM:2676,461a847774226583287887! > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor *************************************************************** Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br *************************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Tue Apr 10 11:53:43 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:53:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] Cluster of WSIS-related events / Online registration available Message-ID: <200704101553.l3AFr59m025102@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, To complete Adam's e-mail on registration for the IGF Consultation, note that the on-line registration system for the WSIS related cluster of events has been set up by the ITU and is now available at http://www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/edrs/ITU-SG/edrs15/edrs.registration.form. This online system offer the possibility to register to most of the events organised at Palais des Nations and at the ITU premises between 14 and 25 May 2007, including action line facilitation meetings, the IGF consultation, some other meetings (side events or the joint CSTD-GAID meeting): these meetings are of course open to all WSIS stakeholders. Only the meetings of the Xth session of the CSTD will be subject to a specific registration due to the application of the specific ECOSOC rules (information will be circulated later). A calendar of the cluster of WSIS related event is available on the WSIS website (http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation). A calendar of WSIS follow up and implementation meetings is also maintained by CONGO at http://www.csbureau.info/posttunis.htm, including a provisional timetable of the May 2007 cluster of events (http://www.csbureau.info/Time%20table%20IS%20week%202007.doc). All the best, Philippe Dam CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Tue Apr 10 12:25:52 2007 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:25:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: In the wake of RegisterFly, is ICANN taking flight? In-Reply-To: <20070410053715.AE7D0E0606@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070410053715.AE7D0E0606@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: It seems there is a key distinction to be drawn here. When the larger world is the audience, then political realities may require strong positions 'in opposition.' When CS is talking to itself on the other hand, civility is likely prerequisite for deliberations-in-the-group that have some hope to be productive. At least that is what experience shows. Both would have a place, according to circumstance. David At 11:07 AM +0530 4/10/07, Parminder wrote: >Hi Bertrand, > > >There is an important criteria to appreciate >people's comments : do they help everybody >understand the issues or somebody's position >better ? do they introduce >principles that >unify or principles that divide ? do they help >shape a better system, that will be more just >and more efficient for everybody ? or will they >generate >more anger and opposition ? > >Yours is a very constructive approach, and we >should constantly remind us of these virtues and >ideals. I think it can help a lot if each of us >does reflect on these issues while participating >in this debate. > >With your permission, I will add a few riders to >this though. There are always some important >differences in adherences to values of what may >be construed as civility between the insiders >and outsiders to a dominating system. Many may >call the Seattle WTO protests as uncivil, but to >many they represent a watershed in subaltern >globalization and thus are almost sacred. So we >need to see the issues in terms of what may be >called as weighted neutrality. > > >Looking forward to substantive and >constructive contributions on the real question >: what is the future institutional architecture >of Internet Governance ? and >where should it be >discussed ? > >These are just the main questions we should be focusing on. > >But it is important to understand the >socio-political context in which these questions >become so important. > >What is called the information society is deeply >impacting almost all social structures, and in >times of such far-reaching alignments it is >natural that social power struggles intensify. >It is a natural phenomenon, and we need not >self-delude ourselves about it. And Internet is >the key infrastructure of the information >society (IS), and thus its governance and >polices have important implication in these >power struggles. That's why IG is important to >all of us. > >While these power struggles are going on at >multiple levels in the society (from, within the >household to airline ticketing industry) but it >is easier to understand them through some >generalizationsŠ At the very basic level it is a >power struggle between ordinary individuals and >institutions that have amassed illegitimate >power, and seek to use IS opportunities to >self-aggrandize. The state and the market are >two important such institutions. Civil society's >(CS) struggle is to ensure that this doesn't >happen, and we are actually able to use IS >opportunities to shift the balance in favor of >the ordinary individual. > >All our discussions on censorship lie in this >realm of state versus individual power struggle >in the IS. Incidentally, there is less >discussion on these forums on the market >(market, not as Adam's ideal, but the market >institutions as they exist) versus individual >power equations. > >Both these sets of struggles are important, but >for different placed people in differently >placed societies one may look more important >than the otherŠ To make matters worse, in the >struggles against governments markets often look >like a good ally, and in struggle against >markets (as they exist) governments look like a >good ally. All this complicates issues very >much, and make for a very political terrain. > >And then there is another important power >struggle among different groups of people, and >different societies (countries, if you will) who >are differently placed and are using the IS >context for collective aggrand©izement (how much >ever individuals within societies may refuse to >acknowledge their complicity in this, they >remain its beneficiaries and therefore in some >ways accomplices). I can describe many ways in >which this is being done, but I wont because I >think it is widely debated and understood. The >nature, governance and policies of IG implicate >this struggle as much as the others. > >So when we address the essential questions you >speak about we need to identify the context in >which different people and different societies >are placed vis a vis it. Such identification is >important as what you call as "substantive and >constructive contributions on the real question'. > >Whether my present inputs meets the criteria of >"do they introduce principles that unify or >principles that divide ?" I am not so sure. > >It depends on how we see it. If it intensifies >our adherence to our sectional interests, that >it fails your criteria. But if it helps to raise >our consciousness, and discourse, towards >commonly accepted principles of fair play, >justice (social, economic and all) and equity, >then it does. > >Best > >Parminder > > > > > >________________________________________________ >Parminder Jeet Singh >IT for Change, Bangalore >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >www.ITforChange.net > >From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] >Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 7:45 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; yehudakatz at mailinator.com >Subject: Re: [governance] Re: In the wake of >RegisterFly, is ICANN taking flight? > >Point well taken, Yehuda, > >As you mention, I was indeed mistaken by the >spacing and attributed the words to you. So my >reminder is rather directed a M. Hanson (or >Hansen). :-) > >On substance, a very concrete element : the >debate he refers to about the legal status of >ICANN - and in particular the recent mention in >the President's Strategic Report of the possible >future evolution of its legal status has nothing >to do with the RegisterFly debacle. It very much >predates it and is on a completely different >level. > >The discussion is part of the delicate issue of >the future institutional architecture of >Internet Governance that occupied so much of the >time of the WSIS. ICANN was incorporated as a >non-profit California corporation in large part >by lack of any other truly international >structure available, apart from >intergovernmental treaty organizations. Remember >this was 1998. > >The discussion today is about inventing the >right type of framework for truly >multi-stakeholder governance mechanisms, as >Wolfgang and I have consistently argued. >Examining existing models (such as the Red Cross >or other Fertilizer association) is only food >for thought and not a direct comparison in terms >of functionalities. Nobody can claim he/she has >the ultimate solution. And we all have a joint >responsibility to invent it. As Saint Exupery >said : "You cannot predict the future, but you >can enable it". > >The most difficult activity in the coming months >and years will be to separate the right >questions from conspiracy theories; and to do so >without appearing to look down upon people who >are coming into the discussion without the >ten-year background information on the debates >that already took place. in particular, could >everybody accept that it is possible to >point ICANN's shortcomings and try to remedy >them, and at the same time recognize that people >working in it and its board members in >particular are also trying to do good and are >not just mischevious machiavelian traitors to >the cause of the global Internet Community ? > >I see the present debate heating up with a >mixture of attraction and fear : attraction >because such discussions are long overdue and it >is worth having them : the underlying issues are >essential; but fear also because common sense >can be easily overcome by righteous passions and >mutual respect is rapidly lost in the process. > >There is an important criteria to appreciate >people's comments : do they help everybody >understand the issues or somebody's position >better ? do they introduce principles that unify >or principles that divide ? do they help shape a >better system, that will be more just and more >efficient for everybody ? or will they generate >more anger and opposition ? > >The latter is easier. But let's give credit to >those who try more constructive approaches. This >does not mean there should be no debate, quite >on the contrary, but just that it should pit >ideas against ideas rather than people against >people. Unless these people are renouncing their >very humanity and, carried away by the seduction >of their own arguments, become mere instruments >of the ideas they believe in. > >Looking forward to substantive and constructive >contributions on the real question : what is the >future institutional architecture of Internet >Governance ? and where should it be discussed ? > >Best > >Bertrand >-- >____________________ >Bertrand de La Chapelle >On a personnal basis and not as an official French position. >Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > >"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir >les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry >("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") > > > > > >On 4/9/07, >yehudakatz at mailinator.com ><yehudakatz at mailinator.com > >wrote: >Bertrand, > >Just to clairify, the statements were from an artical, and are not my words. > > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/05/icann_registerfly_litigation > > >I think the Author [Burke Hansen] a US citizen, realizes that ICANN was >incorporated as " a nonprofit public benefit corporation ... " and > >His point is in regards to ICANN working under the status of an International >Organization (Body), and using that status as an indemnifying shield, from >legal culpability. > > >The comparison He made was with the International Red Cross and International >Olympic Committee (IOC) > >re: > >"... Why would ICANN need Red Cross-style international legal protections when >it's not out saving refugees and inoculating babies like the Red Cross? The >international organization that ICANN does have >something in common with is one >famous for its opaqueness and arrogant lack of accountability, the >International Olympic Committee (IOC). ICANN's >not saving the world. Like it or >not, ICANN is engaged in commerce, not charity work, although it is a >California nonprofit corporation. The IOC, too, is engaged in commerce, which >is marketing the Olympics and extorting stadium facilities out of local >communities. It would be unfortunate if ICANN were to take advantage of the >RegisterFly mess as an excuse to lock itself away from public opinion the way >the IOC has. ..." > > >Being a US Non-Profit Organization, does not >create an 'International Body', of >which sanctioning of its "International" status >ironically could be done by the >U.N. >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Apr 10 13:38:46 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:08:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <461B7F8C.1030709@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20070410173842.7DD6EC9616@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi Vittorio Before addressing your question > Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies that can't > access its present structures. I am inclined to go to the second part of your email which surprises me, though I know it is well intentioned. > I think that it might be more productive to actually involve more CS > folks in ICANN, than just try to discuss ICANN at the IGF (even if you > succeeded in winning the resistence to that, what would happen after the > discussion? > -- Since when have we begun to take note of resistance of any organization before discussing it at IGF or elsewhere. Do you think a China or an Iran (or taking all those countries to whom content regulation issues are mostly addressed as a single unit) are not resistant to our discussing their conduct vis a vis content regulation at IGF. But there were any number of workshops on this issue, and a good amount of discussion in plenaries. To drive the point harder, did we not discuss Tunisia so much at WSIS despite its resistance? As for >what would happen after the > discussion? What would happen after discussion on free expression, content regulation or an internet bill of rights at IGF ??? All these are realms in which (mostly) governments are exclusive authorities. >I really don't see feasible any political scenario in which > ICANN would take directions from the IGF.). But do you see a political scenario where these countries will take directions from the IGF. Why such special considerations to ICANN. Why would one shield ICANN from IGF? I am not able to understand this at all. Who made the rule that we will be discussing only those organizations/ institutions at IGF who are not resistant to such discussions? And only say such things to organizations which we already know they are keen to heed. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:44 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > > Parminder ha scritto: > > (2) Call for a forum within IGF to discuss ICANN - to have ICANN > > interface with and be accountable to the many constituencies (which by > > far makes the majority of the world's population) which cant access its > > present structures. > > Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies that can't > access its present structures"? There are at least a couple of places > where civil society groups can become involved in ICANN. > > I think that it might be more productive to actually involve more CS > folks in ICANN, than just try to discuss ICANN at the IGF (even if you > succeeded in winning the resistence to that, what would happen after the > discussion? I really don't see feasible any political scenario in which > ICANN would take directions from the IGF.). At the last ICANN meeting, > between known faces scattered in corridors, there were talks of a fixed > civil society meeting on the last day of every ICANN meeting - that > might be a good point to start, for example. > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Apr 10 16:44:10 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 06:44:10 +1000 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <20070410173842.7DD6EC9616@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <021801c77bb1$02c6f690$8c0efa0a@IAN> I'm with Parminder on this, but to go further ICANN reform might be useful - might even be attainable - but in itself does not give us a sensible system of internet governance. If IGF and the CS component are to be useful we need to begin looking past existing structures and reacting to their every move and towards the creation of structures that fill both the gaps and the areas where ICANN cannot work effectively. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: 11 April 2007 03:39 To: 'Vittorio Bertola'; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Hi Vittorio Before addressing your question > Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies that can't > access its present structures. I am inclined to go to the second part of your email which surprises me, though I know it is well intentioned. > I think that it might be more productive to actually involve more CS > folks in ICANN, than just try to discuss ICANN at the IGF (even if you > succeeded in winning the resistence to that, what would happen after the > discussion? > -- Since when have we begun to take note of resistance of any organization before discussing it at IGF or elsewhere. Do you think a China or an Iran (or taking all those countries to whom content regulation issues are mostly addressed as a single unit) are not resistant to our discussing their conduct vis a vis content regulation at IGF. But there were any number of workshops on this issue, and a good amount of discussion in plenaries. To drive the point harder, did we not discuss Tunisia so much at WSIS despite its resistance? As for >what would happen after the > discussion? What would happen after discussion on free expression, content regulation or an internet bill of rights at IGF ??? All these are realms in which (mostly) governments are exclusive authorities. >I really don't see feasible any political scenario in which > ICANN would take directions from the IGF.). But do you see a political scenario where these countries will take directions from the IGF. Why such special considerations to ICANN. Why would one shield ICANN from IGF? I am not able to understand this at all. Who made the rule that we will be discussing only those organizations/ institutions at IGF who are not resistant to such discussions? And only say such things to organizations which we already know they are keen to heed. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:44 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > > Parminder ha scritto: > > (2) Call for a forum within IGF to discuss ICANN - to have ICANN > > interface with and be accountable to the many constituencies (which by > > far makes the majority of the world's population) which cant access its > > present structures. > > Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies that can't > access its present structures"? There are at least a couple of places > where civil society groups can become involved in ICANN. > > I think that it might be more productive to actually involve more CS > folks in ICANN, than just try to discuss ICANN at the IGF (even if you > succeeded in winning the resistence to that, what would happen after the > discussion? I really don't see feasible any political scenario in which > ICANN would take directions from the IGF.). At the last ICANN meeting, > between known faces scattered in corridors, there were talks of a fixed > civil society meeting on the last day of every ICANN meeting - that > might be a good point to start, for example. > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.25/745 - Release Date: 03/04/2007 12:48 -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.25/745 - Release Date: 03/04/2007 12:48 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Tue Apr 10 17:02:11 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:02:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] Class Action Lawsuit against RegisterFly.com In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02db01c77bb3$836f2450$8a4d6cf0$@com> See answers inline -----Original Message----- From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 12:54 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Class Action Lawsuit against RegisterFly.com A recent lawsuit was filed against RegisterFly.com, Enom, and Icann [Suite Info: http://registerfly-lawsuit.com/ ]. [News Report: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/05/icann_registerfly_litigation/ ] 1. I am interested knowing if anybody on this Mail-List has done business with RegisterFly.com (used them as Register) within the past two years? YES 2. If you did, are you going to join in the Class Action Lawsuit ? Don't know how class action lawsuits in the US relate to the laws here, and whether I can be a party. I am getting legal advice on this class action. Id just like to get a show of hands of People who were affected within this group. If there are more than 21 individuals, that would form a Class, which could then be represented. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.26/748 - Release Date: 4/5/2007 3:33 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Apr 10 17:39:00 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:39:00 -0300 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <461B7F8C.1030709@bertola.eu> References: <20070409074803.24050E0475@smtp3.electricembers.net> <461B7F8C.1030709@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <461C03F4.1030607@rits.org.br> I would like to reinforce Vittorio's clarification. In a couple of years of involvement with NCUC, for example, I found that lack of interest from NGOs worldwide in getting involved is impressive, including some of those which are highly critical of an structure they, curiously, do not want to know from the inside. If an organization cannot qualify as an association of users and join ALAC, it can join NCUC (provided it is a non-profit, non-business oriented organization). Both structures provide for quite reasonable participation mechanisms via the Net, specially suitable for the case of a majority of entities which will have difficulty in physically joining the ICANN caravan moving around the world. frt rgds --c.a. Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Parminder ha scritto: >> (2) Call for a forum within IGF to discuss ICANN – to have ICANN >> interface with and be accountable to the many constituencies (which by >> far makes the majority of the world’s population) which cant access >> its present structures. > > Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies that can't > access its present structures"? There are at least a couple of places > where civil society groups can become involved in ICANN. > > I think that it might be more productive to actually involve more CS > folks in ICANN, than just try to discuss ICANN at the IGF (even if you > succeeded in winning the resistence to that, what would happen after the > discussion? I really don't see feasible any political scenario in which > ICANN would take directions from the IGF.). At the last ICANN meeting, > between known faces scattered in corridors, there were talks of a fixed > civil society meeting on the last day of every ICANN meeting - that > might be a good point to start, for example. -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Apr 10 17:44:24 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:44:24 -0300 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <20070410173842.7DD6EC9616@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070410173842.7DD6EC9616@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <461C0538.1000306@rits.org.br> By the way, a proposal for ICANN to start discussing its transformation into an international organization should start soon, I hope, as an incisive recommendation by the [ICANN] President's Strategic Committee presented in Lisbon's public forum. This in good part results from an international perception of this necessity generated by the WSIS process. I am one who believes that IGF could generate recommendations which will be eventually listened to as well. --c.a. Parminder wrote: > Hi Vittorio > > Before addressing your question > >> Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies that can't >> access its present structures. > > I am inclined to go to the second part of your email which surprises me, > though I know it is well intentioned. > >> I think that it might be more productive to actually involve more CS >> folks in ICANN, than just try to discuss ICANN at the IGF (even if you >> succeeded in winning the resistence to that, what would happen after the >> discussion? >> -- > > Since when have we begun to take note of resistance of any organization > before discussing it at IGF or elsewhere. Do you think a China or an Iran > (or taking all those countries to whom content regulation issues are mostly > addressed as a single unit) are not resistant to our discussing their > conduct vis a vis content regulation at IGF. But there were any number of > workshops on this issue, and a good amount of discussion in plenaries. > > To drive the point harder, did we not discuss Tunisia so much at WSIS > despite its resistance? > > As for >> what would happen after the >> discussion? > > What would happen after discussion on free expression, content regulation or > an internet bill of rights at IGF ??? All these are realms in which (mostly) > governments are exclusive authorities. > >> I really don't see feasible any political scenario in which >> ICANN would take directions from the IGF.). > > But do you see a political scenario where these countries will take > directions from the IGF. > > Why such special considerations to ICANN. Why would one shield ICANN from > IGF? I am not able to understand this at all. > > Who made the rule that we will be discussing only those organizations/ > institutions at IGF who are not resistant to such discussions? And only say > such things to organizations which we already know they are keen to heed. > > Parminder > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:44 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder >> Subject: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf >> >> Parminder ha scritto: >>> (2) Call for a forum within IGF to discuss ICANN - to have ICANN >>> interface with and be accountable to the many constituencies (which by >>> far makes the majority of the world's population) which cant access its >>> present structures. >> Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies that can't >> access its present structures"? There are at least a couple of places >> where civil society groups can become involved in ICANN. >> >> I think that it might be more productive to actually involve more CS >> folks in ICANN, than just try to discuss ICANN at the IGF (even if you >> succeeded in winning the resistence to that, what would happen after the >> discussion? I really don't see feasible any political scenario in which >> ICANN would take directions from the IGF.). At the last ICANN meeting, >> between known faces scattered in corridors, there were talks of a fixed >> civil society meeting on the last day of every ICANN meeting - that >> might be a good point to start, for example. >> -- >> vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >> --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Tue Apr 10 18:24:49 2007 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:24:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Message-ID: Vittorio Bertola wrote: >I really don't see feasible any political scenario in which >ICANN would take directions from the IGF. "Take direction," no, but ICANN will respond to political pressures from any source. And why not use IGF to stimulate awareness of ICANN and its issues, if there are civil society people who go to it and not ICANN meetings? > At the last ICANN meeting, > between known faces scattered in corridors, there >were talks of a fixed civil society meeting on the > last day of every ICANN meeting - that > might be a good point to start, for example. There was also such talk at the joint NCUC-ALAC meeting. Carlos and I have been promoting this idea for a couple of years now. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Tue Apr 10 18:37:33 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:37:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Question: In the wake of RegisterFly, is ICANN taking flight? Message-ID: My original question regarding the RegisterFly Case was: �� under which Court of International Law could a similar Suit be brought by Plaintiffs who domicile outside of the US Jurisdiction? �� The reservations I have concern �Due Process�, particularly in the matter �Jurisdiction�. As it is, the case is now in the: U. S. District Court - Middle District of North Carolina Case 07cv00188 Anne Martinez v RegisterFly, ICANN et. al. Presiding Judge: Hon. Frank W. Bullock, Jr. http://www.ncmd.uscourts.gov/ -- According to Webhosting.Info http://www.webhosting.info/registrars/reports/total_domains/REGISTERFLY.COM As of 04/02/07 RegisterFly has a total number of 895,291, about 1.110% of the Global Market Share. There was no information on the Demographics of these Domains, But for the sake of argument, lets presume 96% of the Domains were U.S. owned, with 4% Foreign owned. 895,291 x .96 = 859479 U.S. / Domestic registrations 895,291 x .04 = 35811 Foreign registrations Further each Registrant owned 12 domains each. 895,291 x .96 = 859479 U.S. / Domestic 859479/12 = 71623 U.S. Litigants 895,291 x .04 = 35811 Foreign 35811/12 = 2984 Foreign Litigants Rounding up we have a *very conservative estimate* of 3000 �possible� Foreign Litigants. - THE QUESTION: Under which �Jurisdiction� could a similar Suit be brought by Plaintiffs whom are domicile outside of the US? My first inclination would be the International Court of Justice (ICJ) within the realm of Public International Law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_international_law -- I am prompted to feel this way in the wake of reports that ICANN is trying to avoid the noose. Given ICANN's behavioral propensity to avoid conflicts, should a move transpire, matters At-Large may worsen ICANN's transparency. Re: http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/03/1924227&from=rss http://www.icann.org/psc/psc-report-final-25mar07.pdf http://news.com.com/2061-10796_3-6172758.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&subj=n ews -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Apr 10 18:57:23 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:57:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <20070410173853.AE03312C050@kokori.dyf.it> References: <20070410173853.AE03312C050@kokori.dyf.it> Message-ID: <461C1653.5070209@bertola.eu> Parminder ha scritto: > Before addressing your question But please do... > Since when have we begun to take note of resistance of any organization > before discussing it at IGF or elsewhere. Oh well, mine was just a honest opinion. You are free to ignore any resistance and discuss future arrangements for ICANN at the IGF. However, unless the scenario changes and a certain number of governments (the same ones that acted so that the "enhanced cooperation" was agreed in Tunis as a separate process than the IGF) recognize the IGF as a venue for that discussion, whatever is held there will just be a moment of entertainment among ourselves. In the meantime, a number of discussions are already going on at ICANN, so chances are that by the time you finally have that discussion at the IGF, ICANN will already have devised plans of its own for its revised institutional arrangements. This is why I thought to suggest you to show up at the President's Strategy Committee sessions at ICANN meetings instead - I think that it might be a more effective way to contribute to that discussion. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Apr 11 08:13:34 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:43:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <461B7F8C.1030709@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20070411121341.5F52BE1395@smtp3.electricembers.net> Vittorio > Parminder ha scritto: > > (2) Call for a forum within IGF to discuss ICANN - to have ICANN > > interface with and be accountable to the many constituencies (which by > > far makes the majority of the world's population) which cant access its > > present structures. > > Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies that can't > access its present structures"? (Vittorio) I did give a clue. " the majority of the world's population ".. But let me explain. (Apologies, if it a lengthy response. I don't want to give snappy replies, so I will go into some detail. Since you have invited me to attend ICANN meetings, I must give good reasons why I, and others of the constituencies I refer to, may not be particularly inclined to do so.) Exclusion is a very complex process and operates in a number of ways. One way is to judge it through its results - I don't see anyone in ICANN - or anyone interacting with ICANN - who could be seen as representing (or speaking for) disadvantaged people from developing countries (this could be called the development constituency, for the purpose of the present conversation). It could either be because ICANN's functions do not impact these people, which I hope you do not believe. Or that these people are excluded from accessing ICANN policy making structures. Other than to judge it in this direct way, as I said, exclusion is a very complex process. But, I will try to quickly summarize some points on what makes ICANN inaccessible to these people. I don't want to give snappy replies, so I will go into some detail. * ICANN proceeds from ideological principles which are alien to these people, and not acceptable to them for a global governance body. It starts with a private sector nomenclature which doesn't mean the same to these people as it means to ICANNists, and this vocabulary isn't the practice at global governance bodies. It goes on to its view of the world as a marketplace (and not much else), and to its predominant catering to corporate interests. Its mission and core values speak about the value of competition but forgets about that of collaboration (despite it, people have shown the unprecedented possibilities of collaboration on the Internet), it speaks about markets but avoids terms like publics and commons.. ICANN zealously upholds IPR but hasn't done anything to promote universal access to knowledge. People know which places will welcome them, and which to avoid. No one declares exclusion. * Typical governance structures try to over-represent interests that need special protection, and build strong systems to minimize influence of vested interests that already dominate and could skew the processes their way. This is the essence of the principle of equity. ICANN seems to actively encourage the latter. There are good amount of elements in ICANN of working as a professional association of a particular trade which does everything to maximize its membership's interests (which have an ever present tendency to go against wider public interest). The development constituency is very wary of such 'privatized governance' and it has seen its ill-effects in many social sectors. They aren't willing to be party to new forms of such governance which can be trend-setting for the information society. * ICANN hides its public policy impacts and tries to present itself as a technical coordination body. Now, these people (the development constituency), I refer to, and those who speak for them, are not techno-fascinated and are NOT interested in technical management. They do not want to be in a body which says, well, there isnt any public policy work that we do. But we all know the public policy impact of ICANN's functions. I am very clear that the public policy implications of ICANN's work can be separated from the technical functions and presented in socio-political language of their real content, which, in case of the impact on these excluded people I refer to, will be presented in a way they can connect to. But it doesn't serve ICANN to do so. It seem to think that its survival in its present form depends on underplaying (and for this purpose camouflaging in technical terms/ discourse) its public policy impact. This doesn't help participation from other than a charmed circle of insiders. * ICANN invents and drives a discourse which aids self-preservation. For instance, it speaks of its accountability to the 'global internet community'. Many times on this list I have requested anyone to clarify the meaning of this term to me. Whether it involves all those who in some ways are internet professionals (including internet businesses), whereby it becomes a trade body, or all those who use the Internet, or all those who are impacted by the Internet (which is practically, everyone in this world). One can't associate with an organization which doesn't clarify its legitimate constituency. The development constituency works with and for people who may still not be big users of the Internet (if at all), but Internet polices affect them in important ways, including as a set of significant possibilities to change power equations that at present dis-empowers them. One is not sure in interacting with ICANN if one is siding with an insider group which doesn't consider the outsider group as its constituency. * Through its individuation of its constituency, and not taking into account that people are organized in various social forms which are as relevant as their individual identities (no doubt done to avoid governments staking the claim to be representing their people) ICANN is able to actively avoid participation of most people. They are increasingly allowing governments in under pressure, but what about others... Not willing to be discussed at IGF, and not facing those people who cannot access ICANN structures is a further link in, and proof of, this process of exclusion. ICANN just doesn't speak the language of these people I am talking about, and the two sides have a good distance to travel before they set into a meaningful interaction... Who is supposed to make the effort? And this is the final test of inclusion/ exclusion. Inclusion doesn't happen by making self-righteous claims, it happens through an active outreach to constituencies which may feel as outsiders and/or neglected. Does ICANN do it? For starters, they can have a session of interactions at the IGF. These were some points that come to my mind in describing ICANN's inaccessibility for some important constituencies. I must say here that I have no doubt that ICANN does some very important global work, and many at ICANN are trying to improve the world in all possible ways. What I mean to stress here is that they need to look out to the larger world with a more open and welcoming mind. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:44 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > > Parminder ha scritto: > > (2) Call for a forum within IGF to discuss ICANN - to have ICANN > > interface with and be accountable to the many constituencies (which by > > far makes the majority of the world's population) which cant access its > > present structures. > > Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies that can't > access its present structures"? There are at least a couple of places > where civil society groups can become involved in ICANN. > > I think that it might be more productive to actually involve more CS > folks in ICANN, than just try to discuss ICANN at the IGF (even if you > succeeded in winning the resistence to that, what would happen after the > discussion? I really don't see feasible any political scenario in which > ICANN would take directions from the IGF.). At the last ICANN meeting, > between known faces scattered in corridors, there were talks of a fixed > civil society meeting on the last day of every ICANN meeting - that > might be a good point to start, for example. > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Wed Apr 11 08:41:45 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 05:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: [information update] Todays Court Docket Info In-Reply-To: sympa.1176243818.48887.353@lists.cpsr.org Message-ID: U. S. District Court - Middle District of North Carolina http://www.ncmd.uscourts.gov/ Anne Martinez v RegisterFly, ICANN et. al. Case 07cv00188 The Honorable TREVOR P. SHARP Greensboro Courtroom #1A 1:07-cv-00188-UA-PTS MARTINEZ v. REGISTERFLY, INC., et al 09:30 AM Motion Hearing Docket: http://www.ncmd.uscourts.gov/calendar.htm - April, 11, 2007 CASE: 1:07-cv-00188-UA-PTS MARTINEZ v. REGISTERFLY, INC., et al 09:30 AM Motion Hearing Motions: http://www.registerfly-lawsuit.com/registerfly-documents/ - Re: http://www.registerfly-lawsuit.com/developments/ On April 11, 2007, the Dummit Law Firm will appear in Federal Court opposite counsel for RegisterFly, Kevin Medina, and ICANN to argue for a Preliminary Injunction requiring RegisterFly and Kevin Medina to turn over all domain data that is required to protect registrants from permanently losing their domain registrations. Clarke Dummit of the Dummit Law Firm will assert that without the data, current and former customers will face irreparable harm as a result of the potentially permanent loss of their domains. Additionally, Dummit will explicate ICANN's impotency when attempting to protect the public against these irreparable harms. Check back periodically for updates as they are available. -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Wed Apr 11 09:23:54 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:23:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] TR: Invitation to the Joint Facilitation Meeting on Action Lines C2, C4, and C6 to be held on 16 May 2007 Message-ID: <200704111323.l3BDNJlv013305@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Find below the ITU-signed invitation for the WSIS Action Line Facilitation meeting on C2, C4, and C6 taking place on 16 May 2006. Best regards, Philippe Dam _____ De : infrastructure at itu.int Envoyé : mercredi, 11. avril 2007 13:41 Objet : Invitation to the Joint Facilitation Meeting on Action Lines C2, C4, and C6 to be held on 16 May 2007 Dear Sir/Madam, Please find attached an invitation letter addressed to all WSIS stakeholders to the Joint Facilitation Meeting on Action Lines C2, C4, and C6 to be held on 16 May 2007 at ITU Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. For more information on this meeting, please visit the following page www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/cluster2007.html Registration for the event is now open at http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/ With kind regards, Jaroslaw Ponder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AL-C2-C4-C6-Invitation.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 76522 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wsis at ngocongo.org Wed Apr 11 09:25:02 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:25:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] TR: ICTRC Offices Were Sealed by the Revolutionary Court Message-ID: <200704111324.l3BDOOkS026198@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, For your information, this is the message we received a couple of days ago regarding the situation of the ICTRC, an NGO accredited to WSIS, based in Tehran. We realised that this message did not go through the Plenary List, and this information has to be circulated. At this time, the ICTRC offices are still closed and the staff cannot work. Best, Philippe _____ De : sohrab razzaghi [mailto:sohrab.razzaghi at gmail.com] Envoyé : mardi, 20. mars 2007 09:34 À : rbloem at ngocongo.org; wsis at ngocongo.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org Objet : ICTRC Offices Were Sealed by the Revolutionary Court Dear all, Thursday afternoon, when the board of directors of ICTRC were holding their weekly meeting and most of the staff were present at the ICTRC office, the Intelligence forces appeared holding a search warrant. They asked every body out, except for me (ICTRC Executive Director) and started searching the place. In spite of my request, they did not provide any reason of legal accusation against ICTRC for their act. On hour later, they sealed ICTRC office and took me to my home and searched it too (they had a separate warrant for that too). Their thorough search took 4 hours. They took away all kinds of documents (including personal ones such as checkbooks, etc.), personal documents, tapes, CDs, photos, etc. (including books, newsletters, and all my hand-written notes). The authorities also blocked the ICTRC's bank accounts and my personal bank account on the same day (as I later realized). The officials refused to provide any legal justification or accusations for their act. In the past, ICTRC staff (including board members) have been questioned by agents (on the street) or summoned officially by courts. However, no formal accusations have ever been made so far upon ICTRC. ICTRC is a non-for-profit organization, founded in 2002, which works on the capacity-building of Iranian civil society organizations, strengthening free access to information, promoting roles of women and children NGOs in MDGs (Millennium development goals) and raising public awareness and knowledge of citizens about human rights. ICTRC is the focal point for CSOs in West Asia and the Middle East and a member to the CSO Bureau of the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS). Sealing the offices of ICTRC is a move against the laws of the country and a clear example of the violation of the human rights. We, hereby, urge all human rights organizations and CSOs (at national and international level) to react to the violation of fundamental freedoms and human rights and the suppression of independent Iranian CSOs and demand the Iranian government to respect the freedoms and rights of people and CSOs through a large-scale campaign. 2 other Iranian CSOs – NGO TC and Rahi – were also sealed on the same day, while their executive directors – Mahboubeh Abbasghjolizadeh and Shadi Sadr- were still in custody. The two women activists were among the 33 women activists who had been arrested on 4 March 2007, while holding a peaceful gathering in front of the Revolutionary Court in protest to the trial of 5 women activists. Many Iranian CSOs have so far been suffering from the efforts of the government for their elimination, isolation and limitation. Thank you all. Sohrab Razzaghi ICTRC Executive Director -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Apr 11 09:36:47 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:36:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03a501c77c3e$79298810$6b7c9830$@com> Yes, this was brought up at that meeting and the idea was discussed further in informal gatherings. All so far thought it was a great idea and should be pursued. The only concern was whether it should be informal or formal on the schedule. I'd prefer that it be formally scheduled, but an informal format (being scheduled will allow for it to be advertised and promoted so that people know about it and can come, and to have interpretation and webcasting facilities if we want that) Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 6:25 PM To: Vittorio Bertola; governance at lists.cpsr.org; ca at rits.org.br Cc: Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Vittorio Bertola wrote: >I really don't see feasible any political scenario in which >ICANN would take directions from the IGF. "Take direction," no, but ICANN will respond to political pressures from any source. And why not use IGF to stimulate awareness of ICANN and its issues, if there are civil society people who go to it and not ICANN meetings? > At the last ICANN meeting, > between known faces scattered in corridors, there >were talks of a fixed civil society meeting on the > last day of every ICANN meeting - that > might be a good point to start, for example. There was also such talk at the joint NCUC-ALAC meeting. Carlos and I have been promoting this idea for a couple of years now. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Apr 11 09:48:25 2007 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:48:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <20070411121341.5F52BE1395@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <461B7F8C.1030709@bertola.eu> <20070411121341.5F52BE1395@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <03bd01c77c40$169f7a90$43de6fb0$@com> Hi Parminder As a member of an ALS from a developing country, we are one of several groups that have recently joined ICANN via the ALAC and its Regional Organisations. They are still very very new, but we are testing to see how this can work for us. To us, the RALO is an organization that can take our issues to ICANN, and explain ICANN’s sometimes confusing policies and processes to our constituents so that we can then create our input to ICANN. I’m a member of LACRALO, which is about 3 months old. So we will see. If you are interested, there’s APRALO for Asia-Pacific, and you can join; talk to Izumi about it Jacqueline From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 8:14 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Vittorio Bertola' Subject: RE: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Vittorio > Parminder ha scritto: > > (2) Call for a forum within IGF to discuss ICANN – to have ICANN > > interface with and be accountable to the many constituencies (which by > > far makes the majority of the world’s population) which cant access its > > present structures. > > Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies that can't > access its present structures"? (Vittorio) I did give a clue. ” the majority of the world’s population “…… But let me explain. (Apologies, if it a lengthy response. I don’t want to give snappy replies, so I will go into some detail. Since you have invited me to attend ICANN meetings, I must give good reasons why I, and others of the constituencies I refer to, may not be particularly inclined to do so.) Exclusion is a very complex process and operates in a number of ways. One way is to judge it through its results – I don’t see anyone in ICANN – or anyone interacting with ICANN - who could be seen as representing (or speaking for) disadvantaged people from developing countries (this could be called the development constituency, for the purpose of the present conversation). It could either be because ICANN’s functions do not impact these people, which I hope you do not believe. Or that these people are excluded from accessing ICANN policy making structures. Other than to judge it in this direct way, as I said, exclusion is a very complex process. But, I will try to quickly summarize some points on what makes ICANN inaccessible to these people. I don’t want to give snappy replies, so I will go into some detail. * ICANN proceeds from ideological principles which are alien to these people, and not acceptable to them for a global governance body. It starts with a private sector nomenclature which doesn’t mean the same to these people as it means to ICANNists, and this vocabulary isn’t the practice at global governance bodies. It goes on to its view of the world as a marketplace (and not much else), and to its predominant catering to corporate interests. Its mission and core values speak about the value of competition but forgets about that of collaboration (despite it, people have shown the unprecedented possibilities of collaboration on the Internet), it speaks about markets but avoids terms like publics and commons…. ICANN zealously upholds IPR but hasn’t done anything to promote universal access to knowledge. People know which places will welcome them, and which to avoid. No one declares exclusion. * Typical governance structures try to over-represent interests that need special protection, and build strong systems to minimize influence of vested interests that already dominate and could skew the processes their way. This is the essence of the principle of equity. ICANN seems to actively encourage the latter. There are good amount of elements in ICANN of working as a professional association of a particular trade which does everything to maximize its membership’s interests (which have an ever present tendency to go against wider public interest). The development constituency is very wary of such ‘privatized governance’ and it has seen its ill-effects in many social sectors… They aren’t willing to be party to new forms of such governance which can be trend-setting for the information society. * ICANN hides its public policy impacts and tries to present itself as a technical coordination body. Now, these people (the development constituency), I refer to, and those who speak for them, are not techno-fascinated and are NOT interested in technical management. They do not want to be in a body which says, well, there isnt any public policy work that we do. But we all know the public policy impact of ICANN’s functions. I am very clear that the public policy implications of ICANN’s work can be separated from the technical functions and presented in socio-political language of their real content, which, in case of the impact on these excluded people I refer to, will be presented in a way they can connect to. But it doesn’t serve ICANN to do so. It seem to think that its survival in its present form depends on underplaying (and for this purpose camouflaging in technical terms/ discourse) its public policy impact. This doesn’t help participation from other than a charmed circle of insiders. * ICANN invents and drives a discourse which aids self-preservation. For instance, it speaks of its accountability to the ‘global internet community’. Many times on this list I have requested anyone to clarify the meaning of this term to me. Whether it involves all those who in some ways are internet professionals (including internet businesses), whereby it becomes a trade body, or all those who use the Internet, or all those who are impacted by the Internet (which is practically, everyone in this world). One can’t associate with an organization which doesn’t clarify its legitimate constituency. The development constituency works with and for people who may still not be big users of the Internet (if at all), but Internet polices affect them in important ways, including as a set of significant possibilities to change power equations that at present dis-empowers them. One is not sure in interacting with ICANN if one is siding with an insider group which doesn’t consider the outsider group as its constituency. * Through its individuation of its constituency, and not taking into account that people are organized in various social forms which are as relevant as their individual identities (no doubt done to avoid governments staking the claim to be representing their people) ICANN is able to actively avoid participation of most people. They are increasingly allowing governments in under pressure, but what about others….. Not willing to be discussed at IGF, and not facing those people who cannot access ICANN structures is a further link in, and proof of, this process of exclusion. ICANN just doesn’t speak the language of these people I am talking about, and the two sides have a good distance to travel before they set into a meaningful interaction….. Who is supposed to make the effort? And this is the final test of inclusion/ exclusion. Inclusion doesn’t happen by making self-righteous claims, it happens through an active outreach to constituencies which may feel as outsiders and/or neglected. Does ICANN do it? For starters, they can have a session of interactions at the IGF. These were some points that come to my mind in describing ICANN’s inaccessibility for some important constituencies… I must say here that I have no doubt that ICANN does some very important global work, and many at ICANN are trying to improve the world in all possible ways. What I mean to stress here is that they need to look out to the larger world with a more open and welcoming mind. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:44 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > > Parminder ha scritto: > > (2) Call for a forum within IGF to discuss ICANN – to have ICANN > > interface with and be accountable to the many constituencies (which by > > far makes the majority of the world’s population) which cant access its > > present structures. > > Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies that can't > access its present structures"? There are at least a couple of places > where civil society groups can become involved in ICANN. > > I think that it might be more productive to actually involve more CS > folks in ICANN, than just try to discuss ICANN at the IGF (even if you > succeeded in winning the resistence to that, what would happen after the > discussion? I really don't see feasible any political scenario in which > ICANN would take directions from the IGF.). At the last ICANN meeting, > between known faces scattered in corridors, there were talks of a fixed > civil society meeting on the last day of every ICANN meeting - that > might be a good point to start, for example. > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Wed Apr 11 11:08:13 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:08:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: Hearing - Continued to an undetermined date In-Reply-To: sympa.1176294986.59194.482@lists.cpsr.org Message-ID: April, 11, 2007 U. S. District Court - Middle District of North Carolina Honorable TREVOR P. SHARP Greensboro Courtroom #1A CASE: 1:07-cv-00188-UA-PTS MARTINEZ v. REGISTERFLY, INC., et al 09:30 AM Motion Hearing Motions: http://www.registerfly-lawsuit.com/registerfly-documents/ - Docket: http://www.ncmd.uscourts.gov/calendar.htm -- RegisterFly Class Action Update April 10, 2007 Unfortunately I was just called by the clerk's office this afternoon, and Magistrate Judge Sharp just granted ICANN's Motion to continue the hearing from tomorrow April 11th 2007 to an undetermined date. I know this is bad news for so many of you who are still trapped, and it is one more breach by ICANN of their duty to protect the public. I plan on filing a new request for an immediate TRO based upon the unfolding situation, however I cannot disclose the details at this time. I have been compiling affidavits and evidence of ongoing fraud since the last hearing. I am preparing documents to be filed soon. I am continuing to fight for all of those who are still trapped. I will keep you updated as the case unfolds. Clarke Dummit -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 11 11:46:19 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:46:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Message-ID: Agreed, a workshop or really a workshop and a plenary discussion on ICANN Evolution at IGF II is needed. Doesn't directly affect the continual internal reorgs ICANN is going through, as it should, nor obviate the need for broader participation within iCANN whihc Vittorio is reasonably calling for, but provides a second still broader venue for this debate - and maybe - recommendations. And, now that IGF I proved itself to be a useful place for broader dialogue, I suspect any a priori constraints on topics IGF II is 'free' to discuss are gone. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> jam at jacquelinemorris.com 4/11/2007 9:36 AM >>> Yes, this was brought up at that meeting and the idea was discussed further in informal gatherings. All so far thought it was a great idea and should be pursued. The only concern was whether it should be informal or formal on the schedule. I'd prefer that it be formally scheduled, but an informal format (being scheduled will allow for it to be advertised and promoted so that people know about it and can come, and to have interpretation and webcasting facilities if we want that) Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 6:25 PM To: Vittorio Bertola; governance at lists.cpsr.org; ca at rits.org.br Cc: Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Vittorio Bertola wrote: >I really don't see feasible any political scenario in which >ICANN would take directions from the IGF. "Take direction," no, but ICANN will respond to political pressures from any source. And why not use IGF to stimulate awareness of ICANN and its issues, if there are civil society people who go to it and not ICANN meetings? > At the last ICANN meeting, > between known faces scattered in corridors, there >were talks of a fixed civil society meeting on the > last day of every ICANN meeting - that > might be a good point to start, for example. There was also such talk at the joint NCUC-ALAC meeting. Carlos and I have been promoting this idea for a couple of years now. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Apr 11 12:45:23 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:45:23 +0900 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: (I've cut the cc list. Just the list) At 11:46 AM -0400 4/11/07, Lee McKnight wrote: >Agreed, a workshop or really a workshop and a plenary discussion on >ICANN Evolution at IGF II is needed. Good idea. My guess is that ICANN evolution would be considered too narrow an issue for a main session. And may not be popular with some as it would likely be seen as closely linked to enhanced cooperation (see the transcripts of the February stocktaking meeting for ducking that went on when enhanced cooperation was mentioned.) But I tend to be unadventurous in what I think possible (wishy-washy), so go for it. Write up a proposal. I think (hope) there will be a session discussing Internet resources (allocation, management, policies.) And as one of the suggestions we made in February, and also requested by others, was for workshops to be more tightly linked to the main sessions then discussing ICANN broadly in the main session and going deeper in a workshop or workshops should work. Of course we should also (I hope) be suggesting that the same open call for workshop proposals be repeated, it worked last year. Some of the most popular workshops we on topics not covered by the main theme (root servers, etc.) Proposing sessions and workshops that build on discussions in Athens, again so we can go deeper, may also be popular. Can this ICANN evolution idea be linked to outcomes of workshops IGP put on last year. And what was the outcome of the workshop on the framework convention? >Doesn't directly affect the continual internal reorgs ICANN is going >through, as it should, nor obviate the need for broader participation >within iCANN whihc Vittorio is reasonably calling for, but provides a >second still broader venue for this debate - and maybe - >recommendations. > >And, now that IGF I proved itself to be a useful place for broader >dialogue, I suspect any a priori constraints on topics IGF II is 'free' >to discuss are gone. As I said, I hope not. There was a pretty consistent message in the stock taking exercise for more coordination of workshops (ensure multistakeholder, etc, but link to the main themes, more focused, no overlapping issues, merge similar proposals. And IGC even suggested the amount of time that should be devoted to discussion -- I thought a bit controlling myself...) But at the same time, people we pretty consistent in saying the advisory group shouldn't insert itself too much (bit of tension between not taking decisions on themes and then being asked to get into more detail on workshops?) Many thought the number of workshops about right, but a similar number seemed to think there was too much going on at the same time so it was hard to follow. I hope the will be the same amount of freedom, but more coordination. Generally tighter agenda. But we are again running short of time to arrange a large international conference. Which is why suggestions like this on themes are important. Adam >Lee > >Prof. Lee W. McKnight >School of Information Studies >Syracuse University >+1-315-443-6891office >+1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>>> jam at jacquelinemorris.com 4/11/2007 9:36 AM >>> >Yes, this was brought up at that meeting and the idea was discussed >further >in informal gatherings. All so far thought it was a great idea and >should be >pursued. The only concern was whether it should be informal or formal >on the >schedule. I'd prefer that it be formally scheduled, but an informal >format >(being scheduled will allow for it to be advertised and promoted so >that >people know about it and can come, and to have interpretation and >webcasting >facilities if we want that) >Jacqueline > >-----Original Message----- >From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] >Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 6:25 PM >To: Vittorio Bertola; governance at lists.cpsr.org; ca at rits.org.br >Cc: Parminder >Subject: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > > > >Vittorio Bertola wrote: >>I really don't see feasible any political scenario in which >>ICANN would take directions from the IGF. > >"Take direction," no, but ICANN will respond to political pressures >from any source. And why not use IGF to stimulate awareness of ICANN >and >its issues, if there are civil society people who go to it and not >ICANN meetings? > >> At the last ICANN meeting, >> between known faces scattered in corridors, there >>were talks of a fixed civil society meeting on the >> last day of every ICANN meeting - that >> might be a good point to start, for example. > >There was also such talk at the joint NCUC-ALAC meeting. Carlos and I >have been promoting this idea for a couple of years now. >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: >4/9/2007 >10:59 PM > > >-- >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: >4/9/2007 >10:59 PM > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, 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 lists at privaterra.info Wed Apr 11 12:56:59 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:56:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] CFP 2007 in Montreal Message-ID: <1152BCE2-10E3-48BA-AEC3-9BDCF15A9E47@privaterra.info> I wanted to remind all of you on this list of the Computers, Freedom and Privacy (CFP) conference in Montreal, from May 1-4. This is only the second time the conference has been held outside the United States. The Program Committee, and especially Stephanie Perrin, has been working very hard to get a good program together. The preliminary set of panels can be seen at www.cfp2007.org . The final program will be available very soon. This has been a terrific conference over the years, and probably THE international venue where the privacy and civil liberties implications of new communications technologies have been debated. However, attendance has been slipping recently. We need to ensure that this year’s event is well attended. I would encourage you to register. regards, Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra www.privaterra.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 ki_chango at yahoo.com Wed Apr 11 22:54:57 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <20070410173842.7DD6EC9616@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <10222.63860.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com> I must say I am of those who are puzzled by that reasoning, which clearly stem from the power dynamics, and their ultimate and subtle effects such as that self-censoring I was referring to earlier on. Yes, we are all equal, but of course there are some who are more equals than others. Mawaki --- Parminder wrote: > Hi Vittorio > > Before addressing your question > > > Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies > that can't > > access its present structures. > > I am inclined to go to the second part of your email which > surprises me, > though I know it is well intentioned. > > > I think that it might be more productive to actually involve > more CS > > folks in ICANN, than just try to discuss ICANN at the IGF > (even if you > > succeeded in winning the resistence to that, what would > happen after the > > discussion? > > -- > > Since when have we begun to take note of resistance of any > organization > before discussing it at IGF or elsewhere. Do you think a China > or an Iran > (or taking all those countries to whom content regulation > issues are mostly > addressed as a single unit) are not resistant to our > discussing their > conduct vis a vis content regulation at IGF. But there were > any number of > workshops on this issue, and a good amount of discussion in > plenaries. > > To drive the point harder, did we not discuss Tunisia so much > at WSIS > despite its resistance? > > As for > >what would happen after the > > discussion? > > What would happen after discussion on free expression, content > regulation or > an internet bill of rights at IGF ??? All these are realms in > which (mostly) > governments are exclusive authorities. > > >I really don't see feasible any political scenario in which > > ICANN would take directions from the IGF.). > > But do you see a political scenario where these countries will > take > directions from the IGF. > > Why such special considerations to ICANN. Why would one shield > ICANN from > IGF? I am not able to understand this at all. > > Who made the rule that we will be discussing only those > organizations/ > institutions at IGF who are not resistant to such discussions? > And only say > such things to organizations which we already know they are > keen to heed. > > Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:44 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > > Subject: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > > > > Parminder ha scritto: > > > (2) Call for a forum within IGF to discuss ICANN - to > have ICANN > > > interface with and be accountable to the many > constituencies (which by > > > far makes the majority of the world's population) which > cant access its > > > present structures. > > > > Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies > that can't > > access its present structures"? There are at least a couple > of places > > where civil society groups can become involved in ICANN. > > > > I think that it might be more productive to actually involve > more CS > > folks in ICANN, than just try to discuss ICANN at the IGF > (even if you > > succeeded in winning the resistence to that, what would > happen after the > > discussion? I really don't see feasible any political > scenario in which > > ICANN would take directions from the IGF.). At the last > ICANN meeting, > > between known faces scattered in corridors, there were talks > of a fixed > > civil society meeting on the last day of every ICANN meeting > - that > > might be a good point to start, for example. > > -- > > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu > <-------- > > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ > <-------- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Wed Apr 11 23:01:37 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:01:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf In-Reply-To: <021801c77bb1$02c6f690$8c0efa0a@IAN> Message-ID: <985107.64892.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com> I do agree that that would be a better option, knowing how hard that may be to correct an existing organization as opposed to creating anew, on/for clearer defined bases/missions. But it seems people are fascinated by ICANN... Mawaki --- Ian Peter wrote: > I'm with Parminder on this, but to go further > > ICANN reform might be useful - might even be attainable - but > in itself does > not give us a sensible system of internet governance. > > If IGF and the CS component are to be useful we need to begin > looking past > existing structures and reacting to their every move and > towards the > creation of structures that fill both the gaps and the areas > where ICANN > cannot work effectively. > > > > Ian Peter > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 > Australia > Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 > www.ianpeter.com > www.internetmark2.org > www.nethistory.info > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: 11 April 2007 03:39 > To: 'Vittorio Bertola'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > > Hi Vittorio > > Before addressing your question > > > Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies > that can't > > access its present structures. > > I am inclined to go to the second part of your email which > surprises me, > though I know it is well intentioned. > > > I think that it might be more productive to actually involve > more CS > > folks in ICANN, than just try to discuss ICANN at the IGF > (even if you > > succeeded in winning the resistence to that, what would > happen after the > > discussion? > > -- > > Since when have we begun to take note of resistance of any > organization > before discussing it at IGF or elsewhere. Do you think a China > or an Iran > (or taking all those countries to whom content regulation > issues are mostly > addressed as a single unit) are not resistant to our > discussing their > conduct vis a vis content regulation at IGF. But there were > any number of > workshops on this issue, and a good amount of discussion in > plenaries. > > To drive the point harder, did we not discuss Tunisia so much > at WSIS > despite its resistance? > > As for > >what would happen after the > > discussion? > > What would happen after discussion on free expression, content > regulation or > an internet bill of rights at IGF ??? All these are realms in > which (mostly) > governments are exclusive authorities. > > >I really don't see feasible any political scenario in which > > ICANN would take directions from the IGF.). > > But do you see a political scenario where these countries will > take > directions from the IGF. > > Why such special considerations to ICANN. Why would one shield > ICANN from > IGF? I am not able to understand this at all. > > Who made the rule that we will be discussing only those > organizations/ > institutions at IGF who are not resistant to such discussions? > And only say > such things to organizations which we already know they are > keen to heed. > > Parminder > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:44 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > > Subject: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > > > > Parminder ha scritto: > > > (2) Call for a forum within IGF to discuss ICANN - to > have ICANN > > > interface with and be accountable to the many > constituencies (which by > > > far makes the majority of the world's population) which > cant access its > > > present structures. > > > > Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies > that can't > > access its present structures"? There are at least a couple > of places > > where civil society groups can become involved in ICANN. > > > > I think that it might be more productive to actually involve > more CS > > folks in ICANN, than just try to discuss ICANN at the IGF > (even if you > > succeeded in winning the resistence to that, what would > happen after the > > discussion? I really don't see feasible any political > scenario in which > > ICANN would take directions from the IGF.). At the last > ICANN meeting, > > between known faces scattered in corridors, there were talks > of a fixed > > civil society meeting on the last day of every ICANN meeting > - that > > might be a good point to start, for example. > > -- > > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu > <-------- > > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ > <-------- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.25/745 - Release > Date: 03/04/2007 > 12:48 > > > -- > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.25/745 - Release > Date: 03/04/2007 > 12:48 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 Thu Apr 12 04:52:25 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:52:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: (message from Adam Peake on Sat, 7 Apr 2007 19:26:08 +0900) References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> <1038953b0704060626m1e5c1782m14ece2e666d6de6@mail.gmail.com> <4616F894.2040403@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <20070412085225.DC4232C0EEE@quill.bollow.ch> Adam Peake wrote, quoting Jeremy Malcolm : > >This is exactly the same problem that existed in Athens. Time and > >time again, people would make the same points; in written > >submissions, at the consultations, in plenary sessions, in the > >follow-up process. Time and again their views would sink into the > >depths, never to resurface. A number of really useful proposals > >simply got lost in this way. Does anyone remember the Swiss > >Internet User Group's proposal for Internet Quality Labels? No? > > > No, not particularly. We've heard many good ideas. Perhaps Norbert > will propose a workshop? Or tell us about the idea on the list, see > if it gains more support. I'd suggest approaching W3C. There might > even be overlap (weak most likely) with some of the dynamic > coalitions. Well, the proposal text is here: http://intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/SwissInternetUserGroup.txt Actually the decision to propose Internet Quality Labels was made not just by Swiss Internet User Group but by consensus in a meeting of a significant number of leading people from a wide variety of Swiss civil society organizations, who met at the "Internet Governance Symposium" in Zurich on July 7, 2006. There are two main aspects to this proposal: One is to promote "Internet Quality Label" certification as a tool for promoting e.g. making websites accessible to people with disabilities. (There is positive experience in this area in Switzerland, about which I gave a presentation at the -unfortunately very poorly attended- W3C workshop at the IGF in Athens, see http://atmig.org/igf06/swiss-perspective ). I'm not directly involved in the certification work in Switzerland, which is carried forward by design4all.ch, but the "Internet Quality Label" proposal is endorsed by design4all.ch. The second goal of the proposal is to create discussion of how internet governance can be organized in an accountable and transparent multistakeholder manner, and eventually such an internet governance organization (which will administrate the standards for those "Internet Quality Label" certifications and grant testing/certification organizations the right to award Internet Quality Labels, under appropriate conditions). I believe that it is going to be much easier to create a new organization in a manner which is genuinely accountable, genuinely transparent and genuinely inclusive and considerate of all stakeholder groups (let's never forget Parminder's recent important remarks about how in particular the "development constituency" can easily get effectively excluded from really having a voice in internet governance processes) than e.g. reforming ICANN. Therefore I propose to focus initally on this easier task of implementing good internet governance in an area where no internet governance organization exists yet (administrating "Internet Quality Labels"). When that has been successfully achieved, we can talk about whether and how it may be feasible to really reform some of the older internet governance organizations (or perhaps I should write "telecommunications governance organizations", to include also ITU, regulation of the electromagnetic spectrum, etc.) On the question of whether I'll propose a workshop (possibly in collaboration with W3C), that depends primarily on whether anyone will pay for me to go to the IGF in Rio. SIUG (Swiss Internet User Group) unfortunately currently doesn't have enough money available to be able to cover the travel expenses to Rio. 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 Thu Apr 12 06:54:32 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:54:32 +0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN Board Vote Signals Era of Censorship in Domain Names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What an interesting thread, too bad I was sitting on the beach and missed it ;-) On 4/3/07, Lee McKnight wrote: > > What is still lacking is an 'Administrative Procedures Act' for the > Internet, in partidular to guide ICANN on how it should go about and > what it may or may not consider in its decisionmaking, whether for > gtld's or anything else. There are several of these in place already, read: http://www.iana.org/procedures/delegation-data.html and RFC 2901 for starters. -- 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 karl at cavebear.com Thu Apr 12 13:22:06 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:22:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <20070412085225.DC4232C0EEE@quill.bollow.ch> References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> <1038953b0704060626m1e5c1782m14ece2e666d6de6@mail.gmail.com> <4616F894.2040403@Malcolm.id.au> <20070412085225.DC4232C0EEE@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <461E6ABE.1090101@cavebear.com> Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> Does anyone remember the Swiss >>> Internet User Group's proposal for Internet Quality Labels? No? > Well, the proposal text is here: > > http://intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/SwissInternetUserGroup.txt I believe that this has already already been done, deployed, and, unfortunately, ignored by web users and web content providers alike. Take a look at "Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS)" at http://www.w3.org/PICS/ --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Thu Apr 12 14:39:07 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:39:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Invitation to Informal consultation between ITU and civil society on the participation of all relevant stakeholders - 18 May 2007 In-Reply-To: <200703281926.l2SJQPHI029680@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <200704121838.l3CIcUUY005206@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Further to my previous message on this issue, please find attached the invitation letter for the consultation between ITU and civil society on the participation of all relevant stakeholders (implementation of Resolution 141). The agenda is attached. The meeting will be open to all interested stakeholders, including of course all relevant CS entities. Registration is open online and will follow the same model as for most of the meetings of the cluster of WSIS related events: http://www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/edrs/ITU-SG/edrs15/edrs.registration.form. We have proposed Bill Drake (who already made contributions during the previous consultations on CS involvement in the ITU activities) and Willie Curry to make a joint presentation on the CS perspective that would introduce the interactive discussion. Discussions should take place on this mailing list for input/feedback in preparation of this consultation. All the best, Philippe Dam Philippe Dam CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org _____ De : plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] De la part de CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam Envoyé : mercredi, 28. mars 2007 20:27 À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc : 'Renate Bloem'; 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] Up date on CS participation in ITU activities Dear all, This is to inform you that, in the follow up to the adoption by the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference of Resolution 141 - Study on the participation of all relevant stakeholders in the activities of the Union related to the World Summit on the Information Society (also here attached), we have been approached by the ITU Secretariat to kick-start a process of consultation with civil society entities. This resolution, recognising the need to enhance the participation of WSIS stakeholders in the ITU, provided: - the conduct of a study on the participation of all relevant stakeholders in the activities of the ITU related to WSIS - the creation of a Working Group of the ITU Council to perform this study and to propose some reform on the basis of that study. The terms of reference and the mandate of this working group are included in the annex to resolution 141. This Working Group will be composed of ITU member states – with mention that their delegations may include appropriate legal, technical and regulatory experts – and will conduct open consultations. This Working Group is expected to start meeting on 15 June 2007. In implementing ITU Resolution 141, the ITU Secretariat took up the following steps: • Establishing the webpage of the Working Group of the Council on Resolution 141: http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/ • On line call for written contributions for all stakeholders, as indicated on the previous page: all contributions will be made public. There is no deadline for submission at the moment. Written contributions should be sent to: ITU-Stakeholders at itu.int. • Establishing a webpage on the ITU sources on civil society: http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/resources.html • Organisation on 18 May 2007 (10:00-13:00) at the ITU, in the framework of the WSIS related cluster of events, of an Informal consultation between ITU and civil society in which the ITU SG Hamadoun Touré will participate, as well as probably delegations of the two countries in charge of facilitating the work of the Working Group. More information will be circulated soon on this meeting. All the best, Philippe Dam Philippe Dam CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Invitation to May 18 CS consultation.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 75081 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Thu Apr 12 19:29:19 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:29:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Where are we going? Message-ID: <20070412232919.19396.qmail@web54104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> There's also the The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative which describes itself as "an open organization engaged in the development of interoperable online metadata standards that support a broad range of purposes and business models. DCMI's activities include work on architecture and modeling, discussions and collaborative work in DCMI Communities and DCMI Task Groups, annual conferences and workshops, standards liaison, and educational efforts to promote widespread acceptance of metadata standards and practices." See http://dublincore.org/ for more information. Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: Karl Auerbach To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Norbert Bollow Cc: siug-discuss at siug.ch Sent: Friday, 13 April, 2007 3:22:06 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we going? Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> Does anyone remember the Swiss >>> Internet User Group's proposal for Internet Quality Labels? No? > Well, the proposal text is here: > > http://intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/SwissInternetUserGroup.txt I believe that this has already already been done, deployed, and, unfortunately, ignored by web users and web content providers alike. Take a look at "Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS)" at http://www.w3.org/PICS/ --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From pwilson at apnic.net Thu Apr 12 21:41:18 2007 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:41:18 +1000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Initiation of Consultations on Resolution 102 (Rev. Antalya, 2006) Message-ID: FYI. Please find attached a consultation questionnaire on Resolution 102 (Rev. Antalya, 2006): ITU?s Role with regard to international public policy issues pertaining to the internet and the management of internet resources, including domain names and addresses. The questionnaire is available for completion online at http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/mina ________________________________________________________________________ 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Adiel A. Akplogan" Subject: [NRO-EC] Fwd: Initiation of Consultations on Resolution 102 (Rev. Antalya, 2006) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:29:19 +0400 Size: 88983 URL: From mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 12 23:00:53 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:00:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Message-ID: >>> LMcKnigh at syr.edu 04/11/07 11:46 AM >>> >Agreed, a workshop or really a workshop and a plenary discussion on >ICANN Evolution at IGF II is needed. > >Doesn't directly affect the continual internal reorgs ICANN is going >through, as it should, nor obviate the need for broader participation >within iCANN whihc Vittorio is reasonably calling for, but provides a >second still broader venue for this debate - and maybe - >recommendations. An IGF workshop on unifying civil society actors across different IG institutions, including ICANN, is a great idea, Lee. And Jacqueline was suggesting a regularly scheduled joint NCUC/ALAC/civil society meeting as part of the ICANN meeting as well. Not too early to begin planning for the Puerto Rico meeting, in late June. Parminder raised some important questions about ICANN which I hope to respond to later. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Fri Apr 13 00:14:30 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:14:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] who does "public policy" then? Message-ID: This really thoughtful message by Parminder was originally sent under the now tiresome header .xxx. igc and igf. I was too rushed to respond 3 days ago but it deserves a response and raises some very important issues. I am too busy and tired to respond as thoroughly as I should, however. >>> parminder at itforchange.net 4/9/2007 3:48 AM >>> >.xxx discussion has been very useful and is important, and that >we also need to think about what IGC wants to do about it. And a >forum presenting itself for us to do something is the IGF consultations. Here's my first observation. It is also the most important, because it's actionable: I wonder whether the IGF powers that be would be amenable to having a plenary theme on "global public policy for the Internet-- do we need it, who does it and what is it?" IG does raise policy issues. But the Tunis Agenda claim that "Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States" is either a meaningless tautology or, in my opinion, wrong and something to be politically resisted. You cannot invoke sovereignty when you are talking about policy for the internet; there are 190 sovereigns and they don't all agree. And there are transnational constituencies with a stake in the Internet's governance. National governments do not and cannot represent them. Still, this topic is central and makes for a very interesting and meaningful discussion. And since it's something that cannot result in binding recommendations or negotiations but is rather an almost philosophical discussion about the nature of global governance, it seems perfectly suited for the Forum. >.xxx issue is seen as the proxy for the broader issue of global IG public >policy. There have been two main positions in this discussion [snip] >One side can be represented by Robin/ Milton's views that .xxx is a public >policy issue and ICANN should not have got into public policy arena, and >should have stuck to its purely technical mandate. ... To quote Milton.. >"ICANN's control of the root, we believe, should not be used to >exert policy leverage over things not directly related to >the coordination of unique identifiers. There are other, more >decentralized mechanisms for dealing with >the policy problems." Now the first thing to understand about my statement is that I am not primarily talking about "who does public policy" but rather about, "how do we avoid censorship and promote freedom of expression?" and about, "what is the best, most open and neutral way to allocate and assign internet resources?" Of course, the specific answer I provide to those two questions _are themselves public policy positions_ . And of course I would like the world's govts and other stakeholders to accept and implement them. Another important point, is that the concept of "public policy" in the WSIS/ICANN context seems to mean, "whatever a bunch of governments like or don't like at any given moment." If that's what we mean by "public policy" then it does not trump human rights. There are many things that govts may want to do and even that majorities of people want them to do, that should not be done. Limits on arbitrary state power are essential to civilized, orderly governance at any level. >Milton, are you veering around to >the point that there is no need for any global IG public >policy processes/structures. or, assuming you are No, as I said the positions described above are themselves public policy positions. By noting that there are "more decentralized mechanisms for dealing with the policy problems," I was referring, mainly, to national governments. As Robin explained very clearly in her statements, ICANN could create TLDs at the global level but national governments could prohibit or even block them on "public policy" groiunds. The difference is that when national govts act within their own broders most of them are legitimate and democratically representative, and though I might disagree with many of their decisions, as long as the effects are confined to the people who elected them, and are not extended beyond their borders it is ok. >Milton has also spoken about the Framework Convention as being the >way out. However, if that's the real way forward as seen by Milton >(and IGP) it is intriguing why we hear so little about it from them. Hmmm, think we're being tricky do you? I don't know, I think we mention it a lot. The Mueller, Mathiason Klein paper just got published in Global Governance, so the concept is being taken into a new, wider forum. However, note that FC is a _process_ proposal, but we must also be concerned with _the substantive outcomes_ of a FC process as well. So sometimes maybe we emphasize what we would like to be the principles and norms of a global IG regime as much as we emphasize the process. And yes, in my opinion, if we could get the desired outcomes through some other process it would probably be ok. >So, this stance that ICANN shouldn't do public policy is not meaningful >without some clarity about, and clear evidence of devotion of energy for >moving towards, what may be legitimate public policy structures. I think what we want from governments is not really "public policy" in the WSIS/ICANN sense (which, to repeat, just means "momentary preferences of some collection of states"). We want the _rule of law_), which is what states can best deliver. Of course laws are based on policy preferences. But they impose greater restraint and discpline on governments. We want the rules to be fixed and stable, so that societal action can go forward confidently, not an authority to arbitrarily intervene whenever sovereigns feel like it. The Rule of Law kind of "public policy" is legitimate and deisrable in my estimation. >I think IGC should be strongly pushing for a 'legitimate public >policy space' for IG in a single-minded devotion to the cause. >It can be done through persistent efforts at seeking accountability >regarding the enhanced cooperation proposal, and it could be >about beginning a CS sponsored set of activities for developing >internationally applicable public policy principles for IG >and proposing structural innovations for it. >Here, I am not specifically pushing the FC agenda though >something like that looks to me the way to go. Subject to the qualifications above, I basically agree. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri Apr 13 01:29:18 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:29:18 +0800 Subject: [governance] who does "public policy" then? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <461F152E.5010302@Malcolm.id.au> Milton Mueller wrote: > I wonder whether the IGF powers that be would be amenable to having a > plenary theme on "global public policy for the Internet-- do we need it, > who does it and what is it?" IG does raise policy issues. But the Tunis > Agenda claim that "Policy authority for Internet-related public policy > issues is the sovereign right of States" is either a meaningless > tautology or, in my opinion, wrong and something to be politically > resisted. You cannot invoke sovereignty when you are talking about > policy for the internet; there are 190 sovereigns and they don't all > agree. And there are transnational constituencies with a stake in the > Internet's governance. National governments do not and cannot > represent them. I strongly support this proposal, which is consistent with both our previous submission in February (pointing to the need for "a meta governance theme" for Rio), as well as with submissions various of us have made individually. Perhaps this can be reinforced in our contribution to the May consultations. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Fri Apr 13 03:46:30 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:46:30 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <461E6ABE.1090101@cavebear.com> (message from Karl Auerbach on Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:22:06 -0700) References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> <1038953b0704060626m1e5c1782m14ece2e666d6de6@mail.gmail.com> <4616F894.2040403@Malcolm.id.au> <20070412085225.DC4232C0EEE@quill.bollow.ch> <461E6ABE.1090101@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070413074630.4AD5E3E1348@quill.bollow.ch> Karl Auerbach wrote: > Norbert Bollow wrote: > > >>> Does anyone remember the Swiss > >>> Internet User Group's proposal for Internet Quality Labels? No? > > > Well, the proposal text is here: > > > > http://intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/SwissInternetUserGroup.txt > > I believe that this has already already been done, deployed, and, > unfortunately, ignored by web users and web content providers alike. > > Take a look at "Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS)" at > http://www.w3.org/PICS/ Did you read what I wrote? I'm talking about a _certification_ process, which verifies e.g. accessibility for people with disabilities, where after successful certification sites get the right to use a certification mark called "Internet Quality Label" or whatever. I'm not talking about duplicating the work that has already been done in creating specifications about how to communicate metadata like "this site has been certified" in a machine-readable manner. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Fri Apr 13 04:25:41 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 01:25:41 -0700 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <20070413074630.4AD5E3E1348@quill.bollow.ch> References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> <1038953b0704060626m1e5c1782m14ece2e666d6de6@mail.gmail.com> <4616F894.2040403@Malcolm.id.au> <20070412085225.DC4232C0EEE@quill.bollow.ch> <461E6ABE.1090101@cavebear.com> <20070413074630.4AD5E3E1348@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <461F3E85.2090804@cavebear.com> Norbert Bollow wrote: > Karl Auerbach wrote: >>> http://intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/SwissInternetUserGroup.txt >> Take a look at "Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS)" at >> http://www.w3.org/PICS/ > > Did you read what I wrote? I'm talking about a _certification_ > process, which verifies e.g. accessibility for people with > disabilities, where after successful certification sites get the > right to use a certification mark called "Internet Quality Label" > or whatever. I did read the first document, but, being mainly a techie, I tended to focus on the "how is this done" parts rather than "why is this being done" parts. Sorry if our minds didn't meet - such is the grief of electronic discussions. There is an interesting sidelight to this, however, which is this: Is labeling http/web content a matter of internet governance? Or should internet governance be limited to making it possible for people to label http/web content. It's not that I'm unsympathetic. For the last year I've had need to carry around a card bearing a symbol, a symbol whose use is limited by law, that indicates a certain class of disability. So it's not that I'm in opposition, but rather that I really wonder how far from a technical foundation a matter of internet governance can go before it needs to drop the "internet" adjective? --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Apr 13 05:20:21 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:50:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: who does "public policy" then? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070413092033.E297DE0556@smtp3.electricembers.net> Thanks Milton, for a very detailed reply. It is good that we agree on many things, so excuse me for taking this discussion forward on a few points of difference. The main issue you raise in terms of what is public policy is of ad-hoc interferences by governments, versus a stable rule of law. I myself am calling for shaping public policy through developing of appropriate processes and principles of law and policy. However, I am very concerned about the power play in this realm of what gets construed as 'rule of law' itself... to understand this lets revisit the .xxx discussion. > Now the first thing to understand about my statement is that I am not > primarily talking about "who does public policy" but rather about, "how > do we avoid censorship and promote freedom of expression?" and about, > "what is the best, most open and neutral way to allocate and assign > internet resources?" Of course, the specific answer I provide to those > two questions _are themselves public policy positions_ . And of course I > would like the world's govts and other stakeholders to accept and > implement them. So, what you say makes it clear that whether ICANN registers .xxx or refuses to do so, it does activities of a public policy nature. Because, if they had accepted your ' public policy positions' they still would have a public policy position. This is important for all of us in the .xxx debate to understand and acknowledge. Many people who have argued against the ICANN decision do not seem to think that the refusal itself is a public policy stance. Now, you seem to legitimize this particular public policy position of ICANN (had ICANN taken it) on the ground of a superior legitimate, commonly accepted 'rule of law' in terms of human rights, as against the public policy position of rejecting .xxx which, in your view, is an adhoc interference by governments, and largely illegitimate. I wont argue about the second part - about legitimacy and ground of GAC's interference in this case, though there is much to say about it as well - I will only touch upon the 'human rights' basis of what you say would have been the legitimate public policy position of ICANN. You obviously mean that it derives from the freedom of expression provided in the universal declaration of human rights..... One, we all know that this doesn't mean no regulation at all in the arena of speech. You know very well the debate on media ownership and concentration in the US (and most other countries) and how media companies quote FoE in their defense whereby affecting ordinarily people's FoE. Therefore interpretation of 'human rights' in different contexts remains an important public policy issue... Two, it bothers me a lot how some human rights get quoted, interpreted in new contexts and operationalised much much more than others. The same instrument that gave us the FoE - universal declaration of human rights - also provides for the 'right to free education'. I interpret this right in the digital age (or the information society) as 'right to free, and public, Internet' Is it difficult to see the basis of this interpretation? So, the question is, how do we operationalise this human right in Internet governance? And why we almost never hear of this right in the context of IG, while FoE is all around us. Has this anything to do with that (1) Many countries have reached a situation of strong institutional maturity where markets are able provide a near universal access to the advantages of the new ICTs. (2)It is cheap to speak about FoE but right to a free, and public, internet means a redistribution of resources (remember, right to free education also does so) (3) Speaking of free and/or public nature of many aspects of these new ICTs have very deleterious effect on the new paradigms of comparative advantage (actually, rent seeking) that these countries are in the process of building for the information society which has challenged existing socio-economic power relationship? And, that the debates on IG are dominated by people from these countries. Are we consistent, and just, when we speak about constitutionality, rule of law, and accepted human rights. I think we, as civil society in the area of IG, need to ponder these questions. They are important in the context of the subject under discussion, 'who does public policy then', and the relative different levels of urgency felt by different people in pursuing this question. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 9:45 AM > To: parminder at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: who does "public policy" then? > > This really thoughtful message by Parminder was originally sent under > the now tiresome header .xxx. igc and igf. I was too rushed to respond 3 > days ago but it deserves a response and raises some very important > issues. I am too busy and tired to respond as thoroughly as I should, > however. > > >>> parminder at itforchange.net 4/9/2007 3:48 AM >>> > >.xxx discussion has been very useful and is important, and that > >we also need to think about what IGC wants to do about it. And a > >forum presenting itself for us to do something is the IGF > consultations. > > Here's my first observation. It is also the most important, because > it's actionable: > > I wonder whether the IGF powers that be would be amenable to having a > plenary theme on "global public policy for the Internet-- do we need it, > who does it and what is it?" IG does raise policy issues. But the Tunis > Agenda claim that "Policy authority for Internet-related public policy > issues is the sovereign right of States" is either a meaningless > tautology or, in my opinion, wrong and something to be politically > resisted. You cannot invoke sovereignty when you are talking about > policy for the internet; there are 190 sovereigns and they don't all > agree. And there are transnational constituencies with a stake in the > Internet's governance. National governments do not and cannot > represent them. > > Still, this topic is central and makes for a very interesting and > meaningful discussion. And since it's something that cannot result in > binding recommendations or negotiations but is rather an almost > philosophical discussion about the nature of global governance, it seems > perfectly suited for the Forum. > > >.xxx issue is seen as the proxy for the broader issue of global IG > public > >policy. There have been two main positions in this discussion [snip] > >One side can be represented by Robin/ Milton's views that .xxx is a > public > >policy issue and ICANN should not have got into public policy arena, > and > >should have stuck to its purely technical mandate. ... To quote > Milton.. > >"ICANN's control of the root, we believe, should not be used to > >exert policy leverage over things not directly related to > >the coordination of unique identifiers. There are other, more > >decentralized mechanisms for dealing with > >the policy problems." > > Now the first thing to understand about my statement is that I am not > primarily talking about "who does public policy" but rather about, "how > do we avoid censorship and promote freedom of expression?" and about, > "what is the best, most open and neutral way to allocate and assign > internet resources?" Of course, the specific answer I provide to those > two questions _are themselves public policy positions_ . And of course I > would like the world's govts and other stakeholders to accept and > implement them. > > Another important point, is that the concept of "public policy" in the > WSIS/ICANN context seems to mean, "whatever a bunch of governments like > or don't like at any given moment." If that's what we mean by "public > policy" then it does not trump human rights. There are many things that > govts may want to do and even that majorities of people want them to do, > that should not be done. Limits on arbitrary state power are essential > to civilized, orderly governance at any level. > > >Milton, are you veering around to > >the point that there is no need for any global IG public > >policy processes/structures. or, assuming you are > > No, as I said the positions described above are themselves public > policy positions. > > By noting that there are "more decentralized mechanisms for dealing > with the policy problems," I was referring, mainly, to national > governments. As Robin explained very clearly in her statements, ICANN > could create TLDs at the global level but national governments could > prohibit or even block them on "public policy" groiunds. The difference > is that when national govts act within their own broders most of them > are legitimate and democratically representative, and though I might > disagree with many of their decisions, as long as the effects are > confined to the people who elected them, and are not extended beyond > their borders it is ok. > > >Milton has also spoken about the Framework Convention as being the > >way out. However, if that's the real way forward as seen by Milton > >(and IGP) it is intriguing why we hear so little about it from them. > > Hmmm, think we're being tricky do you? > > I don't know, I think we mention it a lot. The Mueller, Mathiason Klein > paper just got published in Global Governance, so the concept is being > taken into a new, wider forum. However, note that FC is a _process_ > proposal, but we must also be concerned with _the substantive outcomes_ > of a FC process as well. So sometimes maybe we emphasize what we would > like to be the principles and norms of a global IG regime as much as we > emphasize the process. And yes, in my opinion, if we could get the > desired outcomes through some other process it would probably be ok. > > >So, this stance that ICANN shouldn't do public policy is not > meaningful > >without some clarity about, and clear evidence of devotion of energy > for > >moving towards, what may be legitimate public policy structures. > > I think what we want from governments is not really "public policy" in > the WSIS/ICANN sense (which, to repeat, just means "momentary > preferences of some collection of states"). We want the _rule of law_), > which is what states can best deliver. Of course laws are based on > policy preferences. But they impose greater restraint and discpline on > governments. We want the rules to be fixed and stable, so that societal > action can go forward confidently, not an authority to arbitrarily > intervene whenever sovereigns feel like it. The Rule of Law kind of > "public policy" is legitimate and deisrable in my estimation. > > >I think IGC should be strongly pushing for a 'legitimate public > >policy space' for IG in a single-minded devotion to the cause. > >It can be done through persistent efforts at seeking accountability > >regarding the enhanced cooperation proposal, and it could be > >about beginning a CS sponsored set of activities for developing > >internationally applicable public policy principles for IG > >and proposing structural innovations for it. > >Here, I am not specifically pushing the FC agenda though > >something like that looks to me the way to go. > > Subject to the qualifications above, I basically agree. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Apr 13 05:54:49 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:24:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: who does "public policy" then? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070413095448.3996BE15C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> Sorry, in my email below I meant to say - - Many people who have argued against the ICANN decision do not seem to think accepting the .xxx tld would itself have been a public policy stance.. Instead of Many people who have argued against the ICANN decision do not seem to think that the refusal itself is a public policy stance. ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 2:50 PM To: 'Milton Mueller'; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: who does "public policy" then? Thanks Milton, for a very detailed reply. It is good that we agree on many things, so excuse me for taking this discussion forward on a few points of difference. The main issue you raise in terms of what is public policy is of ad-hoc interferences by governments, versus a stable rule of law. I myself am calling for shaping public policy through developing of appropriate processes and principles of law and policy. However, I am very concerned about the power play in this realm of what gets construed as 'rule of law' itself... to understand this lets revisit the .xxx discussion. > Now the first thing to understand about my statement is that I am not > primarily talking about "who does public policy" but rather about, "how > do we avoid censorship and promote freedom of expression?" and about, > "what is the best, most open and neutral way to allocate and assign > internet resources?" Of course, the specific answer I provide to those > two questions _are themselves public policy positions_ . And of course I > would like the world's govts and other stakeholders to accept and > implement them. So, what you say makes it clear that whether ICANN registers .xxx or refuses to do so, it does activities of a public policy nature. Because, if they had accepted your ' public policy positions' they still would have a public policy position. This is important for all of us in the .xxx debate to understand and acknowledge. Many people who have argued against the ICANN decision do not seem to think that the refusal itself is a public policy stance. Now, you seem to legitimize this particular public policy position of ICANN (had ICANN taken it) on the ground of a superior legitimate, commonly accepted 'rule of law' in terms of human rights, as against the public policy position of rejecting .xxx which, in your view, is an adhoc interference by governments, and largely illegitimate. I wont argue about the second part - about legitimacy and ground of GAC's interference in this case, though there is much to say about it as well - I will only touch upon the 'human rights' basis of what you say would have been the legitimate public policy position of ICANN. You obviously mean that it derives from the freedom of expression provided in the universal declaration of human rights..... One, we all know that this doesn't mean no regulation at all in the arena of speech. You know very well the debate on media ownership and concentration in the US (and most other countries) and how media companies quote FoE in their defense whereby affecting ordinarily people's FoE. Therefore interpretation of 'human rights' in different contexts remains an important public policy issue... Two, it bothers me a lot how some human rights get quoted, interpreted in new contexts and operationalised much much more than others. The same instrument that gave us the FoE - universal declaration of human rights - also provides for the 'right to free education'. I interpret this right in the digital age (or the information society) as 'right to free, and public, Internet' Is it difficult to see the basis of this interpretation? So, the question is, how do we operationalise this human right in Internet governance? And why we almost never hear of this right in the context of IG, while FoE is all around us. Has this anything to do with that (1) Many countries have reached a situation of strong institutional maturity where markets are able provide a near universal access to the advantages of the new ICTs. (2)It is cheap to speak about FoE but right to a free, and public, internet means a redistribution of resources (remember, right to free education also does so) (3) Speaking of free and/or public nature of many aspects of these new ICTs have very deleterious effect on the new paradigms of comparative advantage (actually, rent seeking) that these countries are in the process of building for the information society which has challenged existing socio-economic power relationship? And, that the debates on IG are dominated by people from these countries. Are we consistent, and just, when we speak about constitutionality, rule of law, and accepted human rights. I think we, as civil society in the area of IG, need to ponder these questions. They are important in the context of the subject under discussion, 'who does public policy then', and the relative different levels of urgency felt by different people in pursuing this question. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 9:45 AM > To: parminder at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: who does "public policy" then? > > This really thoughtful message by Parminder was originally sent under > the now tiresome header .xxx. igc and igf. I was too rushed to respond 3 > days ago but it deserves a response and raises some very important > issues. I am too busy and tired to respond as thoroughly as I should, > however. > > >>> parminder at itforchange.net 4/9/2007 3:48 AM >>> > >.xxx discussion has been very useful and is important, and that > >we also need to think about what IGC wants to do about it. And a > >forum presenting itself for us to do something is the IGF > consultations. > > Here's my first observation. It is also the most important, because > it's actionable: > > I wonder whether the IGF powers that be would be amenable to having a > plenary theme on "global public policy for the Internet-- do we need it, > who does it and what is it?" IG does raise policy issues. But the Tunis > Agenda claim that "Policy authority for Internet-related public policy > issues is the sovereign right of States" is either a meaningless > tautology or, in my opinion, wrong and something to be politically > resisted. You cannot invoke sovereignty when you are talking about > policy for the internet; there are 190 sovereigns and they don't all > agree. And there are transnational constituencies with a stake in the > Internet's governance. National governments do not and cannot > represent them. > > Still, this topic is central and makes for a very interesting and > meaningful discussion. And since it's something that cannot result in > binding recommendations or negotiations but is rather an almost > philosophical discussion about the nature of global governance, it seems > perfectly suited for the Forum. > > >.xxx issue is seen as the proxy for the broader issue of global IG > public > >policy. There have been two main positions in this discussion [snip] > >One side can be represented by Robin/ Milton's views that .xxx is a > public > >policy issue and ICANN should not have got into public policy arena, > and > >should have stuck to its purely technical mandate. ... To quote > Milton.. > >"ICANN's control of the root, we believe, should not be used to > >exert policy leverage over things not directly related to > >the coordination of unique identifiers. There are other, more > >decentralized mechanisms for dealing with > >the policy problems." > > Now the first thing to understand about my statement is that I am not > primarily talking about "who does public policy" but rather about, "how > do we avoid censorship and promote freedom of expression?" and about, > "what is the best, most open and neutral way to allocate and assign > internet resources?" Of course, the specific answer I provide to those > two questions _are themselves public policy positions_ . And of course I > would like the world's govts and other stakeholders to accept and > implement them. > > Another important point, is that the concept of "public policy" in the > WSIS/ICANN context seems to mean, "whatever a bunch of governments like > or don't like at any given moment." If that's what we mean by "public > policy" then it does not trump human rights. There are many things that > govts may want to do and even that majorities of people want them to do, > that should not be done. Limits on arbitrary state power are essential > to civilized, orderly governance at any level. > > >Milton, are you veering around to > >the point that there is no need for any global IG public > >policy processes/structures. or, assuming you are > > No, as I said the positions described above are themselves public > policy positions. > > By noting that there are "more decentralized mechanisms for dealing > with the policy problems," I was referring, mainly, to national > governments. As Robin explained very clearly in her statements, ICANN > could create TLDs at the global level but national governments could > prohibit or even block them on "public policy" groiunds. The difference > is that when national govts act within their own broders most of them > are legitimate and democratically representative, and though I might > disagree with many of their decisions, as long as the effects are > confined to the people who elected them, and are not extended beyond > their borders it is ok. > > >Milton has also spoken about the Framework Convention as being the > >way out. However, if that's the real way forward as seen by Milton > >(and IGP) it is intriguing why we hear so little about it from them. > > Hmmm, think we're being tricky do you? > > I don't know, I think we mention it a lot. The Mueller, Mathiason Klein > paper just got published in Global Governance, so the concept is being > taken into a new, wider forum. However, note that FC is a _process_ > proposal, but we must also be concerned with _the substantive outcomes_ > of a FC process as well. So sometimes maybe we emphasize what we would > like to be the principles and norms of a global IG regime as much as we > emphasize the process. And yes, in my opinion, if we could get the > desired outcomes through some other process it would probably be ok. > > >So, this stance that ICANN shouldn't do public policy is not > meaningful > >without some clarity about, and clear evidence of devotion of energy > for > >moving towards, what may be legitimate public policy structures. > > I think what we want from governments is not really "public policy" in > the WSIS/ICANN sense (which, to repeat, just means "momentary > preferences of some collection of states"). We want the _rule of law_), > which is what states can best deliver. Of course laws are based on > policy preferences. But they impose greater restraint and discpline on > governments. We want the rules to be fixed and stable, so that societal > action can go forward confidently, not an authority to arbitrarily > intervene whenever sovereigns feel like it. The Rule of Law kind of > "public policy" is legitimate and deisrable in my estimation. > > >I think IGC should be strongly pushing for a 'legitimate public > >policy space' for IG in a single-minded devotion to the cause. > >It can be done through persistent efforts at seeking accountability > >regarding the enhanced cooperation proposal, and it could be > >about beginning a CS sponsored set of activities for developing > >internationally applicable public policy principles for IG > >and proposing structural innovations for it. > >Here, I am not specifically pushing the FC agenda though > >something like that looks to me the way to go. > > Subject to the qualifications above, I basically agree. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Apr 13 06:53:05 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:23:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] who does "public policy" then? In-Reply-To: <461F152E.5010302@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <20070413105255.715A0C9C04@smtp1.electricembers.net> I agree that we need to put up real questions up for discussion in IGF. General topics like access, openness, security, and just do not make for any productive outcomes at all. After all, we do not go to IGF to get general information on these topics. We go to have public policy debate on key issues involving key IG actors. (And therefore we also need subject experts to moderate discussions, and not journalists. We need to get over this thing that IGF is for media or even for general public's consumption, if we are to take the public policy role of IGF seriously.) So, we as representatives of civil society need to ask ourselves, what key questions about IGC are on people's minds, and impact their lives most. And then put these questions on the agenda. And if we are honest to ourselves it is not difficult to see what are these key questions (with some arguments and adjustments here and there). I suggested the trilogy of IG public policy issues, ICANN and development agenda. And, on the first two there seems to be some support here. I agree with Milton and Jeremy that the main topics should in form of clear questions. They could be (1) Global public policy for the Internet-- do we need it, who does it and what is it (2) ICANN - the original idea, its evolution and the its role in the emerging context (3) What is it at global policy level that really impacts access to Internet, and through it to the knowledge commons, of disadvantaged people/ groups These can of course be worded much better. But lets all accept that this is what the people and constituencies we represent want to know, and want to be discussed. And since the powers-that-be wont easily accept these topics, we need to get together and put the weight of civil society behind it (for example, it is easy to get hundreds of cs organizations sign up to the proposal for getting ICANN discussed at IGF). We need to make it into a clear IGC proposal.. And with that, if needed, try and force the hand of the establishment. It may or may succeed. But we would have done our rightful. We try these topics for the plenaries, but we also propose IGC sponsored workshops on these topics. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 10:59 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] who does "public policy" then? > > Milton Mueller wrote: > > I wonder whether the IGF powers that be would be amenable to having a > > plenary theme on "global public policy for the Internet-- do we need it, > > who does it and what is it?" IG does raise policy issues. But the Tunis > > Agenda claim that "Policy authority for Internet-related public policy > > issues is the sovereign right of States" is either a meaningless > > tautology or, in my opinion, wrong and something to be politically > > resisted. You cannot invoke sovereignty when you are talking about > > policy for the internet; there are 190 sovereigns and they don't all > > agree. And there are transnational constituencies with a stake in the > > Internet's governance. National governments do not and cannot > > represent them. > > I strongly support this proposal, which is consistent with both our > previous submission in February (pointing to the need for "a meta > governance theme" for Rio), as well as with submissions various of us > have made individually. Perhaps this can be reinforced in our > contribution to the May consultations. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nb at bollow.ch Fri Apr 13 08:24:00 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:24:00 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [SIUG-discuss] [governance] Where are we going? Message-ID: <20070413122400.8D8693E1348@quill.bollow.ch> Looks like governance at lists.cpsr.org was accidentally not Cc'd on this reply... ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:40:29 +0200 From: "Claude Almansi" Hi All Re: On 4/12/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: > Norbert Bollow wrote: > > >>> Does anyone remember the Swiss > >>> Internet User Group's proposal for Internet Quality Labels? No? > > > Well, the proposal text is here: > > > > http://intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/SwissInternetUserGroup.txt > > I believe that this has already already been done, deployed, and, > unfortunately, ignored by web users and web content providers alike. > > Take a look at "Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS)" at > http://www.w3.org/PICS/ When I forwarded Norbert's e-mail to the discussion list of the Ticino accessibility project, someone there also said that it was necessary to review existing evaluation/labeling tools before creating new ones. PICS is definitely something that the foundation that should elaborate the implementation of IQL should examine carefully. Also, for the accessibility part of IQL, maybe another model than the Swiss one could be considered: the Swiss accessibility model is based on levels A and AA of WCAG 1.0, which date back to 1999 and both the internet and accessive technology have changed a lot since: in fact, WCAG 2.0 should be published soon. Moreover, the EU is about to publish its own directives on accessibility, which will be based in the Italian law and application/evaluation rules. Nevertheless, I think that the present IQL proposal from the Swiss Civil Society is per se a good thing, because it is made in the context of Internet Governance, and - see above - because it does foresee that the concrete implementation details be elaborated by a foundation. One last remark: the Italian law and decrees about accessibility (1) are going to serve as basis for the EU directive because they are detailed, yet simple and really applicable. And this is due to the fact that they were elaborated in a work group lead by web professionals (from IWA) who had long been working on the implementation of accessibility, and who were also participating in the W3C group preparing version 2.0 of the WCAG. I think that if the foundation foreseen in the IQL proposal is to produce something workable, it should take into account: - - for the accessibility part: the existing Italian/EU laws/decrees/directives - - for the other parts: a similar elaboration process involving web professionals involved in W3C and other international work groups Best Claude (1) For the English version of the Italian legal texts concerning accessibility, and other useful links, see http://www.pubbliaccesso.gov.it/english/index.htm - -- Claude Almansi v. Cantonale 22 CH-6532 Castione tel. +41 (0)91 829 04 51 cell. +41 (0)76 401 85 69 gruppo di lavoro Noi Media www.noimedia.org Swiss Internet User Group www.siug.ch ------- End of forwarded message ------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Apr 13 10:49:12 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:49:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <461F3E85.2090804@cavebear.com> References: <1038953b0704060626m1e5c1782m14ece2e666d6de6@mail.gmail.com> <4616F894.2040403@Malcolm.id.au> <20070412085225.DC4232C0EEE@quill.bollow.ch> <461E6ABE.1090101@cavebear.com> <20070413074630.4AD5E3E1348@quill.bollow.ch> <461F3E85.2090804@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <954259bd0704130749o1e8604c8obfe09a2f655e190d@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, As usual, Karl reframes an interesting question : On 4/13/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > .... > There is an interesting sidelight to this, however, which is this: Is > labeling http/web content a matter of internet governance? Or should > internet governance be limited to making it possible for people to label > http/web content ? I suggest both are Internet governance, at two different levels, in accordance with the Tunis Internet Governance definition : "Internet Governance is the development and application, by [all stakeholders], in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." According to this definition, at the very first level, you could consider "making it possible to label" as the *development* of some principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures (like who does what...) and programmes (like embedding metadata label reading in code) that shape the use of the Internet; and your "actual labeling http/web content" as *the application* of those principles, .... by the stakeholders, probably in different responsibilities than in the development of the rules. In general terms, governance frameworks have three major steps for governance regimes : - development (itself divided into agenda-setting and iterative drafting) - adoption (can be by a sub-set of the community or all of it) - application (itself divided into implementation and enforcement) The Tunis definition clearly covers the first one and the last one, with an important missing point regarding adoption/validation. Interestingly enough this points for example to the decision-making capacity (or not of the IGF) and the validation of any consensus policy developed in Internet Governance fora. Karl also wrote : So it's not that I'm in opposition, but rather that I really wonder how > far from a technical foundation a matter of internet governance can go > before it needs to drop the "internet" adjective? I always have understood Internet Governance as covering both governance "of" the Internet (the infrstructure) and "on" the Internet (its uses). This corresponds to the distinction "shapes the Internet and its uses" in the Tunis definition. And this was a major evolution brought by the WSIS. People with a long personal history in the Internet Community sometimes resent this extension of a word they used to associate with strictly technical matters (the DNS management and ICANN in particular). A bit like a french nobleman after the revolution that would still consider a Parliament a judiciary body instead of the new acception of the term as a representative chamber. But beyond this, one can also note that an Internet Governance associating all stakeholders can only exist because of the Internet itself (through online communication and collaboration tools). It is therefore also an "Internet-enabled governance" and this new governance is - or should be - in the image of the Internet : distributed, participative and scalable. In a certain way, this is a governance for the Internet Age as much as Internet Governance in the strictest sense of the term. Hence, Internet governance not only goes beyond technical matters but may even have implications in the future beyond the Internet itself to other global issues. But this would get us in the debate on the notion of stakeholder that I know Karl does not appreciate particularly :-) so let's keep it for another time. Hope these comments were useful. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nb at bollow.ch Fri Apr 13 10:14:03 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:14:03 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Where are we going? In-Reply-To: <461F3E85.2090804@cavebear.com> (message from Karl Auerbach on Fri, 13 Apr 2007 01:25:41 -0700) References: <46152B8F.7060802@bertola.eu> <461533AF.6070001@ipjustice.org> <1038953b0704051211w5b0d6f2epca53d4244b65743c@mail.gmail.com> <4615625D.3070705@cavebear.com> <1038953b0704051945i1fafa84es6671ef9e5c5cb36d@mail.gmail.com> <954259bd0704060421x7baa00a9u27dfb315d89e82fd@mail.gmail.com> <1038953b0704060626m1e5c1782m14ece2e666d6de6@mail.gmail.com> <4616F894.2040403@Malcolm.id.au> <20070412085225.DC4232C0EEE@quill.bollow.ch> <461E6ABE.1090101@cavebear.com> <20070413074630.4AD5E3E1348@quill.bollow.ch> <461F3E85.2090804@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20070413141403.D13813E1348@quill.bollow.ch> Karl Auerbach wrote: > Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Karl Auerbach wrote: > > >>> http://intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/SwissInternetUserGroup.txt > > >> Take a look at "Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS)" at > >> http://www.w3.org/PICS/ > > > > Did you read what I wrote? I'm talking about a _certification_ > > process, which verifies e.g. accessibility for people with > > disabilities, where after successful certification sites get the > > right to use a certification mark called "Internet Quality Label" > > or whatever. > > I did read the first document, but, being mainly a techie, I tended to > focus on the "how is this done" parts rather than "why is this being > done" parts. Sorry if our minds didn't meet - such is the grief of > electronic discussions. Hmmm... does that mean that I need to rename the proposal, in order to be properly understood? The document does not at all mention in any way the (as you correctly point out, long solved) question of how "label" metadata can be attached to a document, but rather the proposal is about the process through which orgnizations can gain the right to advertize themselves as complying with a specific, yet to be determined set of norms, for example in the areas of making online stuff accessibile to people with disabilities, and privacy protection. The proposal uses the word "Label" only because that's a word that people use for referring to certification marks (legally a category of trademarks). > It's not that I'm unsympathetic. For the last year I've had need to > carry around a card bearing a symbol, a symbol whose use is limited by > law, that indicates a certain class of disability. > > So it's not that I'm in opposition, but rather that I really wonder how > far from a technical foundation a matter of internet governance can go > before it needs to drop the "internet" adjective? This particular proposed certification mark has the word "internet" in its name because what we're proposing is an international certification amrk for websites and one for internet services. I'd consider it obvious that deciding whether to create such a certification mark, and to administrate it if such a certification mark is introduced, clearly are matters of internet governance. Claude Almansi wrote: > When I forwarded Norbert's e-mail to the discussion list of the > Ticino accessibility project, someone there also said that it was > necessary to review existing evaluation/labeling tools before creating > new ones. Sounds like there's another misunderstanding of what the proposal is about, since it does not mention "tools". Of course, the (national or regional) certification organizations which will get authorized by the proposed "IQL Foundation" can make use of tools. For example, for websites where most pages are derived in an easily-verifiable way from a template, the accessibility expert of the certification organizations might carefully review the template and and then use an automated tool to find all pages which are not based in a straightforward way from that template. What tools these accessibility experts will use, and whether the existing tools meet their needs or whether there are needs for improvements, that is in my opinion aomething that accessibility experts can discuss among themselves and/or with programmers or software vendors -- that's IMO not a question of internet governance. > PICS is definitely something that the foundation that should > elaborate the implementation of IQL should examine carefully. I've never looked at PICS in any detail, but it's obviously possible to use it if you really want to. But if PICS is essentially dead (no-one seems to be using it), why not use the DCMI term conformsTo instead? > Also, for the accessibility part of IQL, maybe another model than > the Swiss one could be considered: the Swiss accessibility model is > based on levels A and AA of WCAG 1.0, which date back to 1999 and > both the internet and accessive technology have changed a lot since: > in fact, WCAG 2.0 should be published soon. The people behind the Swiss accessibility label are planning to update the criteria for their certification when WCAG 2.0 is published but until then, "WCAG 2.0" is not definite enough that one could base a certification on it. > Moreover, the EU is about to publish its own directives on > accessibility, which will be based in the Italian law and > application/evaluation rules. While I am aware of the debates around evaluation rules for accessiblity certification, I'd rather avoid getting myself or the proposed IQL Foundation getting bogged down in that kind of discussions. In my opinion, as soon as in any given country or region there is a reasonably credible certification organization (in the sense that you can trust them that when they certify something, there is then a good chance that it's actually reasonably conveniently usable by most people with visual or motoric or hearing disabilities), organizations in that country or region should be able to get certified there for the accessibility aspect of the IQL. If an organization wants the right to provide certification services also to clients outside their country or region, I would suggest that their certification procedure must be strict enough that anything they certify will satisfy all major sets of evaluation rules. Maybe this point will become moot soon when WCAG 2.0 is published, if it succeeds in becoming "the" standard for evaluation criteria, but I'm not holding my breath. If I'm correctly informed, the status of WCAG 2.0 has been "should be published soon" for a long time... 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 Fri Apr 13 11:27:16 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:27:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf Message-ID: I'll be happy to do the reach-out to Vint or whomever, does feel like it's time for this. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> mueller at syr.edu 4/12/2007 11:00 PM >>> >>> LMcKnigh at syr.edu 04/11/07 11:46 AM >>> >Agreed, a workshop or really a workshop and a plenary discussion on >ICANN Evolution at IGF II is needed. > >Doesn't directly affect the continual internal reorgs ICANN is going >through, as it should, nor obviate the need for broader participation >within iCANN whihc Vittorio is reasonably calling for, but provides a >second still broader venue for this debate - and maybe - >recommendations. An IGF workshop on unifying civil society actors across different IG institutions, including ICANN, is a great idea, Lee. And Jacqueline was suggesting a regularly scheduled joint NCUC/ALAC/civil society meeting as part of the ICANN meeting as well. Not too early to begin planning for the Puerto Rico meeting, in late June. Parminder raised some important questions about ICANN which I hope to respond to later. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 karl at cavebear.com Fri Apr 13 20:59:43 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:59:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] IG and its linkage to technology In-Reply-To: <954259bd0704130749o1e8604c8obfe09a2f655e190d@mail.gmail.com> References: <1038953b0704060626m1e5c1782m14ece2e666d6de6@mail.gmail.com> <4616F894.2040403@Malcolm.id.au> <20070412085225.DC4232C0EEE@quill.bollow.ch> <461E6ABE.1090101@cavebear.com> <20070413074630.4AD5E3E1348@quill.bollow.ch> <461F3E85.2090804@cavebear.com> <954259bd0704130749o1e8604c8obfe09a2f655e190d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4620277F.1050107@cavebear.com> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Hence, Internet governance not only goes beyond technical matters but > may even have implications in the future beyond the Internet itself to > other global issues. But this would get us in the debate on the notion > of stakeholder that I know Karl does not appreciate particularly :-) so > let's keep it for another time. It is likely that everyone here is hoping to build a better world. However, we are just people. We make mistakes. We can not see the future. The reason that I am arguing that internet governance limit itself to matters with a clear and strong tie to technology is that it lets us develop methods and principles, and make our mistakes, in a context that is real but constrained. I stress the constraints - we *are* talking about matters that, if we go beyond the technical, step on the toes of national governments and often reach into matters that are deeply emotional, subjective, and cultural. And because technology is, in a sense, mechanical, when we try to do something wrong (like defining pi to be 3.0 or dictating that elephants fly) that the mechanical aspects will give strong feedback indicating our errors. It's not that I don't want to solve the world's problems. It's just that I'd rather start small, making small, and correctable mistakes, rather than make big mistakes that are hard to undo. (Just look at how deeply entrenched the ICANN mistakes have become.) This is why I have suggested that discussions of internet governance pick a fairly neutral, but certainly difficult topic, as a proof-of-concept. My suggested topic is this: How can end-users (or their agents/local-ISPs) obtain assurances (not guarantees) of end-to-end, cross-carrier service quality sufficient to support the user's application (such as VOIP). That's not a trivial topic, it deals with issues of the balance of power between users and providers, and between providers and providers. It deals with costs, it deals with routing and inter-provider peering, transit, and exchanges, it deals with user-desired traffic preferences (and because it is user-desired it tends to keep the topic out of the "net neutrality" debate.) It's a topic that could make the difference between usable VOIP and unusable VOIP, particularly for "southern" regions. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Apr 14 00:29:03 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IG: constitution and participation (was: .xxx. igc and igf) In-Reply-To: <20070411121341.5F52BE1395@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <678663.97320.qm@web58706.mail.re1.yahoo.com> This is a far reaching insight, Parminda. A couple of observations as follows. Don't be surprised: yes IGC, or IG-focused CS in the WSIS and post-WSIS, is populated with people that you may call ICANN insiders, ICANNists, or ICANN fluent, etc. In a sense, the contrary would have been surprising. Note that (this may sound like a paradox, but) it is probably why IG "made in ICANN" has become a central issue at WSIS (and don't be fooled like some ICANN board members and some outside-board zealous thinking that every time someone is critique of the organization, it's be cause they hate it - far from that; there are may among us who actually are ICANN lovers.) Yes, people in IGC are from complex, various political and cultural background as "CS" participants. Some are more interest group lobbyists than others, some more activists than others, some even more militant, etc. Some are pretty used to participating in public policy by delivering a statement or testimony before the legislative body of their country, while others have to demonstrate in the streets. That diversity may also be a part of the difficulties or limitations in mobilizing IGC as per a certain idea of CS engagement. Last, it is crystal clear: participation, or meaningful participation (which is in my view a pleonasm) is not guaranteed because one formally states: "everyone is free to join", not even when people do actually attend the meetings. A whole other challenge is how much can you "hear" and how much can you get "heard"? *Whose* language do you speak, or *whose* language is spoken in those settings? I'm not talking about "what language," which would refer to different idioms, but in whose terms, from what worldview an issue get framed as an issue, and a non-issue as non-issue? There are so many venues a "non insiders" may appear and make an otherwise crucial point (at least from their worldview) and just be met by a polite smile, without anybody addressing, following up or taking up the issue. So you're right, the constitution of ICANN itself, that eccentricity as Ian pointed out, that "glass menagerie" as I'm tempted to call it paraphrasing Tennessee Williams, its formation and form, its identity is blurred at best, and may not covey any meaning to the largest portion of Internet users on earth. And it's good you reminding us of this, worth keeping this in mind. Mawaki --- Parminder wrote: > > > Vittorio > > > > > Parminder ha scritto: > > > > (2) Call for a forum within IGF to discuss ICANN - to > have ICANN > > > > interface with and be accountable to the many > constituencies (which by > > > > far makes the majority of the world's population) which > cant access its > > > > present structures. > > > > > > Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies > that can't > > > access its present structures"? (Vittorio) > > > > I did give a clue. " the majority of the world's population > ".. But let me > explain. (Apologies, if it a lengthy response. I don't want to > give snappy > replies, so I will go into some detail. Since you have invited > me to attend > ICANN meetings, I must give good reasons why I, and others of > the > constituencies I refer to, may not be particularly inclined to > do so.) > > > > Exclusion is a very complex process and operates in a number > of ways. One > way is to judge it through its results - I don't see anyone in > ICANN - or > anyone interacting with ICANN - who could be seen as > representing (or > speaking for) disadvantaged people from developing countries > (this could be > called the development constituency, for the purpose of the > present > conversation). It could either be because ICANN's functions do > not impact > these people, which I hope you do not believe. Or that these > people are > excluded from accessing ICANN policy making structures. > > > > Other than to judge it in this direct way, as I said, > exclusion is a very > complex process. But, I will try to quickly summarize some > points on what > makes ICANN inaccessible to these people. I don't want to give > snappy > replies, so I will go into some detail. > > > > * ICANN proceeds from ideological principles which are alien > to these > people, and not acceptable to them for a global governance > body. It starts > with a private sector nomenclature which doesn't mean the same > to these > people as it means to ICANNists, and this vocabulary isn't the > practice at > global governance bodies. It goes on to its view of the world > as a > marketplace (and not much else), and to its predominant > catering to > corporate interests. Its mission and core values speak about > the value of > competition but forgets about that of collaboration (despite > it, people have > shown the unprecedented possibilities of collaboration on the > Internet), it > speaks about markets but avoids terms like publics and > commons.. ICANN > zealously upholds IPR but hasn't done anything to promote > universal access > to knowledge. People know which places will welcome them, and > which to > avoid. No one declares exclusion. > > > > * Typical governance structures try to over-represent > interests that > need special protection, and build strong systems to minimize > influence of > vested interests that already dominate and could skew the > processes their > way. This is the essence of the principle of equity. ICANN > seems to actively > encourage the latter. There are good amount of elements in > ICANN of working > as a professional association of a particular trade which does > everything to > maximize its membership's interests (which have an ever > present tendency to > go against wider public interest). The development > constituency is very wary > of such 'privatized governance' and it has seen its > ill-effects in many > social sectors. They aren't willing to be party to new forms > of such > governance which can be trend-setting for the information > society. > > > > * ICANN hides its public policy impacts and tries to present > itself as > a technical coordination body. Now, these people (the > development > constituency), I refer to, and those who speak for them, are > not > techno-fascinated and are NOT interested in technical > management. They do > not want to be in a body which says, well, there isnt any > public policy work > that we do. But we all know the public policy impact of > ICANN's functions. I > am very clear that the public policy implications of ICANN's > work can be > separated from the technical functions and presented in > socio-political > language of their real content, which, in case of the impact > on these > excluded people I refer to, will be presented in a way they > can connect to. > But it doesn't serve ICANN to do so. It seem to think that its > survival in > its present form depends on underplaying (and for this purpose > camouflaging > in technical terms/ discourse) its public policy impact. This > doesn't help > participation from other than a charmed circle of insiders. > > > > * ICANN invents and drives a discourse which aids > self-preservation. > For instance, it speaks of its accountability to the 'global > internet > community'. Many times on this list I have requested anyone to > clarify the > meaning of this term to me. Whether it involves all those who > in some ways > are internet professionals (including internet businesses), > whereby it > becomes a trade body, or all those who use the Internet, or > all those who > are impacted by the Internet (which is practically, everyone > in this world). > One can't associate with an organization which doesn't clarify > its > legitimate constituency. The development constituency works > with and for > people who may still not be big users of the Internet (if at > all), but > Internet polices affect them in important ways, including as a > set of > significant possibilities to change power equations that at > present > dis-empowers them. One is not sure in interacting with ICANN > if one is > siding with an insider group which doesn't consider the > outsider group as > its constituency. > > > > * Through its individuation of its constituency, and not > taking into > account that people are organized in various social forms > which are as > relevant as their individual identities (no doubt done to > avoid governments > staking the claim to be representing their people) ICANN is > able to actively > avoid participation of most people. They are increasingly > allowing > governments in under pressure, but what about others... Not > willing to be > discussed at IGF, and not facing those people who cannot > access ICANN > structures is a further link in, and proof of, this process of > exclusion. > ICANN just doesn't speak the language of these people I am > talking about, > and the two sides have a good distance to travel before they > set into a > meaningful interaction... Who is supposed to make the effort? > And this is > the final test of inclusion/ exclusion. Inclusion doesn't > happen by making > self-righteous claims, it happens through an active outreach > to > constituencies which may feel as outsiders and/or neglected. > Does ICANN do > it? For starters, they can have a session of interactions at > the IGF. > > > > These were some points that come to my mind in describing > ICANN's > inaccessibility for some important constituencies. I must say > here that I > have no doubt that ICANN does some very important global work, > and many at > ICANN are trying to improve the world in all possible ways. > What I mean to > stress here is that they need to look out to the larger world > with a more > open and welcoming mind. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:44 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > > > Subject: Re: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf > > > > > > Parminder ha scritto: > > > > (2) Call for a forum within IGF to discuss ICANN - to > have ICANN > > > > interface with and be accountable to the many > constituencies (which by > > > > far makes the majority of the world's population) which > cant access its > > > > present structures. > > > > > > Just for clarification - which are the "many constituencies > that can't > > > access its present structures"? There are at least a couple > of places > > > where civil society groups can become involved in ICANN. > > > > > > I think that it might be more productive to actually involve > more CS > > > folks in ICANN, than just try to discuss ICANN at the IGF > (even if you > > > succeeded in winning the resistence to that, what would > happen after the > > > discussion? I really don't see feasible any political > scenario in which > > > ICANN would take directions from the IGF.). At the last > ICANN meeting, > > > between known faces scattered in corridors, there were talks > of a fixed > > > civil society meeting on the last day of every ICANN meeting > - that > > > might be a good point to start, for example. > > > -- > > > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu > <-------- > > > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ > <-------- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, 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 ki_chango at yahoo.com Sat Apr 14 00:50:23 2007 From: ki_chango at yahoo.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:50:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] RE: who does "public policy" then? In-Reply-To: <20070413095448.3996BE15C5@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <355746.70771.qm@web58703.mail.re1.yahoo.com> > Many people who have argued against the ICANN decision do not > seem to think accepting the .xxx tld would itself have been a public policy > stance.. In my opinion, they do acknowledge that. Who would advocate human rights and dare say they are not involved with public policy? My understanding is that they preceive "ICANN accepting the .xxx tld" would have been a better public policy stance overall, or the right policy stance by default. What I mean (and understand) by that is, those advocates are a priori not involved in the .xxx tld application, they may not need to use that tld if it were authorized, but some people somewhere applied for it, and some people somewhere may think that would be useful for their activity, their identity, their expression, and would certainly use it. So the pro-FoE position is, *in the absence of a legitimate, competent, agreed upon public policy body and process that could compellingly settle this (on the basis of its legitimacy and competence for a global utility,) the best public policy option available is to let those people who beleive in that tld, want it and think it is worth their investments or resources, to do their thing. Especially so, since national sovereigns still and fully have the possibility to enacte or enforce relevant national public policies with regard to that tld and possible contents. I must say, though the relevance and, most of all, the direct relationship from the FoE argument to the acceptance of .xxx tld may not be as perfect and as clear to everyone, I don't see anything better from the opposite side in terms of reference to global legal basis/principle (as is FoE), internationally agreed upon frameworks, and institutional processes.(*) Anyway, the bottom line is processes are crucial. If we have clear and legitimately established processes in place, probably no one would seriously spend time questioning the outcome; people could only challenge the implementation for fault and take it up to the appeal mechanism. But at the end of the day, whether they like it or not, they will accept the final outcome as is. Mawaki (*) Putting this as footnote because I don't intend to reopen the argument, but just clarifying my assumptions and understanding: the most important arguments I've heard from that side are about perceptions of people's values, their possible negative reactions (governments will get upset with ICANN) and morales, etc. Sure, those arguments are serious to consider, but again, the .xxx-like contents are already all over the Net (the tld will not create them, and btw guess what, the irony is those contents have played a tremendous role in the early development of the commercial Internet); also governments who seriously feel offended for their citizenry having access to those contents are already blocking them -- so those who just dicover the existence of those contents on the Net could have just joined the latter cohort (I was also wondering if the content argument was the problem, isn't it easier for someone to google 'sex' or 'porn' and get the adult sites than it would be by guessing a domain name 'abc' under .xxx just because we now have that tld in the DNS? ...just wondering.) --- Parminder wrote: > Sorry, in my email below > > > > I meant to say - - > > > > Many people